Photography from the perspective of music

One way of looking at the role of a photographer as a creator is that from the role of a musician. A musician, naturally, performs music. Likewise, a photographer produces images.

What a musician can make out of his performance relies on his skills on his instrument as well as the material/work that he’s going to perform. Similarly, what images a photographer can produce shows the depth of his mastery over his craft, as how a musician shows the depth of his knowledge of the music he is performing.

Take for example,  JS Bach’s well known Prelude in C Major BWV 846; any musician is able to perform it, as any photographer is able to use his camera to produce an image of an object, for example, a transparent glass bottle.

The late pianist, Glenn Gould, plays it with marked semiquavers in the right hand, rather quirky-ly.

Pianist Konstantin Lifschitz plays the repeated motif of every bar of this Prelude with a softer and lighter touch to create a dynamic contrast. The phrasing is also different.

In the equivalent of photography, a subject equivalent could be looked at in a different manner with the manipulation of light and exposure to bring out different details of his subject.

(pardon me for this part of compare and contrast, I am still in the process of creating the images to illustrate the point photographically)

However, composer Charles Gounod wrote another theme, which we know as his Ave Maria on top of Bach’s Prelude BWV 846, effectively making a new work of art from the already existing work.

Shown here is an arrangement of the work for flute and piano.

In a photographic equivalent, a new piece of work is being produced from the subject, adorned with new elements. Take for instance, the glass bottle, was then being photographed in the hands of a beautiful woman of that particular cultural period. In today’s technology, you can simply montage an existing image of a glass bottle into the hands of a beautiful woman of this cultural period.

In the context of producing an image, the glass bottle could be shot as it is, with existing light, as a piece of music could be performed as it is running through the notes, phrases and dynamic expressions, everything on paper, and the rest is up to the mood of the musician when he is performing the music. On days with good available/natural light, a nice and decent image of the glass bottle may be produced with good tone without much consideration. On days with a fine mood, a musician finds performing music much a breeze, the music performed sounds good rather effortlessly.

When a musician examines his music, he not only learns the notes, along with that he finds places to examine the shape and form as well as the harmonics hidden in it. Through the understanding of the qualities of his subject, here the piece of music that he is performing– gives him the authorship to make the performance uniquely his.

In popular music, bands and musicians have performed countless covers of certain songs, all with a different feel and sound to it, similar to the performances and recordings of classical music, giving them their authorship over the performance.

Similarly when a photographer examines his subject, in this case, a transparent glass bottle, he studies the qualities of the form as well as the optical qualities of the glass bottle, how it reflects and refracts light, only then he could determine how to manipulate the light to change the shape and color of the reflections and refractions and so on. With the mastery they have over their media and understanding of their subjects would they be able to create a performance or image with a lasting impression.

Words from a true visionaire

A knowledge of photography is just as important as that of the alphabet. The illiterate of the future will be ignorant of the use of camera and pen alike. — quote from Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, in 1923

Of Climate Change, Global Warming and Possibly The End of Humankind and Civilisation.

All these hype and data that researches produce have a tendency to push the new “eco” commodity into the new business. I have no idea how long the earth will sustain, but I think earth will far outlast any civilisation present. Hey humans, don’t worry about earth, worry about yourselves!

Cost of Photography as a Business in Today’s Context

While we may all know that the photography industry is fueled from the pockets of hopeful amateurs eager to have their pictures published, how many of us know what the actual cost of photography is now? Before the dawn of the digital era, camera equipment could be used for 30 years or more if well maintained. Lenses can be used over a large range of compatible bodies, as long as it fits the mount, and you’re pretty well ready to shoot with the technical quality that the lenses have to offer. The film and the lenses used were the essence of making the image with optimal results. The camera does not need replacement unless its broken. The cost of a good kit with purpose-specific lenses could be about SGD$24k for a medium format system that could be used for 30 years or more. Running costs as and when needed for film/processing/expendables. Equipment cost per year could be SGD$800 or less, and it could well last more than 30 years with proper care and maintenance. People could actually make money back then. It was production work to be done–setting up, shooting, processing and selection. There was a film cost involved and a computer would be an additional or a bonus piece of equipment.

Cameras of the digital era have a lifespan of a maximum of 5 years before they’re obsolete and needs replacing. The lenses used are different too, each batch has its own qualities for the range of cameras it was produced for. Though mounts and other stuff may be the same, the images produced may not be optimal. The lenses now work for the image sensor, a higher resolution sensor would need a lens with a stronger resolving power. The cost of a 24mp digital kit with purpose-specific lenses would be somewhere around SGD$25k, but all that would be obsolete in 5 years, that’s an equipment cost of $5k a year for camera and lenses only. The computer used would cost about SGD$4k at purchase price, that would be gone in 5 years too, and image editing softwares cost about SGD$1055 to buy and about SGD$300 to upgrade.

Aside from the shooting and production work, there’s also an additional number of hours to be put into the back end of the work (post production), which are also costs to be considered in producing quality work. On the plus side is that more visual effects and creative input could be achieved than before. On the down side more work has to be done to break even the capital put in for the equipment while maintaining a fee for the photographer’s work. Every hour of work behind the camera would tie the photographer with computer work for anywhere between two to four hours unless a DI artist (also another cost to consider) does the back end of the work.

That being said, photographers now often give their own products (their photographs) away for free, literally (without additional licensing), and are only paid for their presence in creating the shots.

