The things I put up with!
Just over two weeks ago (keep that timeline in mind), I was heading down to the kitchen for lunch and stopped by Ann’s (empty) office to see what was on her monitor, given she was still in the process of compiling her old images into a collection. Once again, I said “Wow!” about the image on her monitor. I sat down for a moment to see the other images from that trip (her laptop screen has the grouping of images from that period on it) and quickly identified another couple of images I wanted to write about.
I made my way down to the kitchen, where Ann was making her sandwich, and said, “Hey, I just saw the black and white image from Joshua Tree you had on your monitor. I looked at the other images from the library and I want you to send three of them to me for the blog.” “Why would you want to do that?” “Because they’re nice images and worth talking about.” Silence.
A few days later, I mentioned it again and got something along the lines of, “That doesn’t make any sense!” in reply.
Thereafter, it seemed like every time I walked into her office she’d suddenly shut down whatever she was working on on her computer and act like nothing was up. If I didn’t know better, I might have thought she was having an online affair.
It went like that, over and over. Every few days I’d say, “We need to get those images up so you can send them to me.” The response would be roughly, “No, not right now . . . I just shut down Capture One” or some other (lame) excuse. As time went on, she got rather creative in her responses I must admit.
Finally, a couple of days ago I walked into her office - and the Joshua Tree images were up again. Ann was drying her hair so I yelled, “Hey, I’m going to do something on your computer, OK?” That was of course a rhetorical question, because I immediately sat down to export the images I wanted, not waiting for a response. The hair dryer turned off. “What are you doing?” came the voice from the doorway. “Sending myself those images I asked you to send me two weeks ago.” “Why?” “Because they’re good and I want to do a blog post about them.”
I found the first one immediately, before Ann could even respond. I started to look for the other images that had caught my eye a couple of weeks ago. Then came the commentary as I scrolled through the library of images to find the ones I was looking for.
“Shitty!”
Next image.
“Crappy”
Next Image.
“That one isn’t level”
Next image.
“Sucks”
Next image.
“That one’s flat.” (She was right about that one - it hadn’t been developed at all).
Next image.
“Stupid”
Next image.
“Ugly”
I felt like a grunt on D-Day trying to dodge bullets, bombs and land mines while stumbling across a beach in a soaking wet uniform, soggy boots and carrying a 50-pound rucksack.
I finally found the other two images and exported all three before Ann could say no. Ok, she pretty much said no (explaining, using much of the above vocabulary, why the images I selected should never see the light of day), but I ignored her the best I could.
The images are from our trip to Joshua Tree NP, taken in 2017 on the first long road-trip with Beast. The stop at Joshua Tree was like many first visits to incredibly beautiful places - a bit disappointing from a photography perspective. You’re so in awe of what you’re seeing (that’s why they’re National Parks) that it’s hard to get beyond the initial beauty to make a good photograph. It’s like anywhere you point the camera there is a picture to be had that you don’t take the time to craft a really good photograph.
When I saw that first image on the monitor I thought, “Well, at least Ann didn’t fail totally.” Then I looked at the other images in the catalog and realized she definitely did not. (I admit, I’m a bit scared to look at my own images from then, but maybe it’s about time I do. . . ).
I often think that photographing locations is a bit like peeling layers off an onion. Really, you only ever get one or two layers deep with each visit. That’s why it’s worth while visiting a location again and again. As you get to learn a place, you begin to see more (and you’re more experienced) and the images you can make are more insightful. You skip over the superficial, shallow images to find something more. It is not by pure accident that Ansel Adams’ images of Yosemite are so powerful. He lived there for years; he visited there for decades. He knew that place inside out, and still it continued to reveal new aspects to him every time he visited.
So when visiting a place for the first time (or on a rush), unless you’re really fortunate and have something spectacular going on just by happenstance while you’re there, I think all you can really hope for is an image that conveys the sense of place where you’re at, and that contains some nice photographic qualities that helps one enjoy the image. Something that holds their attention for more than 3 to 5 seconds. That, in my book, is a successful image from a first visit. Sure, we try for more, we push to make incredible images all the time, but what should we realistically expect? An insightful image.
And that’s what Ann’s images were (at least the ones I wanted to show).
A well-composed image that gives a sense of place, of being there. And the image below does that, but it also does something that Ann does so well. Not only does the photograph convey a sense of the place, the composition is such that it invites you to step into the scene, to experience the place, to wander through it and discover what lies just beyond. What exactly is right behind the rock outcropping? The image pulls you in, wanting to find out.
I don’t know how Ann does it, but she does. Her images are often not just landscapes (though they are that as well), they’re almost stage sets, environments that invite you into them to partake of the place and the experiences it has to offer. If Ann has a natural talent, it’s that. Making images that invite you into them.
