Category: Uncategorized

What Is a Photograph?

by Joseph T Sinclair

Digital art, regardless of how you make it, comes out flat and two-dimensional. I suppose one exception is a 3D movie and another is a 3D photo sterocope (antique). But this article concerns only two-dimensional photographs. The significance of two dimensions is that a work can be printed on a printer, shown on a screen (e.g., computer monitor), painted on a canvas, displayed on other flat surfaces, or any and all of the preceding. That’s something to keep in mind when trying to decide what is a photograph. You need words to make distinctions (labels, categorical names). There is no third dimension to help make distinctions.

To begin this analysis, there are some people who argue adamantly that only a photograph untouched by manipulation is a photograph. This is an absurd dogma at a time when every photographer has access to a powerful digital darkroom (e.g., Photoshop). Even in the predigital era, for example, a noted photographer Ansel Adams made his fame by clever manipulation in a chemical darkroom.

Thus, manipulating photographs is nothing new. Digital technology has just made it easier and more powerful. And almost every photographer uses such technology.

The problem is that when one manipulates a photograph too much, is it still a photograph? Too much is a judgmental question. And no one owns the definition of the word photograph. Consequently, any dogma that declares that some photographs are not photographs or are bogus photographs is obviously deficient.

So, let’s take some examples. Suppose one accentuates the color saturation in a photograph (e.g., in Photoshop). Is it still a photograph? Remember Fiji Velvia film? A very colorful film with accentuated color saturation. It’s difficult to claim a Velvia photograph is not a photograph.

This photograph is +100 saturated in Photoshop (looks like Velvia)

For another example, it turns out the moon is tiny in most landscape photographs. If one pastes in a larger moon, is it still a photograph?

Of course, it is. And what if you subtract something from a photograph (a common practice)? Is it still a photograph? Or is it a bogus photograph?

Unfortunately, to some people these techniques are cheating. But since no one owns the word photograph, the cheating analysis can’t stand.

HDR
If you overuse HDR (high dynamic range) processing in Photoshop too much, your photograph starts to look like an artist’s color pencil drawing. And with more even HDR processing, it eventually becomes a color pencil drawing, in effect. Is a heavily HDR-processed image still a photograph?

If you think there is an immutable definition of photograph, where do you draw the line? Obviously, some manipulation may be acceptable to you, but other manipulation is not. The fact is, where you draw the line is your dogma (perhaps your evangelistic pursuit) and probably doesn’t exactly match anyone one else’s.

The latest leap into this quagmire is a photograph created by AI (artificial intelligence). Is an AI photograph really a photograph? Of course, it is. Who is to say it’s not?

Recently Boris Eldagsen won a prestigious Sony world photography award. He then revealed that the photograph was AI-generated. The photograph is very compelling. But some people felt betrayed. The photograph was created by a careful selection of words fed into an AI generator. Does that make it any less a photograph than an Ansel Adams’ mountain severely crafted in a chemical darkroom? Certainly not.

Perhaps someday there will be accepted labels that distinguish photographs created in different ways. Until then, it’s all very fuzzy and controversial.

Eldagsen’s AI generated prize-winning photograph
Where’s the creativity?
For AI, there’s the proper selection of words to run the AI generator. This is a creative act and can be a very complex chore. In addition, when one gets a desirable photograph from AI, one might be likely to do some digital manipulation to make it better. It could be said that this is more work than running out and shooting a normal photograph.
AI unrelated to photography
AI has implications for societal and technological changes unrelated to photography. Many even seek legislation as an attempt to control the evolution (revolution) of AI. That’s a matter that will not immediately relate to a definition of photograph.
AI: bald eagle selfie 

There are, however, places for unmanipulated photographs taken with a camera. One is journalism. Manipulated photographs used in journalism are appropriately unethical. Journalism is expected to tell (show) the absolute truth. Likewise, in the justice system, unmanipulated photographs are required for accurate evidence. Even in the insurance business (and other normal businesses), unmanipulated photographs are important. Think about the photograph of damaged vehicle used for a claim adjustment.

