Kept Light » fine art

Cabbage

A. Cemal Ekin — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:07:19 +0000

Some see photography as “finding beautiful things and capturing them”. I see it differently as “seeing things and creating beautiful photographs of them.” To wit, the lowly cabbage, especially with some bruises on it on a market stand will not appeal to many as it is not “beautiful.” A careful study of the subject, its shape and lines, texture, the light falling on it will likely prove the beauty seekers wrong. The road to creative and innovative photographic work requires departing from what you have been doing over and over again with reliable results, leaving your comfort zone. You need to go out on a limb, try something different, new, and create new work.

I photographed these in a small Aegean coast town in Turkey, Ayvalik, at its weekly market. The form and lines appeal to me greatly. I decided to present them in monochrome, toned B&W images to remove the impact of color, a layer of abstraction if you will. Tell me what you think of the subject and the photographs resulting from it.

[Show as slideshow]

On Photography, a Panel Discussion

A. Cemal Ekin — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:05:24 +0000

The following video recording is from a panel discussion I moderated in 2007. Fair warning, it is over one hour long and no photographs are shown. It is a conversation on photography, art, and various dimensions of both.

On Color

A. Cemal Ekin — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:58:26 +0000

I have been working on a presentation that I will make in a few weeks about color and color photography. I have read many books, visited many Web sites, and the last book I have been reading by Wittgenstein¹ prompted me to ask a series of questions in my exploration of the idea of “color.” Ponder upon these:

Is it meaningful to talk about the “evolution of color” in the sense that we talk about the evolution of the planets, species?
All the colors must have emerged spontaneously.
If not, is there an order of appearance?
Are there “unknown colors”? Can there be?
Once we are aware of the idea of “color” do we know all the colors we can?
What is the difference between “surface color” and “emitted color”?
Was there a time when humans did not see all the colors we now know?
Will humans see more colors one million years from now?
Is human evolution a factor in “color”?
If it is, is human evolution the analog for the evolution of color?
Is there color inside a tightly sealed wooden box?
How can we know that?
If there is no color, what would it look like if we could observe the objects inside?

Penny for your thoughts.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on Colour (University of California Press, 1977).

On Giclée and Understanding Digital Photography, III

A. Cemal Ekin — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:13:37 +0000

Oh, where was I? Yes, I was trying to dispel some myths about digital photography. Let me continue with a few more I heard at the panel discussion. These attacks on digital photography, by the way, are not based on first hand experience of the medium but rather on uninformed conversations about a medium. The belief must be, “if it is repeated enough times, people will believe them.” Of course, it worked for them! Let’s get on with it.

It’s too sharp!

Oh, my! Sorry for using a good lens. I was surprised to hear this comment from a photographer of stature, again based on a total lack of understanding of the digital medium. Luckily, another panelist spoke to this point in an indirect way. Thank you Mr. Benjamin. Let us think about the “too sharp” criticism, is it the sharpness that is in question or is it the careless application of digital sharpening? A photographer who knows digital photography would have spoken to the latter. Now, if you compare the photographs taken decades ago to those taken today you will see definite differences in sharpness, contrast, color rendering, distortions of several sorts, etc. Today’s cameras, lenses, film, developing, paper, and yes, digital sensors are far better than what we used to have 30 years ago or more. I will not apologize for having a better designed lens or a more capable camera. The same superior results are visible in slides, prints and digital images, we are all better for these changes and we should stop blaming anything for it. If a careless person over sharpens the digital output, may his knife be dull forever!

It is manipulated, digital that is

Well, show me an un-manipulated photograph and we’ll call it a realistic sculpture (see Ron Mueck’s work among others that you will find by searching for “realistic sculpture”). Photography, at its very core, is a series of manipulations of reality. It takes a three dimensional world and flattens it to two dimensions, thus manipulating perspective. Using different focal length lenses we can, and we do, change the type and amount of this manipulation. A photograph is recorded on a medium, film or digital. The choice of film with its response characteristics manipulates reality, Velvia 50 or 100, Provia or Superia, Kodachrome or Ectachrome, Agfachrome or Anscochrome. And of course, we must not forget the venerable fine art photography medium “black and white” which really manipulates reality by discarding color altogether, (we don’t need no stinkin color). And where you have your film developed and the control conditions manipulate it, differentiating your roll from mine. When it comes to photographic prints, the avenues of manipulation are even more and varied. We dodge, burn in, in varying amounts to boot. We breathe on the print while being developed to accelerate the development of that localized area, use two-developer processes with or without water bath in between; use or skip acid fix; turn the lights on for solarization, and the manipulations continue. This all happens for a good reason: the photographer has the image in her or his mind and is trying to communicate that to the viewer. More power to them!

