19 Burst results for "Brooks Jensen"

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

06:52 min | 4 d ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"In. . The last couple of weeks there have been several significant camera announcements and they have me scratching my head. . Canon introduced the new are five and are six and the big feature in both of those cameras is improved ability to do video, , and shortly on the heels of the are five in the are six came the announcement of the. . Sony. . A seven s three, , which is again, , very heavily oriented toward video production. . In fact, , the last update for my Panasonic Jeanine was mainly about some video features and same thing with g h five improving video features that camera g h five is basically sold as a video camera. . And the reason all of this has me scratching my head. . Is because. . I don't know how many photographers are that interested in video evidently must be a lot. . But maybe because I'm so photography centric both with my own work and with Lens Work, , the idea that my camera shoots video is. . Basically. . Unimportant to me if my camera had no video capabilities I, don't , think I'd care. . But. . There's no question. . There is pressure I. Guess . that's the way I perceive it. . Anyway, , there is pressure being put on still photographers to embrace video for reasons that I guess I don't understand I was never in my youth tempted to pick up an old bolic's sixteen millimeter movie camera and try to make movies. . When VCR's came out and we suddenly had cameras that could record on videotape I was never tempted to try to use. . Of VHS camera to make artwork video something I, , enjoy I watch television I watch movies, , we all do I suppose but I was never motivated to WanNa make. . Videos and partly I think because there's so many differences between video and still photography. . That this intersection between equipment so that you can have a hybrid camera. . Seems to me to be putting legs on a snake. . It's not of any interest to those of us who are still photographers unless you're seduced into being interested in it, , but it's a completely different thing for example. . The most obvious difference between video and photography is that video is time based. . You consume video by abandoning yourself to it's time orientation, , and if a video is five minutes or ten minutes or three hours long. . It takes you that long to see it. . Photography is not photography. . I explain. . I'm going to use photography as meaning still photography. . So I have to say still photography every diamond the rest of the podcast i. . hope that's okay. . Photography to me is not in the least time based, , you can spend ten seconds looking at a photograph. . You can spend ten minutes looking at a photograph. . The viewer is in control of the time they are not in control of the time in a video. . Okay. . Yes. . You can probably rewind video if you WANNA watch a certain passage of it over again but the presentation of the ideas and the visuals is completely out of our control is a viewer that makes these two media as different as different can be. . Video has jump cuts were you go from one visual to the next visual and oftentimes they will do that. . For example, , in a conversation with the audio track not jump cutting just the video track jump cuts, , but the audio is continuous. . and. So . there's a certain herky-jerky nece to video that can be problematic. . It's not comfortable from a visual point of view. . If you really want to look at the visual, , it gets taken away from you at the next jump cut and it seems to me like the jump cuts are happening faster and faster and faster in the last ten or twenty years. . Conversely. . Photography offers us the possibility of lingering as long as we want, , and we're in control of when we go to the next image whether that's in a book or a gallery presentation again as different as different can be. . Next. . Video does not translate to my favorite photographic medium, , which is books. . Photography does. . Okay video can be translated to a laptop or to <hes> an ipad or something like that. . But it's not the same as a book when I sit down with the book for example, I , know exactly how much there is just by looking at how thick the book is with video I have no idea unless they tell me how long it is. . So it's a variable commitment on my part that I'm basically jumping into and I don't know how long this is going to take unless I specifically look it up. . And also with the book. . I can have text I can read things or not read things there can be. . Passages that have. . Only with no images so that it gives me a different and unique experience where I can sort of recall images in my mind's eye while I'm reading the text, , which you basically can't do when you're watching a movie. You . can't recall a different image than you're seeing on the screen unless you I suppose you could close your eyes but no one does that. . So. . If photography has a destination of book and video does not where do you view video while you're going to view it in a movie theater you're going to view it on television you're going to view it on a computer screen. . Photography. Can . Be displayed on a computer screen but I don't ever recall seeing a photographic exhibition in a movie theater at her or really do I recall seeing one broadcast on television You could put a slide show I, , suppose on you television, , but even that's not exactly the same thing but. . Sort of I mean there's a little bit of cross fertilization there. . But although we can put. . Still photographs on a TV screen, , we can't put a video in

Jeanine Lens Work Publishing Lens Work Brooks Jensen Sony editor Canon Panasonic
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

04:59 min | 4 d ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Lens Work Publishing Brooks Jensen. In. The last couple of weeks there have been several significant camera announcements and they have me scratching my head. Canon introduced the new are five and are six and the big feature in both of those cameras is improved ability to do video, and shortly on the heels of the are five in the are six came the announcement of the. Sony. A seven s three, which is again, very heavily oriented toward video production. In fact, the last update for my Panasonic Jeanine was mainly about some video features and same thing with g h five improving video features that camera g h five is basically sold as a video camera. And the reason all of this has me scratching my head. Is because. I don't know how many photographers are that interested in video evidently must be a lot. But maybe because I'm so photography centric both with my own work and with Lens Work, the idea that my camera shoots video is. Basically. Unimportant to me if my camera had no video capabilities I, don't think I'd care. But. There's no question. There is pressure I. Guess that's the way I perceive it. Anyway, there is pressure being put on still photographers to embrace video for reasons that I guess I don't understand I was never in my youth tempted to pick up an old bolic's sixteen millimeter movie camera and try to make movies. When VCR's came out and we suddenly had cameras that could record on videotape I was never tempted to try to use. Of VHS camera to make artwork video something I, enjoy I watch television I watch movies, we all do I suppose but I was never motivated to WanNa make. Videos and partly I think because there's so many differences between video and still photography. That this intersection between equipment so that you can have a hybrid camera. Seems to me to be putting legs on a snake. It's not of any interest to those of us who are still photographers unless you're seduced into being interested in it, but it's a completely different thing for example. The most obvious difference between video and photography is that video is time based. You consume video by abandoning yourself to it's time orientation, and if a video is five minutes or ten minutes or three hours long. It takes you that long to see it. Photography is not photography..

Jeanine Lens Work Publishing Lens Work Brooks Jensen Sony editor Canon Panasonic
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

05:44 min | Last month

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Leonard Publishing Brooks Jensen. I suspect. There are a lot of you who photograph with goals and objectives in mind and by that I mean nothing is lofty as a business plan or some such thing, although maybe some of that exists to. But I suspect that a lot of you will say. Let's go to yellowstone specifically, because you wanNA photograph something at Yellowstone, and both faithful, or whatever you go to Yosemite because you wanNA photograph, Yosemite or you go to the streets of New York, because you want to make images that reflect the streets of New York. That's all well and good. I have nothing against goal and objective oriented photography. But I've never been very good at that. Quite honestly, my approach is about as opposite to goals and objectives as you can possibly imagine I've always advocated something I call. PB W A photography by wandering around. And that strategy has served me well in a couple of specific ways. First by going out into the world of photograph I. Don't go with a picture in mind I go with a toddler. Rossa I. Am just I try to make my mind open to whatever there is out there, and I find that's a far more interesting way to explore the world then to try to look for specific things in the world that fit my preconceptions. If I do that. What I'm doing is rejecting a whole lot of the world that I pass by or drive by because it doesn't fit my preconceived ideas. That seems to me to be the opposite of what I want to do with my photography in the field. I don't want to impose my will. On the world I want to be open to whatever the world wants to be through me and my photography, so pb. A. Makes Lot of sense. But there's a couple of fascinating things I've learned about this strategy that are worth sharing I think and it it comes primarily from. Basically, a thirty five year relationship I have with my friend you'll Lipka who..

yellowstone Yosemite Leonard Publishing Brooks Jens New York editor Rossa I.
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

04:05 min | Last month

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Lens Publishing Brooks Jensen. I received an email a while back. Oh, gosh, maybe six months or so ago that has had me thinking quite a bit because it was a very simple, but very interesting question in the emailer wrote essentially. Who Do you think is the most important contemporary photographer? By contemporary him, assuming he means living working still with us at Cetera. And I find this. Fascinating question for all kinds of reasons, the first of which is why ask it. Why was this person interested in knowing my opinion about who I thought was an important contemporary photographer and If. There was some definitive answer, if I could just. Pick some photographers name out of thin air and say this person is the most important person. Why would that be important? Could it be that there's a certain amount of hero worship involved in that question? Kind of the same way we say who's the very best NBA basketball player that's ever lived. Is that Michael Jordan, or is it someone else in? Why do we care I? Mean even if we're big basketball fan. Why is it important that we try to rank people and say this one's the most important? And is it because we wanna make sure that whoever it is that.

Brooks Jensen basketball Lens Publishing Michael Jordan editor NBA
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

13:39 min | Last month

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Every picture is compromise is the name of the series. You'll find it at Brooks Jackson. Which is not surprisingly. WWW dot. Brooks Jackson Arts Dot Com. Okay have fun. How to tutorials and camera views are. On Youtube, but if you're interested in photography and the creative life, you need to know about the incredible resources you can access as a member of Lens Work Online. Lens Work Online includes hundreds of of audio video in downloadable content, literally terabytes of content content and more content, all twelve hundred plus Brooks Jensen's podcasts, the complete here's a thought video library, looking at images, commentaries, creative labs and new channels for twenty twenty, including finding the picture, and those who inspire me and why we add new content literally every day you can learn more about memberships. Dylan's online at www dot lens work, dot com, and don't forget that all members can download the digital versions of Lens work for your tablet or computer, the most content rich resource for ideas and inspiration. You'll find anywhere on the Internet. Copyright Twenty Twenty Lens Work Publishing..

twenty twenty Brooks Jackson Arts Dot Com Brooks Jackson Brooks Jensen Youtube Dylan
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

13:39 min | Last month

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Is compromise is the name of the series. You'll find it at Brooks Jackson. Which is not surprisingly. WWW dot. Brooks Jackson Arts Dot Com. Okay have fun. How to tutorials and camera views are. On Youtube, but if you're interested in photography and the creative life, you need to know about the incredible resources you can access as a member of Lens Work Online. Lens Work Online includes hundreds of of audio video in downloadable content, literally terabytes of content content and more content, all twelve hundred plus Brooks Jensen's podcasts, the complete here's a thought video library, looking at images, commentaries, creative labs and new channels for twenty twenty, including finding the picture, and those who inspire me and why we add new content literally every day you can learn more about memberships. Dylan's online at www dot lens work, dot com, and don't forget that all members can download the digital versions of Lens work for your tablet or computer, the most content rich resource for ideas and inspiration. You'll find anywhere on the Internet. Copyright Twenty Twenty Lens Work Publishing..

twenty twenty Brooks Jackson Arts Dot Com Brooks Jackson Brooks Jensen Youtube Dylan
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