There is also implied accuracy. An example is taking photographs for a travel brochure. It is implied that the photographs are not misleading (or at least not too misleading).

Then, of course, if one represents his or her photographs to be unmanipulated—but they are manipulated—that’s fraud. And fraud is socially unacceptable and even illegal in some cases.

Nonetheless, when it comes to creativity, anything goes. All artistic tools are at the disposal of creative photographers. David Hockney (leading artist) uses iPhone photographs as sketches to start his paintings. Painters, going back many centuries, used camera devices (e.g., the camera obscura) to create sketches to start their paintings; when this was first revealed a few years back, many curators and collectors thought of it as cheating. What do you do about cheaters from the 1400s? Fine them? How many guilders? And how do you collect the fines?

Photographers have been adding and subtracting images to and from photographs for decades (even in chemical darkrooms). If a photographer wants to call their work a photograph, who is to say it’s wrong (or bogus) regardless of how it was made?

Below is my photograph created by super, super saturation in Photoshop. Is it a photograph?

If it’s not a photograph, what do you call it? This gets back to the first paragraph. One needs to distinguish between photographic creations by labels, because photographs are all two-dimensional (flat). You can’t distinguish between them using a third dimension (e.g., statue, base relief). And with exploding modern technology, we don’t have widely-accepted labels to make distinctions, specifically among different kinds of photographs. This situation is likely to be temporary, perhaps for the next 25 years. But until we have the new labels (widely used), we’re stuck with ambiguous words like photograph.

For instance
Perhaps aig could become the word to label photographs created with AI; that is, AI generated. Perhaps addphoto and subphoto could become the words to label photographs created by adding or subtracting part of the image. Etc.

In the meanwhile, curators, art show judges, collectors, and the like are overrun by the new technology and are prone to dogma that they can’t easily define. This causes a great deal of friction in the photographic community.

The lesson to be learned is that one must evaluate each image (work of art) for its aesthetic value: how it tells a story, or other subjective criteria. How it was made is of no concern. It’s either evocative or informative, or it’s not. And if the artist calls it a photograph, it is. Only when photographs are used for special purposes (e.g., travel brochures, justice, journalism) is reality de rigueur.

This article just scratches the surface of complications for the word photograph. For instance, expectation is a factor. If one submits a photograph to a New York City gallery, the definition of a photograph is likely to be wide. If one submits the same photograph to a rural-county-fair-photography contest, the definition of a photograph is likely to be narrow.

This post processing is a little over baked (coupling on a train), but it’s still a photograph.

So, don’t let anyone tell you your photograph is bogus or not a photograph.

“When you show me a moving, heartfelt image that causes me to laugh, cry, think, or otherwise react, I couldn’t care less how you did it. I don’t care if you used a pinhole camera or film or an iPhone. What I care about is the image.”

Scott Bourne, 72 Essays on Photography

Cropping for a creative digital display

by Joseph T Sinclair

What is cropping a photograph for the sake of discussion in this article? It’s changing the shape of the image into something other than a rectangle. Thus, when it displays on a digital screen, it has a new shape.

  1. Create a new image in Photoshop the same dimensions of the photograph and make sure it’s all one color (white is the default).

2. Make the opacity of the image 0. This is the background layer, and the background hash will show as you work.

3. Create a second layer.

4. Import and place the photograph onto the second layer covering the entire layer. Then rasterize the layer.

5. Use the rectangular marquee tool (or another selection tool) to create a shape that you want to cut away.

6. Erase that shape; be careful to erase everything within the shape.

7. Create more shapes to cut away and erase them until you get the crop (new overall shape) you want.

8. Merge the second layer to the background layer using the merge layers tool.

9. Save as a .png (PNG – portable network graphic).

How will this display? The cutaway portions of the photograph should not show (should be invisible) on most digital displays. (On some rare digital displays, the background hash will show leaving the photograph a rectangle with the background not invisible.)