People who argue on the basis of “manipulation” against digital photography are probably expressing their envy of the “manipulation” tools that digital photographers use and the clean smelling environment in which they can do their work. Incidentally, most of the so called “manipulation” tools in digital photography come straight from the darkroom. I have stressed this point in my presentations on digital workflow that those who are good at darkroom workflow will understand “digital manipulation” better. It is a better dodging, burning, localized processing, spotting tool than the wet darkroom counterparts.

No, friends, we cannot have, and will never have “un-manipulated photographs”. This is a dead horse and please stop beating it.

May you have the best medium!

On Giclée and Understanding Digital Photography, II

A. Cemal Ekin — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:12:51 +0000

In the previous post, I tried to give you an idea about the setting, now I will try to address specific arguments leveled against digital photography.

Too many photographs does not make bad art

The unstated starting point of these arguments, I think, stem from the proliferation of digital cameras and the extraordinary number of photographs produced and displayed, rather than the “value” of the art whatever that may mean. Yes, digital photography created an avalanche of photographs, but it is the information technology that made them visible. People have been taking photographs in very large numbers and confining them into an album under the best circumstances, or more typically, storing them in the old shoe boxes for many, many years. It is the advent of the Internet and many photograph hosting sites that gave digital photography the “in-your-face” appearance. I have been doing digital photography for more than a decade using the best available technology I could afford. So have millions of others. But all this work remained in “digital shoe boxes” in our hard disks or CD media. It would be a grave mistake to equate the proliferation of digital photographs with the proliferation of photographic art. Fine art photography begins and ends with a vision in the mind of the photographer. If those uninformed individuals will look at a fine photograph, admire it, and then raise their had to say “you must have a good camera and a powerful computer”, the best response will be to look at them, smile and nod. I am still looking for that “great photograph” button on my computer many claim that it exists.

Ability to create more than one copy is not limited to digital photography

I have heard this so many times it has almost become a mantra: “you can print so many copies, therefore it is not original art.” Well, we do know that wet-darkroom photographers can, and do make a perfect print, photograph it and print many more copies from that perfect negative. Many who argue against digital photography as an art form (I am not arguing by the way, against wet darkroom where I have spent my share of time) do not know of this practice or simply overlook it. The amount of work that goes into the master file from which many prints can be made also eludes those who seem to know “the button” to push to create the perfect digital file. I have prints of digital images where I spent several days on creating the master file (simply because I do not know “the button” to push or where to click.)

A related misconception is that because we can print many copies of the master file we actually do this. We don’t! Why would I print many copies of the same file where I can produce it on demand with freedom to change my mind on the presentation. I have printed many photographs multiple times but rarely in exactly the same way. I may change the paper I use from luster to matte, interpret the colors or emphasize different parts of the image. Furthermore, let us be very clear on this, it is impossible to have multiple copies of “an original” that are all the same. Think about it, they are on separate pieces of paper, they are not the same, made with different drops of inks, and so on. This is analogous to saying “don’t photograph sunsets (sunrise, wild life, fill in your subject here) anymore, they are all the same.” Are they, really?

Digital photography is less labor intensive

Oh, really! And why should it matter anyway? Using roll film is less labor intensive than using wet plates, but I don’t see the same people who level this argument, an uninformed one I must say, against digital photography coating their glass plates and carrying their wooden cameras to photo shoots. Nor should they. The only thing I ask from these people is not to equate the time spent with the artistic processes with the quality of the work produced. Furthermore, they should try producing digital work first to find out how time consuming it is before jumping to conclusions.

Now, be honest, don’t you know artists who may buy a cheap pair of sandals and a tube of crazy glue and glue the bottoms of the sandals with a title like “Imprisoned” or something like that? (Don’t go out to produce this art, it’s already mine!) Do we dare question the quality of their art based on the simplicity of the process or the money they spent on the materials? Anyone can buy the sandals and the crazy glue and stick the shoes together. But the idea, the original art came from the mind of an artist to express an idea, which is the foundation of art, any art.
One more installment coming soon.