16:45 min | 2 months ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Lens Work Publishing Brooks Jensen. Last week. I released the most recent issue of cocoa personal. Pdf of my work. And I received a fascinating email which has sparked a discussion here. Let me read you. The e mail to begin with it says Brooks thanks for the latest issue of cocoa. I really like these. Pdf's but I was surprised in this one when you announce the printed chat books from cocoa as a photographer who's embraced digital imaging. The way you have I was wondering why you're still making prints. I think that's a valid question. I have embraced digital imaging and obviously the twenty seven now issues of cocoa that I've published and sent out into the world or an indication of my enthusiasm for digital distribution photography and to be quite honest if I never made another print. It's not like my photography would not get out into the world because I get far more distribution of my artwork via these. Pdf's than I would ever get. If I only made prints as my finished form of artwork I've always made prince of one kind or another. I've always been involved in printed photography and probably will be for the rest of my life but if for some reason it suddenly became whatever against the law to make photographic prints. It's not like I wouldn't have an outlet for my photography so there must be another reason why I make Prince and in fact I sat down fairly quickly in response to this fellow and came up with twelve wins why I still make Prince. There's probably more but these are the ones that came off the top of my head. I is that it's my first love. I started photography is a print maker as matter of fact when I picked up photography seriously in the seventies if you didn't make print they're literally was no photograph. That was the only method to get a photograph out into the world. Well perhaps other than slides but not very many people were seriously using slides as a means of distributing their fine art photography and so prince was sort of the default. I built dark rooms as a matter of fact every place I ever lived in my twenties thirties. And even into my forties the primary consideration of choosing where I was going to live was based on. Could I build a darkroom there? That's how serious my commitment was to prance and basically Intel. Oh roughly about two thousand five or so. My photography was all about what I could do in Prince. So because it's my first love because of where. I am relative to when I was born in the history of photography and all of that my roots are so deeply involved in printing that I I'll never be able to give it up because I just I have so much fun which is actually my second thing that I wrote down. I just plain have fun making prints that didn't always used to be the case. I enjoyed the scientific challenge of the wet darkroom and because I had pursued science in my youth I was very comfortable around mixing my own chemistry and measuring things and all of that knows fascinated by it and that aspect of it was fun but I didn't find print making to be much fun. It was frustrating to me to have to guess how much to dodge and burn or whatever adjusting imprint. And then wait for ten minutes before I could turn the lights on and see it. That was always a bit tedious. But now with the introduction of digital printing. I have all kinds of fun. In printing to me is an entertainment activity. It's pretty consistent these days. It's not fraught with much Difficulty OR FRUSTRATION. And so seeing a really terrific print. Come out of my printer is mostly. Ajoy every once in a while. I get frustrated but it's mostly just a whole lot of fun. So that's the second reason I still make Prince. The third reason is the physicality of Prince. I enjoy digital images. I enjoyed the computer. Work as a publisher. I spend all day on the computer so I'm comfortable with it etc but there is something lovely about the physicality of print particularly these days when the inkjet papers are so wonderful because of the textures involved and the heavyweight involved in the the fiber in the paper is lovely I just love the physicality of printing hence my interest in doing for example folios as well as chat books. There's a physical process of cutting trimming sewing folding. All of that Kinda stuff. Not so much these days cutting matt boards like I used to but all of that physicality of print making is still something that I find very rewarding and a reason to be involved it sort of the hands on production. May maybe that should be my fourth. Reason is the hands on production aspects of making prints in particularly. You know you start off with a blank piece of paper and maybe a blank folio cover and thirty or forty five minutes later. You've got a beautiful folio with Prince and the Nice physicality of all I I. I just enjoy that process. As a real sense of accomplishment in the hands on production for both folios and chat books to some degree in matted prints although I don't do that much anymore the fifth reason is I just love paper. There is something about just the commodity of paper that has always appealed to me. I even experimented for a while in my youth with things like Origami just somehow having this beautiful invention of mankind Paper and what what a fabulous substance. It is in all kinds and it's not just photographic paper but art paper and paper that you write on and draw on a I love paper so that's another reason that I'm involved in printing which is tied. I suppose to my sixth reason for printing which is that. There's no device required to see a print or folio or a chat book. And the fact that you can handle the paper and you have that physicality of it and did it doesn't require that you own a piece of equipment or have a piece of equipment with the battery charge or uploaded to it or whatever. There's a certain appeal to that. I might go so far to say. That's one of the downsides of digital distribution of images is. You can only do that if you have a computer or tablet or a phone and and it's charged up and you know how to run it and you've got the right version of software so there's barriers that get in the way that can prevent people from enjoying digital images and it sort of a necessary cost of entry for the advantages of digital images things like global distribution and no charge distribution to the producer etcetera with a physical print. There's no device required now. That doesn't mean that there isn't some expense involved because paper ink is expensive and packaging and shipping is expensive. But you know that actually leads me to the seventh reason. I Love Printing and the result of printed photography. It's an odd thing to say. I suppose but I love sending stuff off in the mail because I know at the end of that process. Someone out there in the world is GONNA receive the package or the envelope or whatever it is. I've sent them and they're going to have a joyful moment when they open up that package that's arrived in. It's got my folio chat booker printer. Whatever inside of IT I. I love that moment of joy so my seventh reason for printing. It gives me a reason to send something in the mail. It's not quite the same as sending an email attachment so I I like that part. I also liked the part that there's a physicality to the signature. Which of course there just isn't in digital distribution because there's no physicality to at all. I sign every print that I do. I sign every folio every chat book so that when someone out there in the world is looking at it. They know that I have physically handled this. And it's probably a little bit. Woo to think this way but when I see a print that photographer has signed there's a part of my brain that says you know molecules from their fingers are on this print somehow and there's a connection that I enjoy about that and even though I I'm not a big advocate of signature adding value to print. I know in the real world. It does to me. The reason as a producer to make physical print and sign. It is that there is sort of a direct connection between me and the person who seeing it that isn't the same as the distribution of digital image. They're still a direct connection but the direct connection is more about content and ideas than a physical direct connection so I like that aspect of signing work is the physical connection. There's also a connection to history that I think is an important reason why I enjoy printing because all the photographers who have come before me in history famous and not famous people who made great artwork and people who were just normal folks like me all of those people in history made Prince and the idea of abandoning the idea of not making prince anymore would create a disconnect between me and that history which I value and I know that that the only reason I can be doing the kind of work that I'm doing now is because of those people who came before me both those who were pioneers and great photographers and who defined a certain aesthetic which connects with me. So deeply I feel a connection to them in history that I don't want to sever by becoming a digital artist only and making jet books and folios in my case gives me a certain sense of connection with history. I can take that connection and move it forward in time to because making something physical gives me a physical legacy that I think is important. Sure I know my pdf so probably be out there for a long period of time and they can always be converted to whatever the next digital format of PDF star. And I don't have to worry about the fact that maybe I didn't wash the paper long enough and it's GonNa fade like I worry about with my gelatin. Silver Prints but creating physical legacy is I think. An important component my prince may never survive me. They may just go in the garbage can. And when I'm gone my family may not have any idea what to do with whatever I've left behind and it might just go away but I know this that if I don't create any printed imagery or any printed artifact at all from my creative life that there's zero chance of surviving there may be some chance of surviving if I create physical products. So that's another reason why I still make prance is. There is some small part of me that hopes it creates a physical legacy that outlasts me in that someone somewhere down the road might remember me or be touched by something that I've done. And the physicality of whatever they have will be a part of that now the next reason. I'm up to actually number eleven now. The eleven threes and that. I still make prints is what I call audience segmentation. I've talked in other part cast and whatnot about how I've been influenced by the thinking of Toffler. Futurist who wrote future shock and wrote a book called the third wave in which he basically made an argument for the future being a time when there would be increased audience segmentation that the there would no longer be a single big thing called an audience but rather it would become lots and lots of little niches of audiences and I believe that he had a real key idea there. I think I've seen it come true in the forty or fifty years since he wrote that book so audience segmentation which is what I call it. He called it the D. massification of society. But I I I think audience segmentation is a better way for me to think about. It is simply this that there are people out there in the world who are very comfortable with the digital world. They preferred the digital world. They don't Wanna be burdened with having books on their shelves or Prince in their life because moving him and storing them in caring for them as a hassle. There are other people who are not computer savvy. They don't care about computers and tablets and smartphones. They want physical grants. That's what it's meant by audience segmentation that there are different kinds of audiences and they have different ways that they want to consume and as an art maker. It's part of my thought process that all of those opinions are valid. And that for me to focus on any one kind of audience would leave all the other audiences untapped if you will that. I need to be flexible in what I make so that there is something for all kinds of people so that might mean relatively expensive things and relatively inexpensive things and free things it might mean digital things in analog things it might mean small things that can even be given as gifts and big things that are intended to be collectibles. I tend to think that an artist who wants to tap into as many audience segments as is possible will embrace a certain flexibility in what they produce. And so for me. I'm comfortable producing digital work and printed work because those can be two completely separate audiences now. Obviously they're going to overlap somewhat but they can be completely separate audiences and I know that if I didn't make physical prints at all that there would be a percentage of the population who would never have the ability to see my work and I would never make an artistic connection with them conversely if I only made prince and didn't do anything with digital distribution. There's another segment of the market. That I would not connect with so in my way of thinking. Each medium that we choose to produce has the potential of opening up to us a new audience segment and some of that relates to the twelfth reason. I still make Prince. Which is what. I call the gift economy. I got onto this idea when I read a book called the gift..

Prince Pdf prince Brooks Jensen producer Lens Work Publishing Intel editor publisher
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

12:21 min | 2 months ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Lens. Work Publishing Brooks Jensen. I suspect most of you have heard that old canard about being a professional violinist and the necessity of practicing every single day. But just in case. You haven't heard it. The idea is if you wanted to be a professional violinist. Part of what goes along with. That is knowing that you have to practice every single day. Ladimir Horowitz had a famous saying on this as a piano player. He said if I skipped practice for one day I notice if I skipped practice for two days my wife notices if I skipped for three days the world notices well. That's may be true for professional musicians. But what about for you and me? We're not professional. We're not musicians but the importance of practice I think cannot be the more we can be involved with photography. I think the better photographers. We are likely to be or at least were likely to require less transition between our everyday life and those times when we do pick up the camera and go out and try to be an artist. Try to be a photographer. So the trick is to try to put something into your daily routine that involves the creative aspects your life to be honest and probably not as much of a surprise. That's why I do Daily video called. Here's a thought which I'm sure. Many of you are familiar with and we post a new one every single day so that at least for two or three minutes a day you can engage your creative mind now. That's not the same as practicing photography. I recognize that but I suppose it's better than nothing but there are some things that we can do. That involve practice every single day. Even if it doesn't involve picking up the camera and that's what I want to talk about in this. Podcast is what I call an every day exercise. This is something you can literally do every day of your life because it doesn't require that you set aside time from your daily routine in order to do it and you will find that. It is a habit developing exercise. That will be useful to you on the times when you do pick up your camera and you do have time to try to do something creative. Basically the idea is simply this. We see images every single day. We see them in magazines. We see and billboards. We see them on television. We see them in books. We see them everywhere so why not take a little opportunity to look at images not just to scan the not just to see them but really to think about them a little more deeply as a photographer needs to think about things? So here's the exercise. It involves trying to essentially deconstruct an image in five ways. That will be helpful. I is look at a photograph and determined the direction and character of the light and see how that plays into the photograph. So not just so that it has an effect on you but so that you actually understand and can predict in your mind's eye wear the light source came from and the kind of light it was. Was it a soft light like a soft box or was it a pinpoint light? Was it sunlight from an angle? The golden hour as it were or was it. Sunlight from overhead. Was it over the photographer? Shoulder is the subject backlit. Think about the direction character of the Light. Purposefully next think about the color contrast that was used in the photograph. Is it natural color? Is it color? That's been warmed or cooled. Does that add to the photograph or subtract? Do you think therefore it's a purposeful conscious decision. That was good. Or maybe one. That's a distraction. What would happen if the photograph had more contrast or less contrast these are things you can visualize in your mind's eye in probably just a few seconds but the process of doing so get your creative mind engaged next look at edges and corners? I do this all the time. Because I'm stickler about edges and corners and my photographs if there's something in the edge of the corner that's distracting. I WANNA get rid of it. If it's something that adds to the photograph I WANNA make sure that it doesn't get overlooked. Edges and corners are where power is in a photograph. It's even a strong in my way of thinking. As the rule of thirds or bullet composition is one of those things that really not subtly but substantially affects. How an image is viewed. And what's understood when looking at an image so when I look at advertising photographs or whatever the case may be I look at the edges and corners specifically to see. What's there and ask myself the question. Does this add or subtract? If it were my photograph and are trying to make artwork out of it would I use whatever is in the corner or what I eliminate it would I- crop in or what I like to have. Had the photographer step back a little bit and increase what I can see on the edges a little bit so analyze edges and corners fourth. Look at what I refer to as layers and ranges. Maybe the easiest way to describe this is oftentimes the there will be. Let's say a person who is the main thing in photographing behind them out of focus? Creating a certain kind of visual Boca. Is Somebody else in the background? That's a that's layers and ranges. The photograph is divided into layers but those layers are determined based on ranges of distance from the camera. So how does the photographer treat layers and ranges? If it's a landscape photograph to they have something in the very near range and something in the far distant sort of an Infiniti range are both of those are in focus in. Would you think that's the right decision or not if it were your photograph that's thinking in terms of the three dimensionality of the world and how that three-dimensionality has been rendered in the two-dimensional photograph? And finally I look at photographs and I asked the question about what is the subject. And what is the deeper subject? This to me is really the heart of art. Making every photograph has a subject. You can identify something in it and say this is the thing that this picture is a picture of but the deeper subject is what that photograph in its entirety is supposed to make you think or feel or ask or react. What's the deeper subject and does the subject that we see the thing that is ostensibly the subject of the photograph. Does that illuminate? Does it elucidate? Does it clarify? The deeper subject is an amplify our understanding of the deeper subject. And what is the deeper subject? If the photograph just has a primary subject no deeper subject thin. It's not a very deep photograph. It doesn't have a to offer us. It's just a picture of a thing on the other hand if it has a deeper subject sometimes that deeper subject is the whole reason. The photograph exists and the things that are in. The photograph are simply there to get us to the deeper subject and in my way of thinking. It's the deeper subject that is always the real subject of the photograph. Everything else is sort of the shallow surface just things. The physical things that appear in the photograph. It's the deeper subject. That is the reason it's artwork as opposed to a snapshot for example. So let me recap when I look at a photograph. Part of my daily exercise is to ask five question. What's the direction and character of the light? What's the use of color in contrast? How about the edges and the corners? And how do they work? What about layers ranges of distances and the the representation of three-dimensionality in the two dimensional space? And what is the subject and the deeper subject and does the deeper subject come through or could it be enhanced with the different treatment of direction character of light color and contrast agent corners layers and ranges and the subject itself? Do you see how this is a mental exercise that you could do every day now? Why is this important? Well I think it's important because of the way our brains work our brains need a certain aesthetic lubrication if you will and they need to develop habits habits of looking at the world in ways that become easier less friction in our mental process. So that when we're out in the field with our camera that those habits kick in automatically if if you don't use your aesthetic vision on a regular basis on a daily basis when you need it you may find that it's not there it simply you don't have the habit and so shifting gears from everyday mind too aesthetic mind becomes a more difficult challenge. I think the reason to do this kind of daily exercise is simply to keep those habits to keep that way of thinking to keep that process alive in your brain so that those pathways in your brain are used and lubricated and limbered up and ready to go. It's kind of like being an athlete in that regard. Isn't it that you you have to have mental exercise in order to be in shape so that when you need to perform on an aesthetic level and on a creative level out in the field with your camera or in front of the computer as you're designing your book or whatever you're doing that those habits just kick in automatically and that they're well lubricated and working beautifully so that's my daily exercise? Maybe if this doesn't work for you develop your own doesn't make any difference as long as it is in my way of thinking something that you can do daily which you probably can't go out with your camera daily. You probably can't work in Photoshop and delve into images deeply on a daily basis. But this is something you can do when you're just going through your everyday life when you have a few moments sitting at a stop light or you're writing on the bus or your grocery shopping and looking at cereal boxes. You can make aesthetic and aesthetic exercise out of them. You'll be amazed when you develop this habit how it changes your photographic and creative life. It's just amazing. If you can manage to keep it up even though it may feel like it takes conscious effort to fight something. That's not a habit like any good habit that you're gonNA DEVELOP IN LIFE. The more you do it the easier it becomes. Get your entries. Ready in twenty twenty..