Note: this will work only if saved as a .png photo files.

If you’re going to cut away portions for a metal print, make the background layer a florescent color with full opacity so that the photo service will know where to cut. After the cuts, the metal print will have a creative shape.

Most photo services do not offer cutting. One that does is MagnaChrome:

https://magnachrome.com

Examples

More dramatic than the original:

Funny:

Useful shape:

Silhouette:

Book Report: Hockney

by Joseph T Sinclair

An art museum isn’t just a place to see pretty pictures. It’s a place to learn. So, to my surprise, I discovered David Hockney (artist-painter-photographer) in the de Young Museum bookstore (San Francisco). Had never seen his art. But more importantly had never read one of the many books by him or about him (https://www.hockney.com). How is that possible? Well, I’m not an art critic, just a guy off the street.

A new book Hockney’s Eye, the Art and Technology of Depiction (2022) edited by Gayford, Kemp, and Munro (with each chapter written by a different author) argues that according to Hockney, the artists of the past used camera devices to help paint their works of art (two-dimensional art). I remember I read something a few years back that a Flemish artist (Vermeer) had used the camera obscura to paint a classic painting. It was something of a revelation and somewhat controversial.

Hockney argues that, in fact, all artists have used cameras aids to paint, and that camera aids were and are a common artist’s tool.

Camera  Hockney’s definition of a camera is a device that captures an image, such as the camera obscura (millenniums old), the camera lucida, the graphic telescope, and the iPhone. A camera in the modern sense is a device that not only captures an image but also records it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lucida

For instance, what does the camera obscura do? It projects a real live image onto a surface (i.e., an artist’s canvas). The projected image can be any size. The artist then sketches over the image to get a realistic foundation for a painting. Until impressionism, realism (naturalism) in painting was a common artistic goal.

Interestingly, to Hockney the photograph is the most unrealistic depiction of all. It merely duplicates reality but doesn’t interpret it. It is left to the artist (painter) to interpret a scene, object, or person. No artist’s aid can create such an interpretation. Indeed, Hockney uses an iPhone as a sketch pad—the beginning of an artwork. Thus, an iPhone photograph can be the beginning of an artwork, but not the end, an interesting dogma about photography.

Nonetheless, Hockney is not limited in vision to photography as an artist’s aid. He has done some interesting artwork depicting actual photographs and has also done much experimenting in assembling multiple photographs into one complex image (a collage). His collages were exhibited in galleries around the world in 1983 and again in the first decade. He even received a letter from Henri Cartier-Bresson telling him how wonderful his photographic works are.

A street scene collage

A more comprehensible street scene collage

According to Hockney, it takes more than one photograph (more than one visual point of view) to make an interpretation. In fact, I think that one of my multi-shot panoramas is more in tune with my vision of the scene (see below) than a single shot. I consciously rejected a single shot because it just didn’t do justice to the pleasing slopes of the hill.

My 7 photographs stitched together in Photoshop

This shot was never intended to be a great photograph. This was an experiment. It was simply a photo opt that had a problem. I couldn’t capture my vision with one normal wide angle shot. The panorama (7 points of view) was the answer.

Stitched College  If Photoshop didn’t stitch together my 7 shots seamlessly, my 7-shot panorama would look similar to Hockney’s collages.

Thus, it makes sense when Hockney says that it takes more than one photograph to create a work of art.

Is that true, however? Are multiple visual points of view necessary to be considered an interpretation and thus a work of art?

What does Hockney have to teach photographers? First, his study of the use of technology to create art is a valuable guide in creating any two-dimensional art. Second, great works of art are not great because they duplicate reality. Great art always comes with an interpretation. Third, photography is not limited to single-shot photographs. In fact, a single-shot photograph can be very limiting.

