The Boogeyman Himself in 2011

It’s been a while since the last time I blogged and I feel it’s about time to yet one more time force my amazingly brilliant and incredibly interesting musings on life, the universe and all that stuff upon the Internet ;) Actually, this is more of a glorified Facebook status update than anything else. Here we go.

Clearly, since I’m actually writing this, I’m still around, kickin’, if not butt at least some gravel on the road. Life’s life, meaning it has its ups and downs, yet generally pretty good. I live, work and create, although photocreativity haven’t always been the first thing on my mind this winter, much due to changes in my personal life and relationship status.

Certain things have an uncanny ability to steal energy and draw focus to the extent where just getting by is what you have to do. Yet, it will pass as you are able process what’s going on and one could argue that it is necessary too, to let these things run their course lest you store up heavy matter that sooner or later will come back and dropkick you in the face. Luckily it was a fairly clean break and although not without inevitable complications, it was slightly less earth shattering than what I’ve experienced before. I attribute that to an overall more stable and content life-situation, sheer experience and perhaps some lost illusions along the way. It literally did hurt like a bitch, but life is to be lived, not to be spent grieving over what you’ve lost. At least that’s not how I want to live my life. Page turned, chapter finished and a new one begun.

I guess my perspective have evolved/degenerated quite a bit from the naive perception of the world that a teenage mind tend to sport. As you’ve lived for a bit you realize we’re only leasing our love(r)s and partners in life even if it should last until death do part. The important thing is what we give and receive while we’re sharing time. In this particular case she was the catalyst and muse behind my diving into what became the most important thing in my life, photography. We also shared perhaps the best period of both our lives so far. What more can you ask from another human being than to receive such a gift?

Thinking back I find I have been very fortunate to have known and loved some amazing women in my (short) time. I’ve never taken for granted that one will experience love in life and there’s so many that never do. Of course everyone should and deserve to, but in the game of coupling you don’t exactly get to freely choose the cards you’re dealt.

In terms of work things have ever so very slowly been picking up momentum. Early this year much time went into the design, layout and creation of a book. It came to be a pretty exhausting process with many more issues than initially anticipated (always..) and problems with the printing works but in the end we got a pretty good result. The book is illustrated by my photos but luckily someone else did the work on the text. I just pieced it all together and created the design which was to a certain extent based on the design profile I’d created for the initial stages of this project. The book is the finalization and summary of a conference on cochlear implants, something meant to provide a written and long-lasting source of information on this subject for users and professionals. Its print run numbers 1000 colorful copies, something which might not sound like much, but then again this is a very specialized field and it’s in Norwegian, thus not exactly of global interest.

The whole experience was very educational and for one I got to know InDesign on a whole new level. I’m self-taught in most if not all things related to photography, design and computing in general and this is no exception. Of course it’s great to be able to acquire new skills and knowledge but it require effort on your own part and the errors that you make may be your very best guide. The important thing is the ability to learn from your mistakes and not to be afraid to try again. Hmm…that actually sounds much like life in general ;)

This winter I’ve also had a number of shots in print in magazines and more are coming. It’s always a great feeling to see your photographs in print and I enjoy it very much, as long as I get paid of course :D In order to be able to do more work I also started  ”Falk Photo”, a single-person firm. This pic shows my logo/header-concept and business card. A website is in the works but got delayed by a accidental wipe and loss of all the work I’d done. Mindovermadness.org is a personal blog, not really a suitable “front” for a business, hence one more website to keep track of and running for me. Mindovermadness.org will be around and still be the primary online home of my more private photographic efforts. I hope to get my business website up and running during May. It will of course be in Norwegian but I consider making an English version too. I kind of doubt though, that I’ll be getting jobs in the US or UK anytime soon ;)

So, what’s coming up? Obviously more work, also hopefully a warm, cozy BBQ-flavored summer with a lot of nice images, happy moments and many a full belly. Quite simply put – I’m as optimistic as ever before.  No photograph and no amount of money can change the fact that my medical condition is inevitably creeping up on me, but it does not mean life can’t and shouldn’t be enjoyed and lived when it’s actually here. Our existence is so fragile, so easily torn asunder by factors outside our control that it is a crime not to try to make the best out of it or utilize our potential as human beings.

There’s much I do not know or am able to anticipate about the future, thus is the nature the human existence. Perhaps in some ways my future is slightly more complicated than the one of others, but I am privileged, not only to live in a country where mostly everyone got bread on the table, but also because I am lucky enough to know and enjoy the company of some truly wonderful people and at least occasionally do what I love, which is making images. I will keep tripping that shutter and do what I can while hoping things turn out okay, they mostly do anyway.