Ladimir Horowitz Brooks Jensen editor Infiniti Boca Photoshop
Innovation and the Clich

LensWork

09:35 min | 3 months ago

Innovation and the Clich

"Years the editor of Lens Work Publishing Brooks Jensen as an introduction to this topic. Let me begin with a little bit of inside baseball as they say. Did describe how it is that these podcasts come about. Oftentimes they're sparks from something. I read or something someone says to me or an idea. Get an e mail. Sometimes it's ideas that just bubble up out of nowhere. As I've often mentioned this happens a lot in the shower for some reason so I actually have a divers where I can jot down ideas before I forget them while. I'm still in the shower. And that's what happened this morning at phrase occurred to me out of the clear. Blue Sky jotted down. I had no idea where it was going. But I've been thinking about it all day in it's led to a very interesting train of thought. I WANNA share with you. The phrase is as a pursuit in life. The creation of art seems to be a dance between innovation an execution dance between innovation and execution. And here's what occurred to me while I was thinking about this. I've been listening to two different kinds of music of late. I've for reasons I can't explain really gotten into the piano concertos of Rachmaninoff. And I've mentioned that these are available on Youtube Etcetera. Play by this brilliant Chinese Pena's named Eugene and by sheer coincidence. I've also discovered a composer. Young woman who is very talented at composing classical music. And she's been exploring lots of other genres of music are names Nari Soul and she has been discussing of late in some of her Youtube Videos John Cage and his work. With what's called a prepared piano. He would take an open up a piano and attach things to the strings. like paper clips and whatnot and and the piano would make very funny noises and oftentimes. He would not really play music. He would just play notes and things and very innovative very creative. Very modern very sort of avant garde out there and she's been exploring some of his ideas so I I had these two things that are clashing in my brain the extreme precision and accomplishment of the execution of Rachmaninoff by Eugene Dong and John Cage and is prepared piano as explored by Nari Soul. I think these two extremes are what got me thinking about the dance between innovation and execution. LemMe ask the question. This way in terms of piano music which is a higher form of accomplishment. The extreme innovation of John Cage thinking way outside the box not only thinking outside of meter and normal harmonies and progressions but thinking about outside normal instruments. And how they can be modified in played with talk about innovation way out there so we applaud that to some degree and then at the other end of the scale is you. Juwan and her unbelievably precise playing Rachmaninoff. And the the execution that she brings to his scores are not only extremely high in terms of technical proficiency but also in terms of emotional content. So that's a very high measure of success. But can't we agree that these two are at essentially completely opposite ends of the creative spectrum? Both forms of music can bring out emotions. Strong positive and negative is zoom and both of them can be seen to fall in some sort of competition or scale of things. And which do we appreciate more? Well obviously the reason I bring all this up is because I'm thinking about this relative to photography to what's more important in photography extreme innovation here. I'm thinking of the inventive work from the imagination of photographers like Jerry. You'll Zeman or John Paul Capela Negro or Huntington Witherell or dominic rouse or the incredibly precise execution on very traditional lines. And here on thinking of Bruce Marne bomb and John Sexton and and even people like Steve McCurry. Which do we value more? The key idea here seems to me to revolve around our expectations. If we go into a piece of artwork with the assumption that what we're looking for is incredibly talented sensitive execution and we see something like the prepared piano of John Cage or the innovative of Jerry yells men or someone we might say. Well that's not what I call a picture because it doesn't look like what we expect a fine art photograph to look like on the other hand if we go in assuming that what we value. Is something really innovative? Something we've never seen before then we can look at work like. Oh maybe even Louis Balsam Robert Atoms and Lee friedlander Gary Winner. Grand and say well. That's that's not what I call a picture. But wow is that fantastic. Because it doesn't look at all like we expect a fine art photograph to look. I think it's easy for us to appreciate the fact that there are two camps. It's perhaps even easier to fall into one of those two camps without even realizing it if we're a traditionalist we're gonNA look at the innovative and the Avant Garde is being weird and certainly when people look at oh do sharp or Mcgraw eat they might look at those paintings and say that's weird. That's you know. Because it doesn't look like Rembrandt Raphael. On the other hand if greet and duchamp painted like Rembrandt and Rafael. We might look at it and say well. That's boring because it's not innovative so therefore it doesn't seem to add much to the history of painting and so we're not interested in it. Well we can do exactly the same thing in photography. How do you evaluate work when you look at it? Do you evaluate it based on its execution and how well it conforms to the cliche or do you evaluate it based on its innovation and how different and unique it is. There is a position in the Middle. Which gives me pause for concern. Because if what we're trying to do is have the best of both worlds have innovation and traditional execution for example. Then the only thing that's left is what you point your camera at that is to say trying to find something that hasn't been photographed as artwork before and turn that into your bailiwick or your creative vision. In hopes that people would look at it and say beautifully done traditionally printed man fantastic execution of something. That's never been photographed before and isn't that Nice. Do you realize that that's exactly what happened? In the early history of painting this has been discussed by lots. And lots of people. Certainly not a unique idea. And certainly not my own but basically the idea's this for generations for literally. Hundreds of years painting was of the human figure primarily religious pictures descent from the cross kinds of things but usually what happened in those paintings as they had to be set in some kind of scene and so there would be introduced in the background. Some little bit of a tree or a little stream or a building or something and with enough passage of time and hundreds of years. Painters started saying to the figure move over. We're we're more interested in what's going on in the background than we are in the human figure or the story and landscape painting was born but when landscape painting was born that way there were probably lots and lots of people around who said well. That's not what I call a painting because whereas the people this is just a bunch trees that's not very interesting so it was innovative but it wasn't traditional and it certainly didn't measure up to the kinds of execution that were expected in a portrait of a person or the painting of a of a story seen or some such thing

John Cage Rachmaninoff Avant Garde Youtube Baseball Eugene Dong Lens Work Publishing Editor Jerry Nari Soul Brooks Jensen John Paul Capela Negro Juwan Steve Mccurry John Sexton Pena Dominic Rouse Bruce Marne Mcgraw
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

15:14 min | 4 months ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Lens Work Publishing Brooks Jensen. I'm going way off the deep end with this podcast but I've always used this form to talk about things that interest me and that I'm thinking about and I will bring this back to photography so stick with me for a few minutes. I just finished listening to a lecture by the late Alan Watts titled Metaphysics and morals and of course as you would anticipate. It has nothing to do with photography or does it. He made a point that got me thinking about my philosophical approach to photography in the art life. That I think is really interesting. I hope you do too one of Alan Watts. Really terrific illustrations is how the earth is actually a sort of form of primitive intelligence and he uses this example he says imagine a couple of billion years ago a space pilot flying past the earth on his way to the grocery store or something and he looks down on earth and says oh nothing much of interest. They're just a bunch of rocks and then on his return trip he flies by today. Any looks down on the earth and says oh excuse me I was mistaken. Not just a bunch of rocks. They're actually peopling rocks. That is to say people grow out of the earth and my contention of course would be that even. If you're a religious person you can make the case that we grow out of the Earth were composed of the minerals of the earth. The spark of life may have come from Deity but nonetheless we grow out of the earth one way or the other and so with this example. He sort of the idea that things that don't look like they're intelligent may actually be quite intelligent but maybe not on a conscious thinking level will in this lecture that I was listening to called Metaphysics and morals. He spent a great deal of time talking about the difference between our brain the physical structure of our brain etc and our mind that is to say our conscious thought and he tried to make the point which I think he did successfully that the brain and the mind are two different things that they're both housed within our skull but they manifest themselves in ways that are completely different. For example he says the brain can open our hand and close our hand and we do it ten thousand times a day but our mind has no idea how we do that even if you're a hand surgeon you can't explain everything about how you open your hand and closure hand you. You don't even have to think about it. You don't have to make decisions to move this finger and then this finger and then this finger you just open your hand and it just happens perhaps a more radical example is our brain can grow hair which we do all the time but our mind has no idea how we do it. We just grow hair so in some regards. Our brain is smarter than our mind. And there's a real difference between what happens on the subconscious level or maybe the unconscious level of our brain and the conscious thinking verbalizing rationalizing part of our consciousness. Our mind that makes decisions in another lecture sort of discussing the same theme he talks about how the brain and the mind occasionally overlap in a way. That's really interesting to think about. And the classic example is breathing most of the time ninety nine percent of the time your brain is in control of breathing and you breathe. Whether you're thinking about it or not your conscious mind can completely ignore breath but your brain. Can't your brain has to breathe or you know you've got a problem. So breathing is normally a function of the brain. But this is where the overlap happens. We can take conscious control of our breathing and regulated. We can take a deep breath when we will ourselves to do that. We can Hold our breath if we're swimming or some such thing so breathing is an interesting part of our physiology. Because it's both unconscious or subconscious brain activity and can be mined activity. Okay now time to bring some of this back to photography as best I can. I've been listening to Alan Watts. Lectures since nineteen seventy which curiously enough as the same year that I started doing photography so it's probably not surprising that there's been some sort of cross fertilization between these two pursuits and this business of brain and mind is is a great example of something we can do in photography or something we might. WanNa think about doing. I normally for example. I don't normally consciously use the rule of thirds in my photography. But I can consciously use it if I need to most of the time. I compose without thinking about the rule of thirds. But it's amazing. How many times when I look at my pictures later and I sort of analyze them. I realized that I do. Use the rule of thirds. Allot not because I'm consciously using the rule of thirds and thinking that somehow makes a better picture but because it's sort of works for the composition and represents an aesthetic that I like so that's an example of where in photography are conscious mind and our unconscious or subconscious brain sometimes overlap a little bit most of the time. My initial approach to a photograph involves some sort of sub conscious or unconscious reaction which is then brought forward into my conscious mind through primarily the combination of time and paying attention that is to say I'm just wandering through the world. I'm not stopping to photograph most of the world but all of a sudden something will strike me and I'll think well there's a potential picture. Why do I think that my idea is that that initial reaction of Hey? I think I could make a picture. Here comes from the brain it comes from the subconscious mind. We don't think about it. It just happens the same way. Breathing happens or the same way. Growing our hair happens. We just have a reaction that comes from deep within us. Some people refer to this as listening to the whispers of the creative muse. There's lots of expressions of this idea throughout the history and throughout art history but in my way of thinking this is just simply a function of the brain. So what I've learned to do is kind of pay attention to that and when I get that feeling like Hey. I think I could make a picture here. Essentially my process in making art is to take that involuntary reaction to something I see and to grab hold of it with the conscious. Mind with conscious attention and massage it into something. I hope expresses that initial sub-conscious reaction or maybe even goes beyond that initial subconscious reaction. But it's sort of a combination of allowing my brain to react to the world and my mind to make artwork from what my brain senses. Does this make sense so this is where I think. It's sort of metaphysics and photography. So how do we cultivate this? Well the first thing I think is incredibly important is to surround ourselves and saturate our perception with the aesthetics that we enjoy. It's really hard to have an aesthetic sense. That's highly tuned insensitive and developed. If the only time you touch base with that aesthetic essentials when you're out making art which is why I think it's such great discipline for photographers to have photographs up in their house so that they're surrounded by photographs why we want to spend time looking at books photography books. All of that activity has the function of tuning our brain to be sensitive to the particular aesthetic that we're interested in if we surround ourselves with the kind of aesthetic that we like it harmonizes in our subconscious. Mind in our unconscious brain so that it becomes attuned to that. At least. That's my theory. So books posters television shows images that saturate us with the aesthetic that we're interested in will help us connect with that when we see it out in the world some heart. Because we're already sort of attuned to it the second way we can cultivate this connection between brain and mind is. I think through imitation. And here's a good example. When you go to Yosemite you're going see ansel Adams images everywhere because ansel Adams defined Yosemite for us in terms of black and white photography. That's great go ahead and imitate him. Try to make ansel Adams images that will attune your consciousness. More to his aesthetic. That can become a trap. Which can lock you into his way of seeing or it can become a liberation by working your way through those things on a conscious level you can sort of let go of them and that opens up your aesthetic brain to see things in a different way. At least that's been my experience. I'm not sure that's particularly logical. I'm not even sure I can explain it all I can tell you is. It's true for me when I find myself looking at something. That's been very successfully photograph by someone else if I don't imitate it it I just can't let go of it. It just stays in my brain and stock and I can't see that subject in any other way if I go ahead and make some imitative images trying to connect as much as I can my conscious brain with that pre existing aesthetic. It's like I wash it away and suddenly I'm more able to see on my own so it it works for me next. You can try to cultivate this connection between brain and mind by developing a sensitivity to what I call the whispers of our subconscious. Mind when my sub-conscious minor my brain says. Hey you can take a picture here if I'm sort of Numb to life. I'm not going to hear that whisper so I'll just miss that photographic opportunity so the more I can try to become sensitive to what I'm seeing. What connects with me. What motivates me the more I can find tune my sensitivity the more I tend to be able to connect with it and this goes hand in hand with sort of well I I. I don't WanNa get into the logistics of meditation and Mindfulness and all that kind of stuff. Because I know it sounds a little woo but there is a way in photography to keep it simpler and that's just to start allowing our mind to find quiet in both our environment and our thought process the thought process. The conscious mind is an ongoing conversation. That happens inside. Our heads air every waking moment were thinking about something and we tend to think in terms of images and words and the more we think the more our consciousness is dominated by whatever it's pulling up from reaction to the world and our senses and etc but mindfulness practice. The way it's done in the Orient is just to allow our minds to become still the example they often use is imagine. You have a glass of muddy water. That has a rock in it. Well if the glass if the water's all stirred up and everything is moving. You can't see the rock but if you just put the glass down and let it comet self without any effort just by being still and practicing mindfulness. All of that mud will eventually settle out. And as the sediment drops to the bottom of the glass the rock reveals itself and to those people who are involved in meditation and mindfulness practice and all that kind of stuff that this is a metaphor. That's often used well. I think it pertains to artwork to when we're out in the world photographing or were in the studio photographing if there's a bunch of stuff that stirring up our conscious mind like for example. Were listening to an audio book or to music or trying to have conversation with others who are with us or in the room with us. All of that is stirring up our conscious. Mind to the point where maybe we can't see the idea that is the rock it's hidden by all of the activity the whirlwind of life. So the idea of practicing stillness or mindfulness is a way to let all of that. Drop away and become more sensitive to the sub conscious minds connection with the world in the way it's fines things that are aesthetically interesting impossible to photograph so practicing some form of not meditation or not. I don't mean to imply that his photographers. We need to do some sort of religious disciplined by any means. No I mean maybe you want to. But that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is all the clutter that is happening in our minds prevents the brain from connecting as well as it possibly could so if we can make a conscious decision to minimize the.

