Guy Tal Photography Newsletter
December, 2008
All text and images Copyright © Guy Tal.
 Friends,
As another year draws to an end, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks and well wishes to subscribers of this newsletter, for the ongoing support and interest in my work, and for sharing the love and beauty of our wild natural heritage. We are fortunate to have this bounty available to us. Yet we must always keep in mind that beyond being merely available it is also entrusted to us, with all the implied benefits and responsibilities that go with such sacred trust. As we enjoy these rare and beautiful places, these treasures for the senses and spirit, we must also keep in mind their fragility and our impact upon them and be good stewards. What we take for granted, we are bound to lose if we are not both respectful and diligent.
The Blah'g
 Those of you wishing for more frequent communications and thoughts, may want to also visit my Web Journal. Note that rather than bother you with meaningless trivia, I generally post when struck with a deeper thought or message of some importance so while it may not be as active as some - it is meaningful.
I recently heard an interview with Tim O'Reilly in which he quipped that language is a river that finds its own course. And, sure enough, even the mightiest and most scenic of rivers sometimes falter into lame meanders in bleak channels along their course. So, though I consider it unfortunate that a fork of the otherwise sublime river of the English language had somehow channeled itself into a putrid canal yielding the term "blog," I must admit defeat - yes, it is a blog... so please - read my blog.
The Mighty G10
Over the last few weeks I had the chance to use the Canon G10 in a variety of situations. My hands-on review of this impressive little camera will be posted in the January editions of both Nature Photographers Online Magazine, and the Mountain Trail Photo site. Be sure to visit both for this and other excellent content. In the mean time, I invite you to visit my G10 image gallery.
Apple Of My Eye, Orange Of My Camera
I found several references recently to statements about the ethics of combining exposures for increased dynamic range, improved depth of field etc. primarily focused (no pun intended) on the "fact" that such images don't represent what the human eye would see.
Let's be very clear here: cameras don't see the way people do. If you were to travel through life with your eyes closed, opening them for a fraction of a second at a time, then closing them again, then such statements might have merit. In reality an image is perceived in the brain from a stream of information as the eyes constantly move and adjust to gather information about various parts of the scene. As a result, such data as the focal length equivalent or dynamic range of the eye, are entirely irrelevant as points of comparison against a camera.
In a sense you can think of the way the brain creates an image as constant stitching and blending of multiple frames in rapid succession. This allows a person to be aware of detail in extreme highlights and shadows, and covering an area far greater than a single "eye exposure" could.
A static photograph starts off at a significant disadvantage when attempting to represent the process of seeing. This was clear to some of the very first photographers. Some of the earliest landscape photographers, like Watkins and Jackson, have produced blended exposures and stitched multiple frames to overcome the limitations of the materials and tools available to them at the time. More recently such tools became more widely accessible via digital processing. Rather than revel in this fact, it seems some photographers suffer from what psychologists term "Post Incarceration Syndrome," having spent so much time without such freedoms, that they are not only unable to fully utilize them, but are downright afraid of them.
Certainly any freedom can be abused, but this is no reason to demonize the technology that enables it. This is especially true for creative tools. To put it simply, those who use the tools for the sake of using them will always produce gimmicks and cliche's. This is true of any art at any period in time. Those who see such gimmicks and blame the tools are not much better, though. Ultimately the artist is responsible for the art. If the result fails - the artist failed; not the tools.
One image ≠ One exposure
(it can, but it doesn't have to)
|
|