Be good, folks!

Facsimile of "Din Hørsel". Click to enlarge.

A while ago I was approached and asked to create an ad for a conference on Cochlear Implant (CI), which is basically an artificial ear that can give some hearing back to a deaf person. My “client” was the place where I work. I took the photo and also designed the ad in various versions, for instance posters, half-size for magazines, web use, programs, info brochures and what not.

My friend actually have one of these implants and was the perfect model. The shot itself was made in my home “studio” with a two-speedlight setup, one through an umbrella, other one through a blue gel on a black background. Black backgrounds have the advantage that it will pick up much of the color of the light that shines on them. Hence, the background is actually real and not made in photoshop, although I made it somewhat smoother in post.

I must admit it’s delightful to see some of one’s work in print, even if for a very specialized purpose such as this. The below version is the landscape version of the halv-page ad that ran in “Din Hørsel” – “Your Hearing”, the magazine of the Norwegian Association for The Hard of Hearing. The magazine prints in about 55 000 copies and is widely distributed amongst the hard of hearing in Norway. 

The ad, click to enlarge.

Shirt is my own design, as I wanted a personal version of the slogan that’s becoming common amongst photographers. The writing is not quite as crooked as it looks.

I guess you could say this is my first half-arsed photo project. A study on the lives of trash cans…or, not entirely ;)

I’m fascinated by things that are not where they are supposed to be. The tiny cracks in the leather, or the, if you will, splatted bug on the polished façade. Things that makes you wonder “how on earth did it get there”, “who did this” and so forth. Some might call it the decay of values and proclaim the arrival of doom, others will say that our cities and societies have likely always been like this as soon as they grow beyond a certain size. Click image for more!

A selection of photos from a recent shoot I did for my workplace, a school and resource center for the hard of hearing. The material is intended for promotional use, on websites, brochures and similar. The models are students. Click image for more!

Decided to do something new. I’ll briefly mention new photo galleries in a regular post on my blog too. Tge photo galleries are kind of hidden away as pages ;) This one here is from the (in)famous Geiranger fjord in western Norway. Striking views on a day that turned out better than we feared. Click image for more!

My latest foray into the ever expanding world of social media related services, I choose to make from sort of a photographic perspective. What can social medias offer for a hobbyist and enthusiast photographer like me that don’t do this for profit? My first venture was establishing a presence on Flickr, kind of the obvious place to go if you’re a photo nut. It’s the largest dedicated image hosting place on the Internet and offer a lot of different functionality. Ironically, I can’t say I care overly much for the browsing and picture viewing functionality of Flickr, I find it tedious and poorly designed. The discussion forums, groups, search function and ability to comment are however priceless functionality and very effective for building communities and connecting with other photographers and artists. All things considered Flickr is a great package, but it seems somewhat…contrived in certain areas, the functionality is not always that obvious or user friendly.

The next pass I made towards Facebook, which I do know from a couple years of use. I made a custom Facebook page which is a different beast from a personal profile or a group. A Facebook page allows me to separate the private snaps of my profile from the more “serious” work, while still being able to easily share it with others on my friends list. Also, a page allows others, that for some reason is interested in my photography, to keep an eye on my photographic efforts without having to be included in my small group of “friends”. I guess you could say separating business from personal life. I’ve seen a number of other photographers using Facebook pages and also some stating on forums that they are useful for their businesses, they get some extra customers and exposure. Considering the fact that Facebook, unlike Flickr, is not entirely populated by photographers, that seems very likely. There’s obvious potential in these kinds of medias.

Now, what if you cut this FB vs Flickr thing down to a purely user/visitor perspective? Well, I do find it’s easier to browse images on Facebook compared to Flickr and if I, who am rather computer savvy feel that, no doubt others do too. On the other hand, the low resolution (604×404 I believe) and heavy jpg compression of Facebook is brutal and seriously massacre many images. Frankly 1280px width/height is a bare minimum to get a rough idea of the technical quality and sharpness of an image and that is also what I generally post in the galleries here at Mind Over Madness. Even a 0.3mp cellphone picture can look nice if presented on or in a low-resolution screen or media. Yet, if you’re like me, always trying to achieve the best possible technical quality within the limitations of gear, skill and ability, these things matter. When you spend days, months and years dressing down pixels and looking up their most private and sensitive places, you tend to get very vary of the various flaws. JPGs are no matter how you put it, a format that compresses files, thus throwing away information. For most people though, low resolution web images are just fine and dandy. Facebook is thus likely the easiest for Joe Sixpack to browse, especially if they already use it and know it’s “logic”. There is no doubt though, that Flickr is the best network for photographers wanting to connect with other  photographers, with dedicated photography forums such as DPreview as a minor and not completely comparable exception.