Alan Watts ansel Adams Yosemite editor Lens Work Publishing Brooks Jensen Wan Orient
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

10:58 min | 4 months ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Lens Work Publishing Brooks Jensen. I'd like to do something a little different with this particular podcast because rather than discuss some issue of photography. I'm going to take this as an opportunity to announce a new series that we're launching. It lends work online and I know many many of you are members of Lens Work Online. And for those who aren't will have some news for you at the end of the podcast about that. But I suppose I should begin by offering the premise or the root of what. This idea is called exploring the possibilities. That's the title of the new series exploring the possibilities. It started a few weeks ago. I this may sound like it has nothing to do with photography but sometimes I connect these dots and they're kind of fascinating. I discovered by sort of accident a piece of classical music that I had never heard before by rimsky-korsakov called Sheherazade and I instantly fell in love with this piece of music and much. To my surprise I discovered that there are about forty different versions of this symphony that are available on Youtube by different orchestras and different conductors. And they all have subtly different interpretations sometimes slightly different rhythm sometimes emphasizing different instruments and. It's fascinating to hear how this one piece of music can be interpreted in so many different ways. Well this got me thinking about photography because of course we do exactly the same thing we can take any given negative or any given digital file and interpreted in so many different ways matter of fact. No less of luminary and photography than Ansel Adams. Dropped the big hint about this years ago when he said that the negative is the score and the print is the performance. And of course some of you probably many of you have seen that series that he did with one given image. I can't remember now which one was. It might have been moon rise over Hernandez I can't remember. But Anyway he made about twenty or maybe thirty different versions of that image over the course of his career on different papers with different contrast. It's a fascinating thing to look at. And when I saw as a young photographer it really made an impression on me. This idea of interpreting a negative of course today with digital tools and techniques the ability to interpret a negative has exploded in ways probably not even comprehendible to the previous generations of photographers. Who are no longer with us. They would be aghast if they saw what we can do to vary the performance of a given image or a given negative of course the premise of this ability to be able to interpret a negative or a digital file in lots of different ways is the idea that there is no right or wrong way to interpret a given image but there are ways that are better for a given purpose which takes me to one of my favorite topics of late in photography. Which is the idea that my digital catalog is simply an asset base of things that I can use in various projects. All of my images are assets and as such for any given project I can go into that asset base in pick out images that will work in a given project and many times. I find that I'm picking the same image for several different projects. What differentiates them is the way. They're processed post processing allows me to use one exposure in ever so many projects with ever so many different kinds of post process interpretation. So that even though it's the same image even though it's recognizable as the same image although not always but most of the time is recognizable as the same image they're not just picked up and duplicated from one project to the next because of the post processing that's employed that makes that processing fit best with that given project that has me doing more and more post processing and exploring the possibilities with my work more than I ever thought I ever would now added to all of. That is a comment that Maureen made a while back when she was looking at one of the images that appeared in cocoa and she was familiar with the image because she had seen it in a different context and she looked at the most recent version of that image processed in a completely different way and she was kind of a guest and said that she could hardly believe that. I could make what I made from where I started. The image I ended up within the project was so different than what the camera captured that she was just astonished at it was. It was kind of a fun. We we enjoyed the conversation about how flexible and pliable and malleable photography has become today. The power of post processing in photography is just amazing. And of course. That's a lot of what gets discussed in photographic circles. These days is the how to do various different kinds of things. There are lots and lots of YouTube. Channels and instructional videos and experts on youtube who have hours and hours and hours of video instruction about how to do various things. That's great you use it. I use it. We all use it. I'm very happy that they make these Bits of information available. It's fantastic resource and we're all delighted to have it but you know one of the things. I've noticed with some consistency when I watched these youtube videos about how to do something is they almost never explain what or why they. WanNa do it day explain. How but many times I ended up scratching my head and saying okay now I see how you did it but why would i WanNa do it that way. Why did you make those aesthetic choices? Why did you make this choice? As compared to all the other choices that you could have made and in my way of thinking I know have any idea how to start processing an image until I know what it is. I want to say with that image and why I wanna say it and then I have to sort of reverse engineer from what and why before I can determine how but that's almost the opposite way. Most of this instruction happens on Youtube. They tell you how you just sort of left on your own to figure out why you would use that technique and under what circumstances you would use that technique. So that's what I WANNA do. Is I want to focus. Not on how this new series exploring the possibilities won't be how to. There's lots of that on Youtube. You don't need me to teach you how to use light room or anything but rather to explore what changes might make sense given a certain purpose for an image and why that might make sense for certain use of image and that will drive the post processing so each week. I'll take a new image and do exactly that all reverse engineer from where it is now to what it could be and that's not that. I'm going to correct an image or you know. Try to say this is how to do it right because I don't want any value judgment in any of this. That's why I'm calling is exploring the possibilities. It's taking what the camera gives us or in some cases water photographer thinks might even be finished image. And saying okay. Great that that's fine. That's finished but here's some other things that could be done with this image. That might give it a different purpose or might make it fit better with a given project. So that's what we'll do each week discussing new image. The images will come from a variety of sources. They'll come from People who request feedback reviews. And sometimes I'll do this with maybe one of my own images where I can show a variety of different ways that it's been used in different projects. Most exciting for me is that they can come from you. This is not a fee based review session. It's just sort of a a good Karma Spirit to this series so if you have an image that you'd to consider discussing as one of these exploring the possibilities entries you can upload it. There's instructions on our website how to do that. You upload it to dropbox and each week all take a look at the candidates that are there and select one for Recording video and walk through the processes of how I might consider processing it based on a given objective. And the what and why. I think that might be a way to take given image which course might be entirely different from what the photographer intense. But it'll be one of the possibilities that are open for any given image now these Exploring the possibilities videos will be available weekly four members of Lens Work Online. And if you're not a member of Lens Work Online will post a few of them here in the beginning Lens Work Daily so you can see some examples and we're very excited about it. I've recorded a bunch of these already and I think there are lots of fun. So that's the new series called exploring the possibilities the what and why of post processing decisions so. I hope enjoy it. I'm excited about it and let me know what you think. Get your entries. Ready in twenty twenty. We are shifting gears from six image projects to outstanding single images titled Our Magnificent Planet. Are Themed Twenty. Twenty Book Project is for those of you who prefer to create a standalone standout. Imag- imagine a book of three hundred exceptional examples of the most successful landscape images..

Youtube Lens Work Online Lens Work Publishing Ansel Adams editor Brooks Jensen engineer Maureen Imag
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