Hockney is a guy who sees the iPhone camera (or any camera) primarily as an aid to painters (artists). Nonetheless, it seems to me that an iPhone isn’t just an aid to artists. Can’t you take a photograph in a way that interprets reality and thus creates art? I think so (which puts me at odds with Hockney).

Hockney (now in his 80s) is a British artist well associated with several leading British art museums, the author of many books, the creator of the stained-glass window in Westminster Abby that commemorates Queen Elizabeth’s reign, and an art experimenter reminiscent of Picasso.

Whether you like his art or not, some of his books are directly relevant to photography. And he even does some engaging artwork depicting actual photographs or creating photographic collages as illustrated above. Interestingly, some of Hockney’s paintings have odd shapes (i.e., not rectangles or squares) based on his unusual points of view.

Available Now  Odd-shaped art makes MagnaChrome’s capability to cut metal prints into any shape a compelling facility, assuming you have an eye to the future and a lust for new ideas. That is, the Hockney shapes immediately above are natural candidates for cutout metal prints.

https://magnachrome.com

But that’s not all. Hockney did his photographic experimenting long before metal prints. It seems to me his photograph collages would be much more appealing if they were cut out. For instance, his street-view collage first above (about 75 different photographs) is on a drab gray background that does nothing to add to its aesthetic value and even detracts from its appeal. If it was a cutout metal print, however, it would have more appeal, albeit with a strange shape.

To elaborate on my opinion, photography by itself can be an art (contrary to Hockney). Photographers don’t necessarily create art simply by shooting reality. And photographs don’t have to have multiple visual points of view to be valid art. Photographers have always had lots of photographic techniques to render an interpretation. And photographers now have extra-analog techniques for interpretation, such as Photoshop (i.e., digital technology). In answer to my argument, Hockney will argue that painting gives an artist much more flexibility in creating art with or without the aid of a camera. Maybe so. But that doesn’t necessarily indicate that a photograph cannot be art.

Wow!  One of Hockney’s paintings sold at a Christie auction in 2022 for $90 million. It was owned by one of his patrons.

$90 million for a nice painting of an LA swimming pool

Currently Hockney is on exhibit in London (https://lightroom.uk) with a display of his art projected on the walls. The difference between this dynamic artistic display, and other similar ones that have proceeded it, is that a living artist (Hockney) has had a hand in producing it.

Hockney has exceptional ideas about two-dimensional art, many of which are relevant to photographers. But beyond dimensions, the chapter on color is remarkable. Hockney is cognizant of the physics, physiology, and psychology of color and the role it plays in paintings. Indeed, the levels of actual colors that appear in nature are much greater than that of the color pigments (for painting). But the levels of digital color are much greater than that of pigment color.

Consequently, Hockney has taken to an iPad to paint his art. That is, Hockney now paints with an iPad as well as with a brush. This relates directly to photography wherein one can change colors subtlety or dramatically by manipulating them digitally (e.g., in Photoshop). But first one must study color in order to understand its effect on viewers. The chapter on color is a good start.

This book was published by the Fitzwilliam Museum of Cambridge University with which Hockney has a professional association. Unfortunately, the book is technical and is more fitting for college art school than for casual reading. Yet a photographer can still profit by absorbing some of it, if not all.

Please keep in mind that my review of this Hockney book may be very misleading. After all, I’m not an art critic, just a guy off the street. So, read the book yourself.

What’s the bottom line for photographers? Experiment! Experiment with Hockney’s ideas. We don’t have to do a 70-shot college. We can do a 7-shot college. We don’t have to do a panorama of a landscape. We can do a panorama of a car (at a car show). Or whatever. Experiment.

Unfortunately, experimentation is a lot of work and expense. To do my simple panorama (above) required a tripod, a special head for the tripod, and an hour’s work of getting set up and shooting; not to mention the postprocessing I did in Photoshop. And that wasn’t even an attempt to create art.