Despite of the various quirks of Flickr and Facebook, they offer more arenas to show off my work and more chances to funnel people to my blog. Of course there’s a chance that my horrible photos will give them mental scars for life, but hey, what’s the point of having stuff on the net if you don’t want and try to show it to people? Admittedly, I don’t work very hard to promote Mind Over Madness, nor do I religiously update it twice per week and talk about subjects easily accessible to the great masses. I don’t have the surplus energy nor any interest in doing that. I write when I have something I need or want to say ;-)

Anyway, to speak more generally about social medias. However you put it, they are simply tools and frankly, I love tools, I’ll take all I can get! Social medias can be used for great benefit, or gloriously abused, I’m sure you know that, and the examples of both cases are numerous. One should approach them with care and common sense, think through what you post, say and link to. Don’t let the risks scare you away though!  These things ain’t going away, and trust me, you don’t want to be left out of the game. Likely both for personal and professional life, it is a good idea to at least understand what the fuss is all about. So, if I’m to make any statement to some old-school sceptic reading this, it would have to be that you should at least consider putting some time and energy into learning these things. With knowledge comes ability both to utilize but also connect the dots and see new possibilities. I’m not overly enthusiastic about social medias and the “always connected” phenomenon of modern life, but I reckon that if you know something ain’t going away, you’re best off figuring out a way to live with it.

Panoramic view of Kjerkfjorden and the fishing village of Reine, on Moskenesøya island, part of the Lofoten Islands. Published with the permission of © Jack Brauer

I don’t have a habit of promoting of other photographers on my blog, really, I want you to look at MY images :p Yet, as photo hobbyist and enthusiast you have to know your limits. There are people that make images and then there are Photographers. So, in the name of  general education, enlightenment and beauty, you got to see this!

Jack Brauer is an American landscape photographer that travels across the globe. He works in color and with large format/high resolution cameras. His trademark is stunning landscapes with vibrant, fresh and pure color, often shot from the summit of mountain peaks and other perilous viewpoints.

Brauer is one of several modern photographers that follow in the footsteps of legends such as Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and other monumental classic (landscape) photographers, yet still with his own twist. Some part of his work reminds me of contemporary photographer and author David Noton, but where Notons work is more subdued and subtle, often shot in the late or very early day, Brauers photographs hold nothing back and show you the full splendor of the landscapes. His compositions are grand and the immense detail, resolution and technical quality of his images simply pull you in.

Romsdalen. The sheer walls of Romsdalshornet (left) and Trolltindan (right) both rise 1500m (5000 ft.) from the Romsdalen valley. Visible here as the long shadow on Trolltindan is the Trollveggen, the tallest vertical mountain wall in Europe. Published with the permission of © Jack Brauer

The most important quality all these photographers have, is the ability to get out, get up and be there. They climb that mountain side and they drag along that heavy gear with a single-mindedness and focus that my highly procrastination-prone mind envy them. They also have a profound technical knowledge and understanding of the medium they work with and all stages of the process, from exposing and composing to developing, processing and last but not least, printing their work. They are simply craftsmen and artists and the reason why billions of digital cameras never will or can truly overtake or throw the professional and highly skilled master photographer.

Now, I haven’t actually seen Brauers prints, but judging by the images on his site and their exceptional quality that is visible even in web-sized versions, there’s no doubt they look fantastic hanging on a wall. I have no doubts that a detail-oriented photographer such as Brauer, never takes shortcuts when it comes to printing. 

Brilliant pink fireweed and the Lyngen Alps, with Jægervatnet lake in between. Published with the permission of © Jack Brauer

One of the things that really got my juices flowing over Brauers work, is a gallery from Norway. As I’m Norwegian those images obviously hold a special interest to me, particularly because some of the shots are from regions well-known and dear to me. I’ve seen a lot of great photographic work from Norway, but his is clearly among the finest in the landscape genre. Not only do these images show how old Norway may look when she puts on her fancy dress and good moods (weather and light in Norway changes with the blink of an eye) but he’s even got the (weird) names of places and locations right. Tiny details perhaps, but it shows the effort this guy puts down in his work, many would just state general region and leave it at that. Also, the fact that he manages to show locations I’ve known for decades from a new angle and in a light and way I’ve never seen before just prove that once you get used to seeing something, you start overlooking what you’re actually seeing.