15:07 min | 4 months ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"Here's the editor of Lens. Work Publishing Brooks Jensen. I WanNa talk today. A little bit about the pragmatics of equipment and equipment selection relative to what it is that we want to produce. It's a topic that we've discussed before but there's a new take on it that I want to share about the nature of compromise to begin with there appears to be one prevalent strategy for choosing a camera and lens system and that strategy seems to be driven by the recently coined acronym. That's made its way into the photographic lexicon Thommo the fear of missing out and all you have to do is go look at camera reviews on Youtube or in the current crop of magazines. And you'll see that this is a big one. It's the primary marketing tool that camera. Manufacturers are using the implication being that you might miss a shot if you don't have the latest greatest camera but the premise of this idea. Is that the cameras should be capable of not only the photographs we routinely WANNA make but the ones that we might possibly WanNa make no matter. How unusual the circumstances and if we don't buy the right camera that is the one with maximum capabilities. We might find ourselves frustrated when that rare opportunity presents itself because of the limitations of our equipment and so they tell us we need to buy a piece of equipment that will handle every possible situation. I'm not sure that's the best strategy. For the simple reason that it unquestionably over engineers. Most of what we do. It also fails to include an important part of the decision making process known as the opportunity cost. Now for those of you who are not familiar with the term opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is what you have to pay as a result of the decision that you made to buy something else so for example if you buy a very high megapixel camera that's GonNa cost you a bunch of time Time to copy the files over to your computer and hard drive space and etc. Those are all things that you're going to have to give up efficiency of time efficiency of storage. You'RE GONNA have to give up all of that in order to pay for the advantage of having a high megapixel camera and speaking of that crazy megapixel rat race. We seem to be involved in. This whole idea seems to me to be wholly based on the idea that we might. I repeat might want to make a large print. Well let's look at that for just a minute. As an example of compromise and how we might alternatively managed the exceptions if we don't have a high megapixel camera for example so the theory of having a high megapixel camera is that we wanna make really big prints but of course if you WanNa make really big prints you need a really big printer and so there's costs involved. They're not just for the high megapixel camera but for the printer and the paper and ink in its CETERA. Now maybe you you'll use a service so you don't have to own the printer but let's set that aside for now because it has its own sort of mathematics involved in it. Let's just assume that you WANNA make your own prince so you need a big printer so the opportunity cost of having the need to make really big prince. Is You have to spend money on a big printer which means you don't have that money available for travel for lenses for paying for models or whatever else you have to sacrifice in order to buy the printer so let. Let's look at a few of these numbers just for grins. And by the way I know numbers are hard to follow in an audio podcast. But I'll try to do my best to make it simple. Let's look at for example. Epson printers in their list price so seventeen inch printers run between twelve hundred and two thousand dollars. How many mega pixels do you have to have to use these seventeen inch printers to make say a Standard Sixteen by twenty print at two hundred and forty? Ppi well you need a whopping eighteen mega pixels? That's it anything over eighteen mega pixels. If all you'RE GONNA make is sixteen by twenty prints is really not necessary unless you do a lot of cropping and things like that and obviously if you buy a seventeen inch printer you don't intend on making any images bigger than sixteen by twenty so you really don't need anything bigger than eighteen megapixel unless you wanNA printed a little higher resolution like three hundred or three sixty or something like that which I'll get to a just a minute. Let's say you WANNA make even bigger prince so you invest somewhere between twenty three hundred and forty seven hundred dollars which probably more than you paid for your camera on a twenty four inch printer. Now you can make twenty by twenty four inch standard size photographic prints at two hundred forty P P I. How many mega pixels will you'll need? Well you'll need twenty eight Megapixel for twenty by twenty four inch print. That's it so why spend the money for the sixty year one hundred megapixel high resolution camera unless there's some other reason than a large print but let's say you're interested in really pushing the envelope so you step up to a forty four inch printer and all? That's involved with that in terms of paper sizes and Matt Sizes and frames and Cetera. So you have a forty four inch printer and you paid somewhere between five thousand and thirteen thousand dollars for it. You are serious about this right so now you can make a thirty by forty inch print at two hundred and forty. Ppi You will need a sixty nine megapixel image for thirty by forty inch print. Okay so now you can sort of justify those high megapixel cameras because you need sixty nine megapixel but wait a minute. The reason you buy a forty four inch printer and all that's required to make it successful including the camera is because you are in pursuit of excellence. You're really pushing the envelope. You WanNa make print that is so outstanding that it's beyond technical question whatsoever which means you probably won't want to print a two hundred and forty. Ppi because a print it three hundred PPI or maybe even some people say three hundred and sixty PPI is microscopically better. And that's what you're interested in pursuing is the microscopically better. Well what do you need in order to make a thirty by forty inch print at say three hundred sixty PPI? Well if you work out the math you need a three hundred eleven megapixel camera which doesn't exist. And as a matter of fact your sixty or seventy megapixel high resolution full frame camera isn't even close to providing that kind of resolution which means that it will require some sort of compromise and the compromise might be that you have to do some stitching multiple exposures piece them all together to make the three hundred eleven megapixel file or you have to print at a lower. Ppi on your forty four inch printer to get your thirty by forty inch. Print and this is the nugget of the issue the requirement for some sort of compromise. I would propose to you that. All of photography is some sort of compromise and with that in mind than the fear of missing out takes on a different kind of reality. It's it's not really sane to be worried about the fear of missing out. It seems to me the more reasonable policy. The more reasonable strategy is to figure out what the exceptions are and try to manage those so if we thought through our choice of equipment sufficiently. I think it's fair to say that our choice will be made based on the fact that it serves us well for what ninety or ninety five percent of the pictures we WANNA make in my case. That's micro four thirds and it's perfect for my needs. That is to say probably covers ninety percent of the photographs that I wanna make in the size that I wanna make it okay. Fine but what about the exceptions? I'm obviously compromised with that camera. And it sensor size in its resolution in etc and there are some exceptions that are going to crop up that that Kamara's gonna be a problem for me. So what about that five or ten percent of the time when? That camera is not sufficient. What do I do then? Well seems like two choices. I can either forget about those images and just don't make them and concentrate on the ninety or ninety five percent of the images. I can make with my camera and be perfectly happy with it or I can figure out ways to manage the exceptions and develop reasonable work arounds. So for example. Sometimes my camera doesn't provide enough mega pixels for a larger size print that I might WanNa make so. The workaround is to employ stitching as I mentioned above is stitching a perfect solution. No it's not perfect but it certainly an acceptable work around to get the shot that I want on those rare occasions and in ninety percent or ninety five percent of the images that I make. I'm not hampered by extraordinarily large file sizes compromises in terms of how long it takes to load them up into my computer storage space on my computer processing time in Light Rumor Photoshop so I get the advantage of quicker workflow and on the rare exception when I wanNA make a really big print all I have to do is do some stitching. That's a compromise. It's an acceptable compromise to me. And so this is what I'm proposing is that we each need to think about. What are the acceptable compromises? Here's another one sometimes. My camera can be a little noisy at high ISOS so the work around is to use multiple exposures and blending using that mean stack technique. That reduces noise dramatically. Is it perfect? No will it work in every case. No so it's not perfect but for me it certainly inacceptable work around to get the shot on those rare occasions when I so thirty. Two hundred or ISO sixty four hundred won't work and besides I've extended those ISOS a little bit by choosing a camera that has extraordinarily good in body image stabilization so I can use a slightly longer shutter speed which means I can use a slightly lower eyeso- that's a work around that for me is perfectly acceptable. If I were a wedding photographer maybe not but for me it works. Here's another example sometimes. My camera doesn't have enough dynamic range to capture the tones I need in a particularly contrast seen. What's the workaround on those rare occasions? When that's the challenge the workaround is to simply blend exposures that for example use a highlight exposure amid tone exposure shadow exposure and blend them into a single image. That represents the Scale the tonal scale I need. Is that a perfect solution. No it's not perfect. It's not gonNA work every time but it certainly inacceptable work around to get the shot so I've managed to cover a whole bunch of those extraordinary exceptions without compromising the ninety or ninety five percent of the images that I make that I need for Web presentations. Pdf's.

Youtube editor Brooks Jensen Epson Pdf Kamara
FOMO and Managing the Exceptions

LensWork

09:33 min | 4 months ago

FOMO and Managing the Exceptions

"Here's the editor of Lens. Work Publishing Brooks Jensen. I WanNa talk today. A little bit about the pragmatics of equipment and equipment selection relative to what it is that we want to produce. It's a topic that we've discussed before but there's a new take on it that I want to share about the nature of compromise to begin with there appears to be one prevalent strategy for choosing a camera and lens system and that strategy seems to be driven by the recently coined acronym. That's made its way into the photographic lexicon Thommo the fear of missing out and all you have to do is go look at camera reviews on Youtube or in the current crop of magazines. And you'll see that this is a big one. It's the primary marketing tool that camera. Manufacturers are using the implication being that you might miss a shot if you don't have the latest greatest camera but the premise of this idea. Is that the cameras should be capable of not only the photographs we routinely WANNA make but the ones that we might possibly WanNa make no matter. How unusual the circumstances and if we don't buy the right camera that is the one with maximum capabilities. We might find ourselves frustrated when that rare opportunity presents itself because of the limitations of our equipment and so they tell us we need to buy a piece of equipment that will handle every possible situation. I'm not sure that's the best strategy. For the simple reason that it unquestionably over engineers. Most of what we do. It also fails to include an important part of the decision making process known as the opportunity cost. Now for those of you who are not familiar with the term opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is what you have to pay as a result of the decision that you made to buy something else so for example if you buy a very high megapixel camera that's GonNa cost you a bunch of time Time to copy the files over to your computer and hard drive space and etc. Those are all things that you're going to have to give up efficiency of time efficiency of storage. You'RE GONNA have to give up all of that in order to pay for the advantage of having a high megapixel camera and speaking of that crazy megapixel rat race. We seem to be involved in. This whole idea seems to me to be wholly based on the idea that we might. I repeat might want to make a large print. Well let's look at that for just a minute. As an example of compromise and how we might alternatively managed the exceptions if we don't have a high megapixel camera for example so the theory of having a high megapixel camera is that we wanna make really big prints but of course if you WanNa make really big prints you need a really big printer and so there's costs involved. They're not just for the high megapixel camera but for the printer and the paper and ink in its CETERA. Now maybe you you'll use a service so you don't have to own the printer but let's set that aside for now because it has its own sort of mathematics involved in it. Let's just assume that you WANNA make your own prince so you need a big printer so the opportunity cost of having the need to make really big prince. Is You have to spend money on a big printer which means you don't have that money available for travel for lenses for paying for models or whatever else you have to sacrifice in order to buy the printer so let. Let's look at a few of these numbers just for grins. And by the way I know numbers are hard to follow in an audio podcast. But I'll try to do my best to make it simple. Let's look at for example. Epson printers in their list price so seventeen inch printers run between twelve hundred and two thousand dollars. How many mega pixels do you have to have to use these seventeen inch printers to make say a Standard Sixteen by twenty print at two hundred and forty? Ppi well you need a whopping eighteen mega pixels? That's it anything over eighteen mega pixels. If all you'RE GONNA make is sixteen by twenty prints is really not necessary unless you do a lot of cropping and things like that and obviously if you buy a seventeen inch printer you don't intend on making any images bigger than sixteen by twenty so you really don't need anything bigger than eighteen megapixel unless you wanNA printed a little higher resolution like three hundred or three sixty or something like that which I'll get to a just a minute. Let's say you WANNA make even bigger prince so you invest somewhere between twenty three hundred and forty seven hundred dollars which probably more than you paid for your camera on a twenty four inch printer. Now you can make twenty by twenty four inch standard size photographic prints at two hundred forty P P I. How many mega pixels will you'll need? Well you'll need twenty eight Megapixel for twenty by twenty four inch print. That's it so why spend the money for the sixty year one hundred megapixel high resolution camera unless there's some other reason than a large print but let's say you're interested in really pushing the envelope so you step up to a forty four inch printer and all? That's involved with that in terms of paper sizes and Matt Sizes and frames and Cetera. So you have a forty four inch printer and you paid somewhere between five thousand and thirteen thousand dollars for it. You are serious about this right so now you can make a thirty by forty inch print at two hundred and forty. Ppi You will need a sixty nine megapixel image for thirty by forty inch print. Okay so now you can sort of justify those high megapixel cameras because you need sixty nine megapixel but wait a minute. The reason you buy a forty four inch printer and all that's required to make it successful including the camera is because you are in pursuit of excellence. You're really pushing the envelope. You WanNa make print that is so outstanding that it's beyond technical question whatsoever which means you probably won't want to print a two hundred and forty. Ppi because a print it three hundred PPI or maybe even some people say three hundred and sixty PPI is microscopically better. And that's what you're interested in pursuing is the microscopically better. Well what do you need in order to make a thirty by forty inch print at say three hundred sixty PPI? Well if you work out the math you need a three hundred eleven megapixel camera which doesn't exist. And as a matter of fact your sixty or seventy megapixel high resolution full frame camera isn't even close to providing that kind of resolution which means that it will require some sort of compromise and the compromise might be that you have to do some stitching multiple exposures piece them all together to make the three hundred eleven megapixel file or you have to print at a lower. Ppi on your forty four inch printer to get your thirty by forty inch. Print and this is the nugget of the issue the requirement for some sort of compromise. I would propose to you that. All of photography is some sort of compromise and with that in mind than the fear of missing out takes on a different kind of reality. It's it's not really sane to be worried about the fear of missing out. It seems to me the more reasonable policy. The more reasonable strategy is to figure out what the exceptions are and try to manage those so if we thought through our choice of equipment sufficiently. I think it's fair to say that our choice will be made based on the fact that it serves us well for what ninety or ninety five percent of the pictures we WANNA make in my case. That's micro four thirds and it's perfect for my needs. That is to say probably covers ninety percent of the photographs that I wanna make in the size that I wanna make it okay. Fine but what about the exceptions? I'm obviously compromised with that camera. And it sensor size in its resolution in etc and there are some exceptions that are going to crop up that that Kamara's gonna be a problem for me. So what about that five or ten percent of the time when? That camera is not sufficient. What do I do then? Well seems like two choices. I can either forget about those images and just don't make them and concentrate on the ninety or ninety five percent of the images. I can make with my camera and be perfectly happy with it or I can figure out ways to manage the exceptions and develop reasonable work arounds.