To be clear, creating worthwhile art has never been easy. And we need all the ideas we can get in order to experiment and become more creative.

Cutaways

by Joseph T Sinclair

Now that MagnaChrome offers cutting metal prints at a reasonable cost (for the intensive work it requires), It’s time to leave behind the idea that a photograph print must be displayed by a rectangle or square. In the new reality, where the LED wall screen will be the new frame of choice for photographs, one-off photograph prints will have to be something special. That is, a photograph will have to offer something more than a rectangle or square frame to reach a decorative value that surpasses an LED wall screen. Keep in mind that wooden rectangle or square frames are not enough for one-offs, because such treatment can also be given to a LED (i.e., a wooden frame around it). You need something innovative.

Cutting your metal prints into shapes that don’t conform with the traditional rectangle-square is one solution to the problem. That might work for many photographs, but not all. Many photographs will require additional treatment, such as innovative new frames or materials that do not conform to the shape of rectangles or squares.

It’s beyond the scope of this article to discuss what innovative new frames and materials might go well with metal prints. Nonetheless, it’s appropriate to briefly discuss why rectangle-square frames have enjoyed such a long tradition.

First, a traditional frame is easy and inexpensive over which to stretch canvas thus traditionally catering to painters. Second, a wooden frame is easier and less expensive to make than a frame that does not conform to such a format. Third, everybody else is doing it.

That everybody else is doing it will not count for much in the great age of innovation. There is a call for artists to think outside the frame. Much of the history of art in the last 150 years has been the disintegration of prior art forms that artists have used for centuries. Now, we have a new vehicle, which lends itself to making odd shapes and to integrating with other materials such as wood, metal, or glass. And that innovation is metal prints. They are much more versatile than anything that has come before, and they look great too. So, let’s get back to easy and inexpensive cutting. There are five types of cutting, which make sense. The first is cutting away portions of a mental print (a photograph) that one doesn’t want in the picture. This leaves you out of control of the final product, as the resulting shape will be random. But will it be usual to see in a gallery or museum a lot of random-shaped metal prints someday? Perhaps.

Original

Black parts cut out (random shape)

The second type of cutting is a purposeful cut. One that purposely cuts away part of a metal print to achieve a particular shape that coordinates with the photograph. This can is much more orderly and less random. The purpose is to achieve a photograph that makes sense together with its purposeful shape.

Purposeful cutout

Third, one type of cutting is the silhouette. You simply cut away all of a photograph except for the subject. For instance, for a bird, one might cut away the entire photograph except for the bird itself, leaving a metal print that’s the silhouette of the bird. If any type of cutting can be said to be common already, this is the technique.

A fourth approach, which promises much potential, is to determine the shape of the picture first. Then find photographs or take photographs that fit well inside the non-traditional shape. Although Photoshop (or similar software) enables you to do this easily, the actual creative thinking behind this approach can be very complex, difficult, and likely time-consuming.

But it will be a part of the new photography. Artists will pay particular attention to shapes they can use that have an aesthetic value of their own, or at least provide an aesthetic complement for a photograph.

A predetermined shape

Two predetermined shapes make a nice combination

The fifth application is the collage. You can assemble a number of photographs into one metal print and cut it into any shape.

A collage on one metal print cut into a creative shape

The collage above is just a collection of travel snapshots to demonstrate the cutting possibilities. Not much imagination. But think of the creative possibilities for the use of this technique.

The following is a college by David Hockney. It’s on a gray background. It would look better as a cutout. (More on David Hockney in the next newsletter.)

Hockney’s mother

The metal print, and its potentially nontraditional shape, makes possible a standalone product of the future. That is, you can mount any shape on the wall without a frame. And as discussed above, a metal print lends itself to a wide range of additional treatment well beyond that of traditional framing (although this article is simply about cutting shapes).