The next image is simply Joshua Tree. Like many National Parks, Joshua Tree has a mix of landscapes and geologic features. However, this is the landscape one thinks of when one hears the name Joshua Tree National Park (if you even know of it). It’s the landscape you’d CGI (or Chat GPT AI it) if it didn’t already exist.
But there is more to it. The tree tops on the left, and the tree tops and rock outcropping on the right, both of which extend above the horizon, lead your eye into the desert forest (isn’t that a seemingly contradictory term) beyond. And if, perchance your eye would want to wander above the desert, the two vertical clouds lead your eye back downward to where you should be heading - wandering into the distance through the forest of Joshua Trees.
All it will take is a couple of steps - the path is there right before you.
The last of the Joshua Tree images was the one on the monitor - the black and white image that shook me from my work-mind stupor. It is a lovely photograph, wonderful in black and white. The layering of light-dark-light-dark makes black and white images spatial and brings them to life. The solitary sun-lit Joshua Tree with the shadowed rock face behind brings that tree out for the eye to focus on. And the remainder of the image allows the wandering eye to explore, discover and enjoy.
And still, the image reads so much of place. You know it’s Joshua Tree NP without being told. The image makes you want to ask, “Where exactly in the park is it?” so you can go there because the place seems so special and accessible.
Three strong images that tell so much about the place. Quite the haul for a first visit.
Then again, just crappy, sucky, ugly images if you were to ask Ann.
Sigh!
Ann and I have very different views about how we look at and think about images (particularly our own). I appreciate the fact that she is critical of her own work, it’s what has led her to improve so much over the past few years. But I tell her to give herself a bit of a break and not be so critical of images as she’s looking at them (and hopefully enjoying them) later. Almost every image has flaws, but don’t let the flaws take away from what is there. And don’t be so critical and assume that every flaw is ruinous - many of them the average person will never notice. Instead, they’ll be admiring the richer qualities of the image.
That topic came up the day after I exported the above images in my Dropbox account. Ann asked me about rating a couple of images she has been struggling with., Ann has been rating them for that collection she’s been working on so she can view them by lcategories. I asked her what her scale was and the criteria (what is a 1-star image? A 3-star? A 5-star image?). I realized it was a good question because the answer revealed a very different way of looking at and thinking about images.
I won’t go into Ann’s scaling system, but I will tell you mine (in part because I subject you to it). A 3-Star image is an image I am not embarrassed to say is mine. It might not be the best, and usually there is one or more flaws to it, but it’s a decent image. I’ll admit that it’s probably representational of the level of work that I can consistently create. The quality of image that is required to get thee stars has risen over the years because my images have gotten better, but even older 3-Star work I’m not ashamed to show. I’ll show you a 3-star image and own up to it. Most of the images on the blog are 3-star images or better. Only if an image is essential to telling a story will I include something I wouldn’t rate a 3-star or better. A 4-star image is what I believe to be a truly good photograph. Much of it will have to do with me, but often there are factors outside of my control that add to its qualities. That’s fine, because I was there and had the wherewithal to take advantage of that opportunity and to make something special. A 5-star image is what I think is an excellent image that has outstanding qualities in abundance and really has no real negative qualities at all. You can’t tell me it’s a bad image, I know better. They are, however, few and far between. I think that sometimes, I’m in a special state of mind when I am making those types of images because often, there’s a bunch of 4-star images (given the conditions or the subject), and one or two rise above the others as 5-star. I think I often make 5-star images in short-burst periods of time when I am truly seeing the world in a different way - both visually and photographically. Other times it’s a one-off occurrence.
The strange thing is, really, the primary cutoff is the 3-Star. Anything less than a 3-star doesn’t move me at all and doesn’t warrant any extra effort. No need to polish turds. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. And sometimes, it isn’t until I start working with a 3-Star image that I realize that it is something special, a 4- or even a 5-Star (some 5-Star images knock your socks off from first look, they’re that obvious). And then I have to add the caveat (in other words, admit), that images move between the 3-, 4-, and 5-Star rating in my mind all the time. Rarely between 3- and 5-, but certainly up and down from 4-Star.
Which leads me to the final image, which was in the library on Ann’s computer when we had the discussion on rating images and simply pleased me while I looked at it.
It’s a good 3-Star image that has some lovely photographic qualities and is a joy to look at and study. It has much to offer and is worth your time. Criticize it all you want and argue that it can be improved in countless number of ways. I know and I don’t care, it’s a image worth looking at and simply enjoying.
Best image ever? No. But certainly not sucky, stupid or shitty.
As I’m sure you’re aware, none of the above images are mine. They’re all Ann’s.
Don’t expect this to happen too often though, because, the things I have to put up with just to show you some of her work!
Sigh!