Youtube Brooks Jensen Editor Epson Kamara
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

09:31 min | 1 year ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"If you like Brooks Jensen's podcasts. Check out his new video series, titled, here's a thought. These short one to two minute videos, will give you a daily dose of creativity and something to think about the three. Most recent videos are available to everyone at daily dot lens work dot com. The entire backups owed. Archive is always available to members of lens work online. And now here's the editor of lens work publishing Brooks. Jensen. One of the formative moments in my young and budding art career was a visit to the Chicago Art Institute. I was in town for some business and had a free afternoon. And I went to see the photography, but what I captivated me. I encountered on the walk down the long hallway from the main entrance to the photography section and down that long hallway was an exhibition of medieval suits of armor, both from Europe and from Japan, and I remember sitting on a bench and looking at a suit of armor, that had taken supposedly several generations of craftsmen to complete. I remember looking at it, and thinking this simply cannot be done. It is too complex. It is too, detailed. It is to spectacular for it to actually exist. But there it was in front of my eyes, and I was. Blown away by the fact that this thing of impossibility was, in fact there and possible, as a result of the incredible hard work and talent of a bunch of individuals. Like, say over several generations, it was simply a mind boggling experience. And then I went down to the photography department, and I saw some work by Stieglitz, and I saw some work by Paul strand. And I saw some work by other famous photographers, none of which blew me away the same way, those suits of armor, did. And that experience still haunts me to this day. And by that I simply mean to say that I don't look at photography and get blown away by the complexity the difficulty, the fabulous productivity of individuals, or the simple genius that it takes to create something that really. Shouldn't exist. I never had that experience in photography. So why to be honest? I'm hoping the reason that I don't have that experience in photography's because I'm so close to it that, I know how photography is done. And as a result of that, when I look at something that should be spectacular, and mystical because of its existence that I can look at it and think, oh, well, they did this, and they did that, and that's how it got to be that way. And perhaps, if I knew something more about metallurgy. I might look at those suits of armor, and not be quite so amazed as I actually am because I know how they do it. I'd have some understanding of how they had made the impossible become possible. I still have this experience from time to time where I I witnessed something in the world. Art. That is absolutely impossible. For example, the classical pianist Yuji Wong is unbelievable. I've seen innumerable YouTube videos of her playing the classical piano. And what she does simply cannot be done by human being. But there she is doing it marvelously way beyond the skill of technique to get to the heart of artwork. I often find myself crying when I watch her perform partly because what she does so impossible, but partly because she doesn't so well that she exceeds the piano, and suddenly, I feel like I'm being communicated with heart to heart. That's the magic of what she does. I remember when my wife invited me to go to Cirque du Soleil, she had been to a performance. And she said, it's not like going to the circus. I wasn't interested in the circus at all. I'd been to the circus when I was a kid. It just isn't that. Interesting to me, and I had no motivation whatsoever to go to the circus day Soleil, and she came back from the performance and said, I bought more tickets because you have to go, it's not a circus at all. It is mind boggling, and I went, and it was mind-boggling those people cannot do what they did. And they do it all the time. They do it in performance after performance. They do it with increasing complexity and creativity. And over the years, we've seen the circus LA many times, and every time I see them. I walk away, thinking they cannot do what I just saw them do. But I saw them do it. It. It's mind boggling in another realm. Russell wilson. Okay. I live north of Seattle. So obviously Hammet Seattle Seahawks fan. Russell Wilson the NFL quarterback cannot do what he does. I've watched him for years. And you cannot convince me that he is a human being. Because he simply does the impossible over and over and over again. What does it mean when the impossible becomes possible? Does it mean that we just don't know enough to realize that the impossible thing is possible, and therefore when it comes to things like photography, which we know a lot about. There is no impossibility because were too much on the inside of what it takes to be successful for graphically. Or is it a flaw in photography itself? That is to say is the mechanical nature of photography working against it sense of impossibility when someone who knows nothing about photography can get lucky with a photograph from their iphone and make something that looks at least there, I every bit as good as an Ansel Adams, masterpiece will does that remove some of that sense of impossibility from the very realm of photography. Is it even important that photography has the possibility of expressing the impossible? Maybe it's more like the novelists who never seem to make me feel blown away. That what they've created in their novel is impossible, even. Though, I don't know anything about writing a novel, but it's something about the novel itself, I can have the impression that what they've done is clever. I can have the impression that what they've done is interesting and unique and different and I would have never thought about that way. And so they've shown me something, but it's not that I look at it and think this simply cannot be done, but they've done it. So all of this leads me to wonder are there arts, where there is impossibility made possible. That is part of the magic and other arts, maybe like photography novel writing where there is no impossibility to the production. There is only cleverness an insight and sensitivity and other attributes but not impossibility. I remember when I first saw Bruce barn bombs worked from the slit canyons thirty. Years ago, I remember looking at it and thinking I have no idea how he did this. But I still wasn't blown away with the impossibility of the same way, I was when I was looking at those suits of armor, I knew that he obviously had some technique that I didn't know. But I also had the feeling that I could learn it, and that I could no it, and maybe that's what motivated me to take workshop from him because I figured, he could teach me how to do what he had done and make his images even more possible than I assumed they would be, but I can tell you, I know if I spent my life, studying metallurgy and sculpture, there's no way I could make a suit of armor, like those ones, I saw at the Chicago Art Institute. I'm not exactly sure where all of this leads me in terms of thinking about photography and thinking about. Other arts. But I know it's an experience that I have, and I can't help but feel that there's something important in that sense of the possible, maybe that even at cracks me to photography. Because if I felt it was impossible, maybe I wouldn't even try.

Brooks Jensen Chicago Art Institute Russell wilson Seattle editor Cirque du Soleil Europe YouTube Japan Paul strand Yuji Wong Stieglitz Ansel Adams Bruce Seahawks NFL LA two minute
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

09:59 min | 1 year ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"If you like Brooks Jensen's podcasts, check out his new video series, titled. Here's a thought these short one to two minute videos will give you a daily dose of creativity. And something to think about the three most recent videos are available to everyone at daily dot lens, work dot com. The entire backups owed archive is always available to members of lens work online. And now, here's the editor of lens work publishing. Brooks jackson. In these podcasts. I often try to provide some sort of concrete, and usable idea sometimes from my own experience. Most often it's ideas that I've picked up from other creative types both otographer and non photographers, and I try to share them in this podcast in a way that makes them well, usable that is to say specific indefinite things that you might want to try and your creative life in this podcast. However, I'm gonna be asking some questions rather than attempting to provide any answers because I simply don't have one. But I am as curious as can be about this train of thought it has to do with cross pollination. Here's a couple of foundational ideas. The first of which is there is this thing called the arts. But there's lots of different kinds of arts. Of course, we have the performing arts think of theater, and dance and singing and music, etc. Then there's the. Visual arts, which for my definition. I'm going to include sculpture, and installation art and physical things that exist in the three dimensional world as three dimensional artwork, which would not include necessarily painting, although there are some three dimensional techniques and painting and pasta cetera. But anyway, let's think of the visual arts as being three dimensional arts and then separated from that the graphic arts, which are painting, photography drawing, watercolor et cetera. That are represented on a flat plane, so these three different kinds of arts the performing arts visual arts and the graphic arts. Let's think about them a little more with the objective of trying to think about cross pollination. Now, I have to tell you the reason I'm thinking about this is because of an experience I've had with the world of audio books. I love audiobooks love listening while I'm in the. Car. I love the experience of being read to if you will. But there are two very different kinds of audio books. And they are as different as different can be the first is what I would call a simple narration. This is where someone picks up a book and simply reads it and records their reading of the book, you can see lots and lots and lots of examples of this over to place, like libra, vox dot org. Libra vox is a volunteer effort where people read audiobooks it's all done for free. It's all copyright free materials, and it's a fabulous community kind of project. Most of the people who volunteer their efforts to read a book, however, are not what I would call professional narrators. They're just people who read and it shows in the recordings that they make their very competent readers, but they're not performers. And that's the second group. There's a whole group of audio books that are literally a performance by oftentimes a talented, actor or actress who performs the audio book complete with characterization of the different speakers in the audiobook, accents, voice, inflection, etc. These are literally audio only performances similar to the highest quality independent or Hollywood movies. It's just there isn't a visual component is just an audio performance and listening to those audio performance type narrations is a completely different experience from listening to some well, meaning, but non-professional reader read a book, the audio performance can be a magical experience, particularly when I read along while listening to an audio book, which obviously can't do in the car. But a lot of times rather than fire up the television or watch a movie or Netflix or something in the evening all pull up one of these audio book performances and the book, and I'll read along as the performer the actor actress performs the audio book. And it's a marvelous experience what an interesting and fascinating cross pollination between the performing arts, and in this case the written word, it's that cross pollination that is so interesting. I I got onto the idea of cross pollination as an Ed junked to creativity years and years and years ago when I read a book or this goes back to the mid eighties by a guy name Roger Vanek, o e c h he wrote a book called a whack on the side of the head how you can be more creative. And there's all kinds of ideas in his book about the creative life and how to come up with. Creative ideas, particularly for photography in the graphic arts. He has some really, wonderful ideas. It's a great book still in print. So if you're not familiar with it, a whack on the side of the head. He also has another book that sort of goes with it came out a little later called a kick in the seat of the pants and the two of these books together, I think are just terrific. Well, one of the key ideas that he talks about in a whack on the side of the head is how creative it can be to take two things that look like they don't go together. Or normally don't go together. And combine them somehow as a matter of fact, I go so far as to say that that is one of the keys to motivating creative thought process is simply associated to things that don't look like they go together. For example. What happens if we combine jackhammer and pumpkin? Oh, wait a minute. That's been done. The comedian Gallagher did a similar thing when he combined the world of sledgehammers and watermelons, and it became hilarious. He made a career of smashing watermelons and spraying the people in the front of the audience with these things, but you get the idea if we combine two things that don't go together. How can they fit and create something that is really terrific. But maybe perhaps wouldn't normally occur to us. This was the basic tool that I used when I came up with the idea of folios, how can I combine the idea of a book and a traditional clam shell portfolio box and somewhere in between is this thing. I call folio that is a publication that consists of individual sheets of paper that are not mounted in map board, but are contained unit in an art paper enclosure, and I call him a phone. Folio? So it's the combination of two ideas that don't naturally go together that created a third idea. That's turned out to be an incredibly useful thing for me in my art career. Well, how do we take the stage or the theater and combine it with the novel? What you end up with is the performance audio book. And it's a marvelous thing, well, at least for me, and for all the people who love audiobooks from audible and the various places where you can get them. It's a terrific way to read that is to say listen to or listen and read a novel. So what I'm wondering about is. How do we do this with photography? How do we take a performing art who's great advantageous attribute is that it takes place in time and a visual art like sculpture that has the great advantage. Ages attribute of existing in three dimensional space. And the graphic arts photography and painting, which have the great advantageous attribute of freezing the moment. How do we freeze the moment in three dimensional space in performance the takes place over time? I don't know how to do that. Like, I say, I don't have any answers. But the idea is intriguing to me somehow getting the photograph out of the map board out of the frame off the wall, maybe even not in a fully oh or chat book. How do we create something that has all of these elements? I'm starting to see people play with this idea in the form of voice over with text slide show presentations on YouTube, that's a sense of cross pollination of the still photograph with text with ambient noise with performance noise. It's a fascinating idea. I wish I could give you some more concrete examples of people who were doing this. But I just don't have them at hand. Maybe you do maybe you can give me some recommendations of people who have cross pollinated photography with other media with other. Ideas and come up with something really new. I think it's got all kinds of potential now. It's just a matter of frigging out the answers.