Where does this leave the photographer? Well, for standalone prints in innovative shapes, it leaves a photographer by himself or herself alone. That’s not the whole story, however. A photographer who combines a metal print with other treatment may involve a second person (a second artist). This is already a common practice, in effect. With the frame being a crucial part of a work of art itself, many photographers and patrons leave the framing to a frame shop to provide an attractive frame. Thus, the second person today is the owner of or a worker at a frame shop who has the artistic sense to make a good match between a photograph print and the frame.

In the future, one can imagine the photographer will need a different second person to provide nontraditional framing. That second person will be another artist. That is not to say that one person (the photographer) can’t cover the creation of innovative framing too. In reality, however, the new framers will be specialty artists who think outside the traditional frame.

Cut with tabs and the tabs screwed to wood

There is nothing in regard to cutting and framing that detracts from the photographer’s art. These are additional tools to showcase the vision of the photographer in any photograph. Photographers, who decide to conform to the traditional frame, will best process photographs to be displayed on an LED screen. For photographers who desire to create one-off works of art, the new metal printing, shaping, and nontraditional framing will prove a very productive escape from taking photographs to be shown only in squares and rectangles.

As with any revolution in art, current and past generations of artists will continue to pursue the old traditions. But new generations, and those current artists who look to the future, will experiment with new shapes and nontraditional framing more and more. Come back in 25 years, and a photography art gallery will not look the same as it does today.

Note: PSPC members use the code PSPC15 to get a 15% discount at MagnaChrome.

A Photo Display System

by Joseph T Sinclair

It seems to me that the day of the framed photograph may about to be superseded by digital technology. Think about a digital (LED or other similar technology) display thinner than a typical photograph + frame. Such displays already exist.

Why not put an LED screen on the wall as an object of art; that is, why not display photographs on an LED as a household or office decoration?

What are the advantages over a traditional framed photograph?

  • Lit-up brilliance A photograph on an LED can take advantage of the lit-up capability and add a new dimension to both traditional, modern, and future photography. An LED can also display muted colors; it doesn’t have to be brilliant.
  • Multiple photos  Such a display system is not limited to one photograph. Photographs can be changed as often as desired.
  • Power The power for such a system can be provided by batteries or by normal electricity build into the wall.
  • Computer controlled Such a system can be computer controlled (e.g, desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone).
  • Low cost The cost of such a system can be low today and will get lower in the future.

These are some characteristics to play with in designing a digital display system. Below is one example of how such a system might work.

This is my idea of a living room art system:

  • Six LEDs of varying sizes on the walls.
  • Controlled by a computer (e.g., a smartphone app).

This system, although seemingly ambitious, can be assembled to cost less than a serious stereo sound system. What can you do with such a system?

  • Change the photographs displayed occasionally to avoid boredom.
  • Create themes for the photographs displayed and use different themes for different occasions or for different looks (e.g., parties, Christmas, baroque, impressionist, etc).

The photographs for the 6-LED system will have to be ultra-high resolution (8K – 8192 x 4320) in order to display effectively on large LEDs and be usable in the future. Vendors will sell packages of photographs that meet the ultra-high-resolution requirements. Fine art photographers will take care to shoot photographs that meet the ultra-high-resolution requirements.

Sensors An HD (1920 x 1080) photograph requires a 2MP sensor. Virtually all digital cameras have more powerful sensors today. But an 8K photograph requires a 35MP sensor. Most of today’s digital cameras do not meet such a requirement. But an 8K photograph is only necessary for very large displays. So, a 5K photograph requiring only a 14MP sensor is a good interim standard to aim for. Keep in mind that most software will automatically enlarge an image that’s too small for the requisite display. But enlargement means a potential loss of quality. Thus, a higher resolution photograph is desirable.
Photographs can’t be fuzzy in large displays

The software for a LED system will enable a user to set the amount of lit-upness and other visual qualities for each photograph. So, it will be difficult to tell looking at an LED inside a wooden frame whether the display is an actual photograph print or a digital display.