Image Licensing and Copyright Issues

When a photographer is hired to shoot, he is hired for the services and physical presence at the site. The images that he produces on the shoot immediately becomes his property and are automatically copyrighted to him. No matter what the content of the images are, be it his client’s products or services, the image belongs to the photographer. When the photographer hands over the images to his clients, the rights of the images still belongs to him. At such a point, the clients may have paid for the photographer’s services, the images used have not been paid for. The photographer will have given the images away to the clients for free if licensing or sale of copyrights are not enforced. 

While many photographers may not be very much aware, it is licensing images that will keep their business going.

Licensing may not be what the client likes to hear, enforcement of licensing is a form of commitment between the client and the photographer to produce good work. Good work goes a long way, and it is mutually beneficial. It could take place between photographers and clients as some forms of special arrangements too, whichever works better. Putting it down on paper is always best.

Times are bad? Or people pushing their luck? Or both?

Someone called me for my daily rates a few days ago, and I promptly quoted my normal figure that has been unchanged for the past 6 years. This person promptly asked me for my half-day rates, and I promptly halved it, (that’s a big mistake, costs of business never work out proportionally). Then the caller finally asked me if I could charge half-day rates for a certain number of hours over a couple of days (How ridiculous can it get?)

Does the caller even know how long it takes the photographer and team to set up and style the set for the shoot? Set-up and styling are part of the photography hours, for that amount of time each session that’s been requested it wouldn’t be possible to do anything properly. I hope the caller’s just trying to push his luck.

Any usual photo session won’t take anywhere less than three hours (unless it is a mass shoot set, and each shot may take about 10 minutes for portraits in a portrait studio). A tailor-made photo-shoot can hardly be completed in two hours.

And how about the back end post production work that photographers have to do? The general ratio for photography and post-shoot work is 1:3, every hour spent on photography equates to 3 hours of computer work. How would pictures even be right without this important step? It’s important that photographers complete this step themselves before anyone else lay their fingers on the images.

So in reality, one day’s shoot equates to 4 working days or 32 man-hours worth of work. It’s good money for a good amount of work without the financial burden of a permanent employee.

Digital photography is good, it makes the transition of photography from camera into various mediums quick and easily available. However many users don’t seem to know how to charge for work since the digital media for submission costs only a dollar. Damage well done. No film costs involved, but so much more work! The instancy of digital photography itself is a cost to be borne into the fees involved. Polaroids are instant, and it costs anywhere between $2.50 to $3 per click and pull on Fuji FP100C instant film packs.

Getting undercut is one thing, in the long run no side benefits from it; photographers won’t be able to upgrade and update their equipment as quickly, and clients don’t get the full benefit from the technological advancements for quality work. Unlike photography on film-the equipment hardly gets outdated, same quality of images are achieved every time, drum scanners are high quality, providing image data of at least 25mp.

Times are bad? Or did people make times bad? Or people pushing their luck? Or all of the above?

Now a quick one

So the past few entries probably seemed pretty pessimistic, but that’s just what had passed. I’ve been embracing the technology all the while, just that I feel extremely nostalgic over the good things learnt and some good things lost. Good things have to give way to better things, no?

I’m quite grateful for HDR, it really gives me the option to make images impossible to do if not for its existence. This coupled with photoshop is formidable, for once I don’t see this function to be like opium, but like coffee.

Good images, Bad images

I’ve been told before many times there’s primarily two kinds of images, a good image and a bad image. It makes life helluva difficult, and I think distinguishing good images and bad images can be quite difficult now. Often I find it hard to truthfully fulfill the primary mission of an image–that is, to tell a story. What story is it telling? Or is it just pretending to tell a story?

Image editing softwares (e.g. Photoshop, etc), The opium of photography

I’ve been spending so much time in front of the computer adjusting and toning images I can’t help but say that photoshopping images is like smoking opium. It’s not exactly good for the smoker (likewise, its not exactly good for the photographer) but it kills pain and provides the user with relief (likewise, it saves or improves the images), and eventually gets you addicted while the vendors make huge chunks of money from the dependence on it, (likewise, you feel the need to use it so that your clients see that you spend more than just the time clicking the shot, more time spent on the images and your time is money.)

Isn’t image editing softwares like opium? It’s not good, but it isn’t bad either. Dependence on it kills some physical skills and technical abilities, and opium makes the user sick and dependent on relief and strength to work.

If opium (or the image editing softwares) is well used it is full of capabilities and endless possibilities.

Photography today through my eyes (3)

A decade ago in school I was given the chance to use commercial digital photography equipment and was taught the new edge in photography. It was quick, it was instant, but it was cumbersome, at that point of time it was only good in the studio–it has to be tethered to a computer.

It was new tools and new ways of doing something old and I felt like a country bumpkin for a couple of weeks.

The digital images were somehow appealing on screen but something was amiss, at that point of time I don’t know why, though at a later stage I finally decided that I had been watching too much television. The images often were tonally flat. Just like how watching a movie in a cinema from projected film and how watching the same movie on a television screen is different, though televisions are better today with high definition flatscreens. Watching a film in a cinema is simply a different experience aside from the plot of the film.

–

I’m always in pursuit for technical formidability in photography, and in the midst of it I’m always caught up with one question regarding personal signature style and technical character (or flaws and shortcomings), whether signature styles likes most in technical character, or signature style in a broad palette of techniques applied aesthetically. It may all be how well it works for all there is, but where do I really decide? If a photographer stops at any particular technical character that is his signature style, wouldn’t that mean a halt in progression?

–

Commercial photography is never a one man show, it involves a whole team of dedicated people behind it. In my opinion the most important factor is to get the synergy of the team, that gets the show running properly. Credit belongs to the team, never any individial alone.