Brooks Jensen Brooks jackson editor Netflix YouTube Hollywood Roger Vanek Gallagher Ed two minute
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

10:14 min | 1 year ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"If you like Brooks Jensen's podcasts, check out his new video series, titled. Here's a thought these short one to two minute videos will give you a daily dose of creativity. And something to think about the three most recent videos are available to everyone at daily dot lens, work dot com. The entire backups owed archive is always available to members of lens work online. And now, here's the editor of lens work publishing. Brooks jackson. I wanna talk a little bit about image and text which is a topic that comes up with some frequency in my podcasts. I guess because I think it's so important. There is no question that I'm seeing more and more photographers work in terms of groups of image small projects, if you will sometimes big projects that form books exhibitions at the very least. But I should also include things like handmade artist's books PDF's websites and other forms of presentation that take the individual photograph off the wall and out of the frame and put it in amongst some of its Pierce, so project oriented photography is sort of an outgrowth, I think perhaps of digital photography, which makes putting together groups easier than it's ever been before not only stylistically, but were simply making more photographs and what we're finding at least a lot of us are finding. Is that we can say something in a group of photographs that can't be said by an individual photograph all by itself. This is nothing new. It's been around for as long as photography has been around. And in particular since the book format became so popular for distributing photographs in the middle part of the twentieth century, so image and text is something that we need to get up to speed on most photography. I see. These days is technically very good the tools and machines and software that we're using make the creation of a really stunningly. Good photograph. Not nearly the challenge that it was for previous generations. But adding text or images is still something. I think we need to practice on. It's more like image text combinations. Are the cutting edge of today's photography where technical excellence was the cutting edge of photography sixty years ago. So I'd like to spend just a few. Minutes talking about the potential of image in text, and how we might think about putting things together. First and foremost, we should recognize what the goal of image and text is the goal is to reveal something. And I think it's important to think about that word reveal what does it mean to reveal something it means to show something that can't be seen isn't that interesting in the sense of photography where photographers were group of people who make things so that they can be seen outside of location outside of time that they can be seen permanently. But the goal of image in Texas reveal something else something that literally can't be seen even if we've photographed it. So that gives us the first clue of what image in tex- combinations. Are not the purpose of text is not to describe what we can see in the photogr. Raff? If that's all the text does is give us words. A verbal representation of what we can see it's going to be I in adequate second redundant third unnecessary. So a title or a caption or some sort of text that simply verbalize is what's visible in the photograph is a wasted opportunity. Just as photography has the power to show in incredible detail which words don't do because they're too cumbersome words have power that photographs don't have. And that is the element of time both before or after the moment of the photograph. We know that a photograph is a tiny slice of time. The proverbial sixty th of a second. But what happened just before or the hour before or the day before or just after the hour after the day after? Can influence how we think about a photograph. And that's something that only text can do. So that's the first clue is used text to do something that photographs can't and text can tell us something before or after that moment of exposure. Text can also introduce the element of movement. Here. I'm thinking about humans and human movement the spoken word or perhaps the unspoken thought, and if the text is going to represent the spoken word or the unspoken thought then the first question is who is speaking. Or who is thinking, and there's a whole bunch of possible ways to answer that question. It can be someone off camera who saying something of interest about what we see or making a comment against slightly before slightly after the moment of exposure, the person speaking or the unspoken thought can be you the photographer you can be commenting on what it is. You're seeing through your camera. So it can be first person experiential, and that can take all kinds of forms can be diarist. Ick. It can be epistolary. It can be commentary. It can be thought bubbles. It could be anything, but you can make comments on your own photographs the person speaking or with the unspoken thought can be the subject of the photograph. We could see that person. But we can't see them speaking. And we can't see what it is that they're thinking, but the text could tell us that. And of course, all the means of expressing themselves can be used again, a quote a handwritten letter a postcard or whatever another option for who is speaking. Or the unspoken thought can be third person omniscient. This is the way a lot of novelists. Right. So that they have the ability to see what everybody's thinking and what everybody's doing simultaneously. They're not limited to what they actually observe the third person. Omniscient commentator on the scene can be a useful tool for using text and image together to and another option for who is speaking. Ng or having the unspoken thought could be a quote from famous person, you could use, you know, Shakespeare, whoever in your text to illustrate something that you wanna get across that goes with your image. There's lots of variations I'm just sort of scratching the surface. But the point is to think about what text can do, and who is going to be the source of that text now from a logistics point of view. We can also talk about where the text is used think first of the classic image in a frame on the wall a gallery. The text can be on a placard or card to the side of the image, not part of the artwork, but supplemental to the Arik we see that done a lot. That's where a title often goes or sometimes even caption, but that's not the only option you can insert text below or in the margins of the photograph. On the photographic paper that contains the print or on the screen that contains the image. You can take your text and write it inside the image. So it's handwritten but overlaying the top of the image. That's particularly easy. These days with all the digital tools. We have for doing post processing Photoshop etcetera. It's pretty easy to use either typography or hand written notes inside the image. And again, the form of that text can be something that happens before the photograph. Something happens after the photograph spoken word unspoken thought at cetera. You also photograph subjects in the real world that have text in them think of signs and buildings and placards and cetera that text can also be used somehow in text and image combinations. By the way, our generation is not inventing any of this. It's all been done before. Go look at the work of Duane Michaels. For example, he's probably best known for imaging text combinations. But there's lots of others worth the trip to the library worth a trip to photography bookstore to pay attention to people are using image in tex- combinations. I guess to sort of sum up the purpose of text is to add movement time sound dimension, and perhaps life that's not included in the image. But that the combination of the image and text end up creating something that's great in some of the parts as they say, if the text simply says, what's in the photograph, it's unnecessary. If the photograph simply illustrates what we read in the text, then the photograph is unnecessary. But when the two work together and create a little moment in time that expands beyond the moment of photographic. Capture and expands beyond what is into what happened. Then I think there's potential for all kinds of fun, all kinds of creativity all kinds of deeper communication than simply this is what something looked like. And in that process. We will have revealed something that cannot be seen.

Brooks Jensen Brooks jackson editor Duane Michaels Raff Texas overlaying Photoshop Ng Shakespeare sixty years two minute
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

09:47 min | 1 year ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"If you like Brooks Jensen's podcasts, check out his new video series, titled. Here's a thought these short one to two minute videos will give you a daily dose of creativity. And something to think about the three most recent videos are available to everyone at daily dot lens, work dot com. The entire backups owed archive is always available to members of lens work online. And now, here's the editor of lens work publishing. Brooks jackson. Couple of years ago, when I was in China had a fascinating experience that taught me a lot about not just China, but about photography in general during the trip we were photographing in a really beautiful area called the Mulan paddock. And there were a number of Chinese photographers and a number of American, photographers. We were all photographing the same place at the same time. And then we were going to have a cultural exchange to see what each other had photographed. It was a lot of fun. But one of the Chinese photographers came up to me at one point during the trip and commented through a translator. Of course. How interesting it was that I felt comfortable coming to such a major international event with such a modest camera. I was there with a Panasonic microphone thirds camera. And of course, he had some giant something or other Nikon camera with a huge lens on it. And we had a short conversation about. Equipment. And I tried to explain the fact that for the work that I do that camera even though it's relatively small fit my needs. And he thought that was quite fascinating. And I brought up his comments at dinner that night and one of the translators explained to me something that had never occurred to me, and that is in China in particular, but I suspect this is true around the world. A camera is quite a status symbol if you're doing well enough that you can afford not just a camera, but lenses, accoutrements and most importantly, the expense of travel that this is some sort of indication that you're doing pretty well in society, and that you're at the top of the economic ladder. I thought that was fascinating. And like I said it never occurred to me that cameras were that I tend to think of him just as tools, but it made sense from his perspective. Then that I came to a major event with a relatively humble camera. Not really using my cameras a bragging, right? I thought a lot about his comments since I came back from China, and it occurred to me that maybe we undergo the same thing here. Not so much that having the camera around your neck as a status symbol. But rather what kind of camera you have do you have a camera with the big sense? Sir or even better medium format sensor and how many mega pixels? Does your camera? Having does any of that imply a certain status for you as a photographer and it sector, even though it's maybe not particularly serious. There may be some element of that. Because more is better. Right. I'm reminded of a story a friend of mine told me years ago when he was out buying a new computer, and he'd gone to the computer store and was describing what his needs were and they selected a computer. And at that point the salesperson said, well, what about a new monitor, and my friend said, well, why do I need a new monitor salesperson says, well, what size do you have. And he said, oh, I don't know. It's about this big the fellow said, well, it must be a nineteen inch monitor a lot of people use nineteen inch monitors. But of course, an even better monitor is twenty one inch monitor. But if you wanna step up a little bigger than that. The next step would be a twenty four inch monitor which is fantastic. And then there's of course, twenty seven inch monitors which are even better in the cat's meow is a thirty inch monitor which is the greatest thing on the marketplace. Now brand new and they're just terrific, and my friend was sort of nonplussed at this idea. And he said, why would I possibly need a thirty inch monitor and salesman paused for moment Ince's because this is America. Hi lab with that story of retype because there is some truth to it bigger is better. Right. Well, do we really need? Big cameras. Big sensors. Big megapixel counts, I've made some huge images. Eight foot. Ten foot images by using stitching techniques with my relatively modest cameras, and they were great with certain subject material, and the kinds of things that I photograph and my newest camera which happens to be a Pentagon Jeanine has this multiple exposure. Hi rez mode that gives me images without stitching that are higher resolution than the sensor would normally offer. I'm not sure I would ever need to have a big, you know, forty or fifty megapixel camera. Well, what what about the sensor size bigger is better there too. Right. More more more. That's what we need. And supposedly. So it keeps the noise down. Will you know, if we're really worried about noise, maybe we use low ISO's, and maybe we take advantage of the new stabilization systems, the AIBA systems in the inland systems that work together. So that we can shoot at lower isos and still get knows free images. And by the way, going back and doing some statistical analysis of this. I looked at the meta data of my light room catalogue and found that literally two thirds of my images since I started digital photography. I've shot at the base ISO of the camera, which is always going to be pretty noise free. But again that has to do with the kinds of photographs that I make the kinds of subjects that I work with. And in fact, only two point two percent of the images that I've captured and I I have almost one hundred thousand images now. In my light room, catalog only two point two percent of them are at isos higher than eight hundred again, the caveat is that's an indication of the kinds of things that I photograph and want to photograph. So no as has just never been an issue for me. And of course, I often hear people who are advocates of large megapixel camera safe things like well. Yes, you can crop. Okay, fine. But that's why they make zoom lenses and feet. We can walk closer farther away to get the cropping that we want, and in fact, I propose there's an inverse cropping crop up. That's a problem in the sense that most high megapixel cameras shoot in a three two ratio. Which is not one of my preferred ratios for most of my work. I prefer either four to three or square. That's not because I'm shooting microphones. It's just always. An aspect racial photographs that I've preferred something that's not quite so long. And if I go long rather than go three two two, I'd rather go sixteen to nine or perhaps even wider net into a full blown panorama so four to three is my sort of normal aspect ratio in which case if I were to shoot with a camera that had an aspect ratio of three to I'd have to crop the left and right hand edges in order to end up with my preferred four three aspect ratio, which means a twenty four megapixel camera would only produce about twenty one mega pixels of usable data, which is basically for all intents and purposes what I get with my native microphone third. So I'm not trying to make a case for microphone thirds. I'm not trying to make a case for lower megapixel cameras. I can't do that. Because I don't know what kind of Taga for the rest of the world does all I can say is that for my kind of photography. Which is mostly landscape work, mostly abstracts. It's you can take a look at it over at Brooks Jackson, Arentz dot com for the kind of work that I do all the issues that seem to drive the industry towards more mega pixels, larger sensors, etc. That's all meaningless fluff to me because it doesn't pertain to the kind of work that I do. And that really is my point is that if you wanna think about what camera is appropriate for you, and how many mega pixels you need, and what sensor size you need and all the rest of that kind of technical stuff and purchasing research cetera et cetera. Maybe it's worthwhile looking at some data. What do you actually do? What is your light room catalog show, you that you tend to favor in terms of not only isos but relative to subject material cetera. And do you really need? What those new? Fancier more expensive cameras offer. Or are you better off just to stay with what you have sometimes looking back and analyzing data is the best way to make a decision about moving forward. And whether or not you need new equipment.