Beyond photographs by photographers, there’s another dimension: photographs of art. People buy posters and coffee-table books in art museum shops published with photographs of the art in the museums. Why not digital display versions?

Keep in mind that the primary missing ingredient of an LED display of art is the texture. But you will be able to elect to add appropriate texture simulation via the software.

Of course, not all art lends itself to being displayed well on an LED screen. But a lot of art does. And some art looks better in photographs than the original work of art itself. My 6-LED system can turn a living room into an art museum.

17th April 2020, No. 2 iPad Drawing © David Hockney

By the way, my research shows that such a system is readily available today, primarily for commercial use (i.e., video wall systems for offices and business buildings) and very expensive. One application you will recognize is signage. For instance, in fast food places today, the menus are on LEDs. Although such systems are expensive today, prices will come down dramatically as systems become popular for home use. Digital components are not terribly expensive, and the software is simple.

But what about those of us who are still listening to AM radio, never had a big-time stereo system, and can’t afford such a 6-LED system? Well, LED screens of various sizes are inexpensive today and will be cheaper in the future. They are cheaper than many art frames today and will perhaps be as cheap as inexpensive frames in the future.

The system I have outlined doesn’t have to have six LED screens. It can have just one. The system uses LEDs as dumb terminals (receptive-only devices): in essence computer monitors. The screens are hooked up to power from the building; they have only enough storage for one photograph; they don’t have software; and they don’t have a CPU (computer). The image storage, software, and CPU are provided by a smartphone, tablet, laptop, or desktop. In other words, the computer-driven LED is likely to be the photograph frame of the future.

Of course, portable digital display devices have been available for a long time. They are self-contained with power (batteries), storage, CPUs, software, and LEDs all built in. They are designed to be setup on a flat horizonal surface, such as a table or desk; and they are intended primarily for friends and family snapshots.

So, the idea of using LEDs to display photographs is not a new one. And my 6-LED-room-display system in this article is just one idea of hundreds that might be devised using digital display technology; technology that exists today; technology that is about to revolutionize the future of photographs on display.

Will frame shops become extinct? Probably not. Frame shops may provide attractive frames for LEDs, perhaps frames that can be easily changed to match different photographic themes. Frame shops may also become the place to buy an LED-home-display system.

What about photographers? How will you sell your photographs? As NFTs? As 8K JPGs? In a copy-protection sales system such as Kindle or iTunes? In theme packages of multiple photographs? Something to think about.

Shoot the Antelope

by Joseph T Sinclair

The slot canyons near Page, Arizona belong to the Navaho Native Americans. To visit them you need a Navaho guide. So, I made a reservation for a three-hour visit. I showed up with about a dozen other people for the tour. Everyone else was a professional/fine-art photographer making the pilgrimage to Page to get the ionic shot of the sun streaming down into Antelope Canyon.

My version of the iconic photograph

To get the iconic shot, the Navaho guide picked up a hand full of sand and threw it up in the air. This set off the shaft of light just the right amount for an iconic photograph. It also put so much sand in my camera that it later took a full can of compressed air and 30 minutes to blow it all out. But what the hell, it’s an iconic shot.

image-1

There are several things to keep in mind. You need to wait until the right time (about noon) to get the iconic shot. There are electrical wires that stretch across the slot canyons from the Navaho coal-fired electricity-generating plants nearby; you will probably want to keep them out of your photos. There are a lot of people in Antelope at noon, even though access is controlled. You could get caught in a flash flood. There was one in 1997 that killed 11 people in Antelope Canyon. But what the hell, it’s an iconic shot.

I calculated with information at hand that about 17,000 professional/fine-art photographers take the iconic shot each year. That simply means if you want to achieve any photographic status more than just as a mere amateur, you will have to go to Page. No exceptions.