Blog #14 The Ethics of Photography. It is important to consider ethical, correct and proper behavior in whatever endeavour one is engaged in. For this week's blog, I will briefly discuss ethics in photography or the ethical behavior of the photographer. There are a number of ways to approach this topic but I will break the topic into half and present two views. One view will address the issue of before pressing the shutter release and the other will deal with after pressing the shutter release. 

When considering ethically correct and proper behavior before pressing the shutter release, the issue of ethics can be controversial. What is ok or not ok or illegal to photograph in today's world? Countries will vary on privacy laws and there may very well be inconsistent rules within and across a given country or region. Informed Consent must be given in many cases by individuals or groups that own a building or activity, for example, in order to legally make a photograph of the person, activity, or place. 

Here is a guide that might be helpful for those interested in a deeper dive into the legality of making photographs: http://www.photoshare.org/resources/development-photography-ethics

In the genre of street photography, it might be a bit taboo to shoot homeless people or persons with disabilities, or even children. It is usually the case that the individuals may not be capable of giving informed consent and therefore should left well enough alone. However, National Geographic, Time, and other world news periodicals are chock full of indigenous people. Don't tell me that all of those published and professional photographers requested and completed a written informed consent document for all of those folks who appear in those mags. It definitely didn't happen! It seems that laws about privacy and informed consent only exist in the USA or Europe. Everywhere else, everything is fair game? 

After one presses the shutter, there are 101 ways to manipulate a photo from its original parts through darkroom manipulation [film] or Lightroom® [Software post-processing] that can, in some cases, dramatically alter an image. In other words, there are editorial ethics. There are small adjustments to cropping, focus, and contrast, for example that might improve the technical aspects of an image. However, larger or massive manipulations can also be made using today's powerful software programs and digital files. People and objects can literally be added or subtracted, seamlessly, to an image. Some publications such as National Geographic forbid almost all types of digital or otherwise manipulation of photographs. The photographer needs to get it all and get it right in camera. 

​With today's tools at our disposal, it is rare that photographs remain untouched by even the most "purist" photographers. Ansel Adams was famous for the slighting burning [darkening] the edges of practically every single one of his images. Vignetting, this is called, draws the viewers attention into the photograph, towards the subject, and helps to maintain their attention within the image. Few would argue about Adams' creative decision to do so. 

A photographer should think, before the shutter and after the shutter is released. If you see a sign that says "NO PHOTO" Stop! Don 't Shoot.

Panhandler, Hong KongNikon FM2 With Kodak Portra 400 ISO 35 mm Film

Blog #13 B&W or Color? 

The history of photography of course began in black and white as did other media such as T.V. In the late 1960's and early 1970's film developers figured out how to layer the film with difference chemicals that were sensitive to red, green, and blue light. Thus, color photography was born. As you might expect, it took a while to catch on as some of the early "experts" shunned and ridiculed color. None of the most serious photographers or artists would think of using color. Then William Eggleston came along and shot mundane items in his little hometown of Tennessee and later had a landmark show in the MOMA which blew everyone away. At first, they didn't get it. He was pretty much a joke to most of the critics. To check out his color photography book that pioneered the art of color photography, here: 

http://www.amazon.com/William-Egglestons-Guide-John-Szarkowski/dp/0870703781/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444049584&sr=8-1&keywords=william+eggleston

If you are like me, then you like both. How does one determine whether ot not to shoot in color or B&W? Well, technically, one should shoot film in color and digital in RAW color. This way, the most information (dynamic or tonal range) is stored on the medium. You can always convert the photo to B&W afterwards in post processing. However, the photographer does not have that option if the original negative or DNG (Digital Negative) was captured in B&W. Start with colour, then go to B&W from there. Or, keep the photo in color if you think it looks better that way. 

Many would agree that B&W photos tend to look better where form and texture are a major part of the subject. Regarding portraits, “When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!” according to Ted Grant. Of curse these days, both are acceptable. 

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/278884-when-you-photograph-people-in-color-you-photograph-their-clothes

Color has its role in photography and may be necessary due to its major role in the highlighting of the subject.  If it helps, keep it color. Of course, these are my personal guidelines and one ought to be cautious of "rules" in photography. According to the master Ansel Adams, "There are no rules for great photographs, there are only great photographs". The same can be said of paintings or sculptures. There are, however some common denominators to borrow a term from mathematics that seem to be true about many "good" or aesthetically pleasing pieces of art in any medium. 

• B&W tends to work well in portraits.
• B&W tends to work well where form and texture are major parts of the subject.
• Color tends to work well when the color helps to highlight the subject or when color is the subject of the photograph 

We might be able to draw a few more guidelines about whether or not to use color or B&W but I think we should leave it there. 

The use of ​selective coloration eliminates the decision of either or and rests comfortably on the fence between the two.  For 50 great examples of 

selective color or selective coloration, see here: 

http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2010/03/50-outstanding-examples-of-selective-color-photography/

I happen to like the idea of both in one photo. Why? Why not? 

Dragon Fruit

Blog #12. The History of Photography

 "Don't know you past, don't know your future" - Bob Marley 

Most people would never guess that photography began way back in the 1800s. According to some sources, some French dude named Nicéphore Niépce succeeded in fixing an image made by light onto a metal-based plate sometime in the mid-1820's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography.

The process of using wet plates  was crude and it took a few decades to get it right. Until the process was refined and made the leap across the pond, not many people could make photographs. George Eastman (Eastman Kodak Company) made the process accessible to the masses through his good old fashioned American business ingenuity somewhere in Rochester, upstate New York around 1892.

Of course the rest is history as they say with the perfection of the camera itself in the 20th century by the Germans (Leica), and further refinement through reliability and affordability done by the Japanese in the late part of the 20th century (i.e. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, FujiFilm, and others).

Digital cameras are relatively new on the scene. Since 2000 digital technology has been evolving at a fast pace. Film is not dead, however.  The film vs. digital debate is alive a kicking and film seems to be having a bit of a renaissance, in part, perhaps to Kodak's coming back from the dead (bankruptcy) in 2012 and announced their plan to continue to make film.  Kodak stopped making digital cameras by the way and made over $500M USD through selling patents to Apple, Microsoft and other tech giants. 

To the purists, film was already perfect. They don't need no stinking digital cameras.  It has been written that "digital photography is creating impotent photographers".  http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/03/03/digital-cameras-creating-impotent-photographers/#mX6M83M0cRPQoMs1.99

While some artists argue over the medium in which photographs are made, NASA went ahead (as they do) and produced the largest digital image ever created that happens to be of the Andromeda galaxy. It's a 1.5 billion pixel image (69,536 x 22,230) and requires about 4.3 GB disk space.    http://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/wow-nasa.  Most basic JPEG photograph files are between 1 and 10 MB. So if you shot a regular image using a point-and-shoot, iPhone, or basic DLSR camera and it came out a respectable 4.3 MB, to scale that image up to NASA-Sized you would multiple yours 4403.2 times! That's REALLY BIG!

Looking into the future of photography, there are some interesting debates there too.  The future of photography may be markedly different in the near future to even how we make images today http://time.com/4003527/future-of-photography.  There is discussion on the death of point-and-shoot-cameras http://time.com/553/point-shoot-camera/ , and the death of all cameras all together in favour of the already widely-practiced activity of making images with smartphones http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/goodbye-cameras.

Well, whatever the future, it will be exciting and that's worth the wait. 

Until then, we will use whatever camera we have with us to do the noblest thing of all,

make photographs of cats. 

jhg

White Cat