China Brooks jackson Brooks Jensen Mulan paddock Nikon editor AIBA Panasonic Pentagon salesman America Ince nineteen inch thirty inch two percent twenty seven inch twenty four inch
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

11:22 min | 1 year ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"If you like Brooks Jensen's podcasts, check out his new video series, titled. Here's a thought these short one to two minute videos will give you a daily dose of creativity. And something to think about the three most recent videos are available to everyone at daily dot lens, work dot com. The entire backups owed archive is always available to members of lens work online. And now, here's the editor of lens work publishing. Brooks jackson. Many of us are working in projects. These days that I'm surprised the topic topping titles hasn't come up before at least not as thoroughly as should because. Well, if you don't have a title, you kind of don't have a project, or at least a way to identify it as a project. So here are some thoughts on titles. This topic occurs to me, by the way, because of some of the recent reviews, I did at photo seed in Portland and the topic of titles came up over and over again. So I thought I'd share it here in this podcast. It can best be l'estrange by one of the reviews that I did that was for a project entitled unusual rocks, and I suppose on the surface. It doesn't look like there's anything wrong with that title. But I think it's a missed opportunity by that. I mean to say that a title has several very important things. It needs to do for our project. And if it doesn't. Do that. We've missed an opportunity. So let me start off with something that is kind of a rule. But of course, we're creative people in you know, that every time there's a rule there's a series of exceptions to the rule. So kind of like the rule of thirds, which of course, doesn't guarantee a great photograph. It is useful tool that sometimes can be beneficial. And sometimes you have to know when not to use it that is to say a rule can be successfully used because it enhances the project, and it can be successfully ignored because that enhances the project part of the challenges to know when to use a rule and when not to use rule, but anyway, here's the rule that I often use and find very useful. When thinking about titles for projects, do not title your project with a noun and in particular, don't use the title for your project. What it is that you photographed. I can illustrate that with my unusual rocks example, when we look at the pictures, we know immediately that they are unusual rocks. We don't need the title to tell us that we're going to see unusual rocks. As a matter of fact with that title, looking at the photographs sort of becomes redundant or if the photographs don't become redundant than at the very least the title becomes redundant. If the title is simply a description of what you've photographed then it's not really necessary because we'll see that in the photographs and the opportunity of doing something else with the title is gone. So I'm suggesting that a title needs to have a different kind of purpose. The first thing title needs to do is it needs to seduce us. Here's the way, I often think about this. Let's imagine that you've created a project and put a lot of time and energy and thought into it, and your heart and soul because you're a creative artist. And here I am a member of the public and I'm walking down the street. I'm on my lunch hour, and I don't know you. I've never heard of you. I don't know anything about your artwork. I don't care about your artwork. It's not a part of my life. It's not even something. I know I missing in my life, but I'm walking down the street, tending my own business. I'm thinking about my to do the day. I gotta take my kids to soccer, you know, etc. But all of a sudden I pass by a gallery where your artwork is being exhibited. And perhaps I see an image in the window and the title of your work, those two things have to seduce me to one interrupt my life and give you a little bit of my time. So let's say that yours does that explain more about this just a minute. But let's say that your title and your image in the window do that. And I say, hey, I've got forty five minutes on my lunch hour here. I think I'll go in and take a look at this photographic exhibition. So I go into the gallery, I spend the forty five minutes going around looking at all of your images. And now my time is up and I'm headed for the exit door. As I put my hand on the door and get ready to exit. There is something at that moment that you want me to take with me, intellectually a not talking about books or printed. I might about bought I'm saying, there's a concept. There's an idea there's a revelation there's a bit of wisdom or knowledge or perhaps just a question or some awareness that you want me to leave the gallery with that. I did not have when I entered if I don't leave with anything that I didn't have when I entered then you've made no impact on me. I haven't gained anything by having given you forty five minutes of my time to look at all of your work. So clearly there is something you must want me to get to understand that. I didn't have when I walked in. And what is that? That is the most important question that you can think about with. Your project because once you know, what it is. You want me to have that? I didn't have when I entered the gallery that will help you determine things like what is the title? And maybe which images go in the project, and which are excluded. How you process those images? How you sequence those images how many images what the introductory text art to say if there is introduction, text, or maybe just with a sentence of subtitle or something you can help get that across. If you don't know what it is. You want me leave with? Then how can you make sure that all the decisions that you've made in the process of putting this project together are helping to achieve that objective. So with every project, I think it's worth while thinking, what is it that you're trying to accomplish in the viewer's mind, and then sort of reverse engineer from that what you will find. If you think this little mental exercise through is that the noun title that is to say by titling, your work. What it is you photograph provides no seduction as I walked past the gallery provides no hint about what it is that you want me to understand or know or think about provides no clues for why I ought to be interested in your work at all. So that title is an opportunity for you to tell me a little bit about what you might. Want me to know and probably not always. But very very often. That title is going to include emotional words, conceptual words words that helped me think about ideas, rather than what it is that you've photographed as a matter of fact, what it is that you've photographed lives in service of that grander idea. And that's why I say that it helps you determine what your edit in your final collection of images will include once you know, what your autumn it objective is in terms of sharing something with an audience. It's not easy to think this through probably you're starting with a pilot prince or images in light room collection, and those don't naturally have title to them. Okay. So that's all well and good. But how do you actually come up with the words? That will be the title. Well, there are some methods at work and some methods don't work in to begin with the method that never works leased. It doesn't for me is to sit down with a blank piece of paper and a pencil and try to come up with a title writer's block kicks in that piece of paper stares back at us. It just doesn't work, but here's a method that I have found that works incredibly, well, as a matter of fact, I don't think it ever fails. It's almost a flawless method to come up with a great title that is both seductive and not merely descriptive of what it is that you photographed. And here's the technique. Find a friend of photo buddy of spouse, someone you can talk to about your photography and have them interview you about your body of work. And by the way, have them prepare a list of a few questions to ask you that. You don't know about before. Forehand. Because your answers will be more useful to you. If you haven't pre thought them that is to say, if you're speaking extemporaneously about your project, which by the way, you can I guarantee you if you and I sat down with your project. We could probably spend an hour to talking about everything that has to do with that project and your methods, and your ideas and your thoughts, and what you want me to get talking about your work is relatively easy. So that's the key to this technique is you're simply going to talk about it. And although talking is the method that makes this work the key to it is to record that interview. Get a tape recorder little digital recorder, your iphone and just record the conversation as your friend or foe, buddy, interviews, you once you have that done and you've recorded the whole thing, then transcribe that recording. I guarantee you somewhere in that bit of transcription you will. Find the three or four powerful emotional words that are the title. You're searching for for your project that tell us what you want us to get that idea. You want us to understand? And that almost always provides the necessary seduction to get people interested in your body, a work. And by the way, not only will you likely find the three words or four words that are the great title for your project. But probably that transcription will also be fantastic start on your introductory text. Or your artist's statement about the work that precedes it or goes up on the wall, or as the preface to your book, or whatever the case may be so don't right just talk. And that's something that all of us can do.

Portland Brooks Jensen Brooks jackson editor soccer engineer writer forty five minutes two minute
"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

LensWork

12:06 min | 1 year ago

"brooks jensen" Discussed on LensWork

"If you like Brooks Jensen's podcasts, check out his new video series, titled. Here's a thought these short one to two minute videos will give you a daily dose of creativity. And something to think about the three most recent videos are available to everyone at daily dot lens, work dot com. The entire back episode archive is always available to members of lens work online. Here's the editor of lens work publishing. Brooks jackson. If you've been following along with this series of podcast, you know, just recently returned from photo Lucija where I had a chance to review, oh, roughly sixty portfolios, and I saw a trend that I think is very interesting, and I'd like to share that with you here in this podcast. And it starts with an acknowledgement that I saw at photo Lucija an unbelievable number of really terrific footer graphs. Lots and lots and lots of them. And you know, if we look back in history that statement takes on a different perspective. Think back a generation or two let's think about, you know, Ansel Adams Edward Weston in that generation of photographers, and how incredibly difficult it was for them to make a really terrific print, particularly a really terrific large print which in those days was maybe sixteen by twenty inches. Something like that. When they made a fantastic print that was beautifully crafted and had exquisite tones and cetera. And they showed it to an audience the audience would applaud simply because the -ccomplish -ment of their print was so fantastic. Of course, they still had to have emotional, content and composition and all the rest of it. That makes great photograph. But the wow factor was just about as much based on the technical accomplishment as it was on anything else because the materials they had to work with were so primitive and so stubborn and so almost impossible. And so lots of us who started our careers in the wet darkroom know, exactly what an accomplishment an Ansel Adams had when he made those gorgeous large prints. It was amazing. But now, let's move forward in time to today. I probably saw in the last week somewhere in the neighborhood of I don't know, maybe three or four thousand fantastically crafted, photographs using all kinds of media all kinds of presentations Fanta. I didn't see a bad photograph in the entire of aunt. So doesn't it seem obvious that the challenges that the previous generations of Tigers had is different than the challenges? We had what was a fantastic accomplishment for them back. Then is sort of the beginning point for us making a well crafted photograph today is let's be honest, pretty easy. The tools and machines and the technology that we have at our disposal today. Make the creation of a stunning photograph. Just not that big of an accomplishment. So back, then they're great challenge was to manifest technological competence in service of an artistic statement. But today, we don't have that same challenge of technological competence. Yeah. We have to know computers. Yeah. The cameras more complex, but it's relatively easy and thousands of people are accomplishing it on a regular basis. So what is our great challenge today? Will the answer to that question really showed up when I was reviewing the portfolios at photo Sita because almost every one of the photographers started from the same position that is to say they had a pile of prince portfolio box. Lots of great images, and some form of idea the projects were about something, and they were trying to communicate that, but very few of them, did it successfully. Instead what they had was sort of a series of questions. How do I get where I want to go, and maybe they came up with some rather wrote answers. I want an exhibition or I want a book, but they didn't really have any ideas about how they wanted to have an exhibition or what the exhibition would look like or how the book would be formatted and produced, and what the content of the book would be what they had was a pilot prince in an idea and that led me. To remember something had written in a previous editors commented lens work. So we talked about it a lot at footer Lucija. And that's this idea, by the way. I apologize for the word. I wish I could come up with a better word, but it's the best one I've come up with and that is the idea of packaging our artwork for consumption by viewers. How do we package it? How do we put it all together? How do we convert it from a pile of prints into some form of finished media that we can share with people that's going to involve all kinds of interim decisions like how do we title project, which I'll talk about in another podcast which images? Do we use? What's the sequence we should use? How about the scale? How big should be. Should I make giant wall prints, or should I make relatively small prints is this project appropriate for a gallery wall? Or is it better for a book? Or is it better? For multimedia presentation, what kind of medium, should I use to manifest this project in its completed form, and what I found universally at foothill Sita was there were only one or two photographers who had thought this through all the rest of them were right up against that question. How do I finish this? How do I package it? What form does it take? And then they got stuck. I think it's the great challenge for today's generation of otographer is to think these issues through I found many many photographers who said I want an exhibition. Okay, fine. Well, let's look at the gallery world what water what galleries tend to do these days. And I tried to explain to them. That galleries fall into one of three basic types. There are some others, but three basic types and the three basic types are it goes good above the couch. That is. To say, they're basically selling decor. Then there are galleries who sell photographs that are great collectible and probably investment collectible images because they're made by famous dead guys. None of the people at fulfill Lucy fit that category. And the third kind of galleries are those who exist in support of a cause they have some cause that they believe in. Maybe it's a social cause or a political cause or something else. But they exist for the purpose of supporting the cost. So if they're just to take an example, if their causes save the whales, and you have a save the whales kind of project, they might be interested in it. But if they're interested in save the whales, and you have a project about immigration. They're not going to be interested in your project at all because it doesn't serve their cause. And many many times when I clarify. Died. What galleries do suddenly the photographer saw that? Maybe that's not such a great idea. So they'd say, well, okay. What I want is a book I want to complete this as a book, and when they would say they wanted to finish a book, then we'd have a conversation about what a book is a book is a commercial commodity. It's not a great way to complete a project or to have a project validated because it's incredibly expensive. And I cannot tell you the number of otographer, I know who have, you know, five hundred thousand copies of their book sitting in their garage getting older every day because they don't know what to do with them a book exists because there's a market for it. There's no other reason to produce a book. I haven't think of it this way if you were manufacturing clock radios instead of artwork, you would ask questions like what can we Bill? As a clock radio manufactured. That's not currently being supplied in the marketplace. And are there people who are interested in buying such a clock radio? And can we manufacture it at the price that the consumer wants to pay will those are very odd? Questions to ask about artwork, particularly if it's self motivated personally expressive artwork. You don't wanna have to modify what you make for the marketplace? But that's oftentimes what happens in a book a book is a commercial commodity. There are other ways you can achieve a completion to a project other media that might be more appropriate unless expensive there's other ways to get validation for your project other than a commercially printed book, so exhibition and book publication are absolutely the robotic answers that most photographers give when asked about what it is that they would. Like to do with their project, but an exhibition in a book or not always the best answer. And in fact, are rarely the best answer. Which is why I continue to say that the great challenge for our generation of Taga Fers is to figure out how to package our work for consumption. What makes sense both in terms of what people are interested in seeing what we're interested in spending. How we're going to distribute work and that only addresses the questions about media, then there's also the questions about content. How do we title it? What's our tax? Do we use text and image combinations? Or not how big these prints need to be in order to be comprehended in their totality. How small can they be before they start to fail to communicate or do? They actually strengthen if they get smaller. Is it best to take the work and push it a little harder towards the? Documentary end of the scale that is to say, you're describing the world or is it better to push it towards the fictional end of the scale where you're doing first person experiential or out and out photo fiction. These are questions about how we finish the work and how we package the work, and how we move from a pilot prints with a motivating idea that holds them together in our mind into a finished something or other that connects with an audience so that they understand the content of what it is that we're trying to say that is today's great challenge packaging our work for consumption. It's a brave new world out there with lots of possibilities. And it by default requires from us today's photographers a lot of creativity to think about how we're going to share our work. And I might add with whom.

Ansel Adams Brooks Jensen Brooks jackson editor foothill Sita Edward Weston Sita Lucy Bill twenty inches two minute