White skies etc.

[Michael_4514]

Really Shen? You post a new thread for discussion, and in about 8 hours you want to pull the plug because it hasn't garnered enough discussion in your view?

Apart from your unrealistic expectations, one problem may be that you titled your thread "white skies," leading me and probably others to think that the subject of your post was the challenge of photographing a featureless sky. I had to read your post twice to understand it. It does not help that the sentence that poses the topic you want discussed is syntactically tortured and literrally unintelligible because you typed "sought" when you probably intended "sort."

Substantively, I can't add to your discussion because I do not experience what you are describing. I often admire the work of others, even when it is not something that I would do or want to do, but it does not fall along the lines suggested by your post.

[rdenney]

It has been reasonable being here since 1999 but have to say the tone of this forum is bizarre of late. Vaughn I don't care if you feel you have answered my question well or otherwise. Thanks for your contribution but I was also after discussion from other photographers as well as yourself. In reality I have no real idea if you are a reasonable photographer whose advice I should consider. In fact as far as I'm concerned you are just another internet expert and there are many of those. In fact by your manner I can't see what you really have to contribute other than a belligerent attitude. This forum seems to be transforming into a toxic waste dump for ego driven individuals. I don't perceive any real sense of community here so mods if you can, delete this thread as I don't feel it will contribute anything from now on.

If you've been here siince 1999 then you should know who Vaughn is and his standing to give advice.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...hp?9908-Vaughn

Are there aspects of your approach to image making that block your flow but can sought of go unnoticed in someone else's work, have you found a way to rationalise it for yourself ?

Does this read to you the way you intended when you wrote it? How about: What do other photographers do that seems to work for them, but that you are too afraid to do in your own work? Maybe ask the question first and then provide your personal example. And then maybe title the thread something like, "Name your fears".

The answers have been more relevant than you are giving them credit for: It's not that those other photographers are just fearless in doing what you (or I) might be too timid to do, it's that they have figured out how to control those aspects in their approach, rather than be a victim of them. Whether it's white skies or black shadows or saturated colors or whatever doesn't matter. You can't ask people to bare their souls about things that scare them as artists without expecting others to offer advice on how to overcome or manage those fears. Isn't that how such a discussion would have value?

And, of course, there's the fundamental principle of open discussion on an Internet forum: the OP doesn't own the thread.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

[JBelthoff]

Are there aspects of your approach to image making that block your flow but can sought of go unnoticed in someone else's work, have you found a way to rationalise it for yourself ?

I think this is true for any artist in any medium. I understand your sensitivity to the white sky when shooting. I love a lush sky myself and often find that the absence of clouds and other textures makes me think twice about taking the exposure.

As a guitar player, I find a thin sound a little annoying and while I’m playing I try to avoid that when possible. However listening to other guitar greats I have no problem when they have a thin sound especially when they are great players.

I think what you may be experiencing is the beginning of the artist phase where emotion connects to the outside world. And perhaps instead of letting it prevent you from doing something look at it as the universe telling you that you should be paying attention to something that you may be missing – whatever that may be as I certainly can’t answer that part for you.

So, go with what you feel but at the same time try and understand why you are feeling that way. That’s how an artist grows and you should be embracing it in your own way.

I hope that made sense…

[Denise Dognini]

Steve (Shen45), I understand your concern quite well. I don't feel comfortable with white skies too, but I admire who can manage it.
Nana Sousa Dias, who is both a teacher and a close friend of mine, is always asked how he gets that dramatic skies in his photos. He answers that he looks to the sky prior to decide going out to a "photo session". That's because the sky is the subject in his photos.
I do the same, even why here, at the tropics, when the sky is clear it is REALLY bright, and it's difficult for a beginner like me to compose something decent.

[Shen45]

It did John thank you.

Thanks Denise I believe from some discussion we have had your skies are some what similar to mine here. I hope you enjoy the time you can spend with Nana Sousa Dias.

[John Kasaian]

Weather humbles. I think that is what it is supposed to do.
Since your photographs, from what I gather, are Artistic representations, what is keeping you from adding your own clouds from another negative, PS, or other manipulations?

[Brian Ellis]

We all have our individual values, tastes, likes, dislikes, etc. In fact that's what our individual vision consists of. I don't know any reason why you should struggle to overcome an aversion to featureless skies in your photographs just because they don't bother you in others'. If you don't like featureless skies in yours don't make photographs that include them (not trying to be clever or cute, that just seems to me the way to deal with the problem, as opposed to trying to force yourself to like blank skies in your photographs). The fact that they don't bother you in other people's work seems immaterial to me, they bother you in your work and that's all that matters.

I do think there's some value in trying to figure out exactly why featureless skies bother you. FWIW I usually don't like them either but it's not limited to skies. I generally (very generally) just don't find large areas of blank, featureless space of any kind or tone - sky, water, sand, asphalt, rock, whatever - in a photograph very interesting except when those areas serve some purpose or at least don't detract from the purpose. And most of the time when I see them in my own or other people's photographs they don't serve any apparent purpose and instead are there because the photographer didn't think to crop them out or shares the view of some that no photograph should ever be cropped.

FWIW, you might consider doing what photographers of the 19th century did to solve the blank sky problem and move a good sky from one photograph into the blank sky of another when appropriate. That's what I sometimes do when faced with a photograph I really like except for the blank sky. I keep a file of photographs I've made that contain skies I like and use one of those to replace a blank sky when I think a particular sky will work (similar direction of the light, similar perspective or angle of view, similar focal length lens) and is consistent with the purpose of the blank sky photograph. I realize this offends some purists but I figure that if it was good enough for William Henry Jackson, Carlton Watkins, et al it's good enough for me.

[Vaughn]

Shen45,

I am sorry you see my posts here as not being positive and helpful. They certainly were meant to be positive.

Your posts made assumptions about the way many photographers approach the landscape. The major one is that photographers who have blank skies in their images "allow the sky to go almost paper white and not worry about it". (underlining is mine) In successful photographs, it is the opposite -- the photographer has embraced the featureless sky and allowed it to be an important part of the image.

Rick fears large black areas of little or no detail. So do I. But we have the images of Brett Weston to show us that if one embraces those areas, an incredible photograph can be made. Brett has inspired me to make photographs that, while not copying his use of those large black detail-less areas, still address those issues. My point was that for the images to be successful, I can not just ignore or not worry about those big black blank areas, but instead to embrace them -- use them to speak about Place. That is how I approach and break through the blockages that I assumed was the main point of the discussion you started.

Whenever I give advise here, or make any comments, I have three audiences...the original poster, the forum membership in general, and most importantly, me. I answered your question as completely and honestly as I could. I did challenge the premise of your question. I was hoping to do so in a constructive way that would lead to further meaningful discussion. I seemed to have failed, and I am sorry that I offended you.

Two images. The first one (Death Valley NP w/ yellow filter -- 16x20 silver gelatin print from 4x5) I would not have taken without the clouds. The second one (Joshua Tree NP w/no filter -- 5x7 silver gelatin contact print) I would not have taken if there were clouds. In both cases I would have made different images if the cloud situation was different.

[Drew Wiley]

I often appreciate the ortho and blue-sensitive shots of past eras. I might deliberately expose and print a scene so that the atmospheric effects are very subtle (not necessarily
blank). Get kinda tired of those dramatic inky skies, though that is often a relevant
treatment. But atmosphere can also be used dimensionally to create a more natural sense of scale and receding distance.

[lenser]

Since I come from a portrait background and was trained to beware of "light traps" such as gaps in trees as being a huge distraction from a face or a group, I quite sympathize with your concerns, Shen. It's not so much that the composition is poorly done, it's simply that white or brightness attracts the eye away from darker areas.

Perhaps one of the best examples of this is the comparison of a raw print of Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez in which the bright clouds which occur all over the sky completely distract the viewer from the crosses, to a finished print in which he burned in the sky so thoroughly that the crosses become the dominant theme of the print.

The same goes for any bright area in an image. The lighter it is, the more it brings your eye to that area which is wonderful if that is the subject, but distracting if the subject lies elsewhere. It doesn't matter if it is a landscape with an overly bright sky, an outdoor portrait with a bit of bright sky gleaming through the trees off to one side, or a poor choice of clothing color, such as white tennis shoes with otherwise dark clothing. All of these bring the eye away from the main subject and cause what might have been a very dramatic photograph into one that is decidedly less so.

Control the sky either by filtration and/or in printing unless it is the main subject or simply crop it drastically. Crop out the offending gap in trees or shift camera position until it disappears in portraiture. And either crop out the bad clothing color or have the subject change clothes to a supportive tone instead of a competing one. It's all the same. Concentrate on the key subject and avoid those things that compete with it.