I would like to thank Mr. Brauer for his work and dedication, and also for allowing me to use some of his images to illustrate this post. I urge you to have a closer look at his work at his site.

This heavily manipulated image of a great white attacking a military helicopter in front of golden gate was a true Internet e-mail "hit" in 2001.

“Photoshoped” have become a term bordering on an insult lately with the advent of digital photography. There seems to be a fairly vocal and widespread sentiment that altering and manipulating images is something fairly new, and a negative thing done by photographers and photo editors lacking scruples and integrity. Especially in fashion photography there have been numerous cases over the past few years with ridiculously retouched models looking more like something from outer space than real human beings. I understand very well the general scepticism, both from the general public and conservative old-school photographers. Yet, it also gets me thinking of what photography really is and I’m left with a feeling that many do not understand or comprehend the technical and physical nature of the photographic process, nor the properties of light. So I ask and try to answer -  to freeze a moment in time, to make a true and genuine replication of a scene, is it in fact possible?

The key term I think, is interpretation, because that’s really what this is all about, whether you see something with your own eyes, or view a photography of the same scene. Any photograph, regardless if it is created by digital or analogue means, is subject of many layers of interpretation, from the characteristics of the optical elements of a lens to the medium it is recorded on. Traditional film is made from light-sensitive chemicals that are placed on a piece of solid material that can be for instance plastic, glass or metal. Various combinations of chemicals give various characteristics to the film. It may be black and white, it may be color, it may be very saturated with strong contrast, or very low contrast and subdued hues/tones. To put it simple, the kind of film used strongly affects how reality looks like photographed. This is only the beginning, it only gets more complicated. How the film is developed, that is, what kind of chemicals are used, for how long and on what kind of paper the print is made, will also contribute to the look and feel of the final image. Further on, photographs can, after the initial development, be heavily manipulated in the darkroom by the skilled technician, areas made darker or brighter, unwanted elements removed, tonality changed and so forth. This have, would you believe it, been going on since the very infancy of photography, back in the mid 19th century.

Many of the more noticeable names in photography spent a lot of time in their darkrooms. For instance the highly praised American icon Ansel Adams, a legendary landscape photographer, was a true master of the darkroom and printing who could spend days and weeks over a single image to get it the way he wanted. A lot of people don’t really know about this stuff, as they was and is used to deliver their film to a lab and get it processed there, they never see or hear of the many tweaks and adjustments made even by modern and for the major part, automatic labs. When you’re not aware of what can be done with film in the darkroom, it’s no wonder you think that snapping the shots is all there is to manipulation.

A 150 year old example of photo manipulation, Abe Lincolns head stuck on another politicians body.

In digital image processing we see a lot of the old darkroom terms and phrases used for processes that give similar results, although the actual process is clearly vastly different, there’s no smelly chemicals in digital image processing. One example of an analogue technique and term gone digital is “unsharp mask” which is not really about blurring an image, but sharpening it (or to be technically correct, making the image appear sharper to the human eye from a certain viewing distance). Unsharp mask is one of the most common techniques used when preparing images for printing and web use.

Okay, so if that’s the deal with film, that image manipulation was so common and well known that phrases used in film manipulation have got carried on into the digital world, what is really the fuss with digital image manipulation?

One might now suggest, if ignoring key factors such as exposure, viewpoint and focal length as manipulative techniques, that a straight out-of-the-camera digital image, that must be a “true” image, after all no manipulation is done to it,  just downloaded it to a computer and viewed it, done no fancy schmancy stuff to it. Well, sorry to break it to you, but it’s a bit more complicated than that and just like film, the physics of the light-sensitive medium and the way it is constructed, affects the final outcome. A digital sensor haven’t got light sensitive chemicals, instead it captures and generates an electrical charge from the photons, which is the elementary particles that light consist of. This current can then again be converted to raw digital data. Now, the raw digital data is on its own pretty useless, it’s just a lot of data and it have to be further processed to become an image you can actually view. You might have noticed that your camera have “profiles” you can choose from, different profiles results in images with different colors, tonality and so forth. These profiles are in many ways just a set of parameters that process the raw data in slightly different ways to give final images with different characteristics. Older digital cameras may only have the choice between black and white and color, but it’s the same thing as the multitude of profiles modern cameras offer, a set of parameters that the RAW data is processed with. All digital cameras capture RAW data first and then convert/processes these 1′s and 0′s into a format that is viewable on a computer, most commonly .jpg. In this process a lot of information gets thrown away, because a format like .jpg is a compressed format, and it is not loss-less. This is why photo-enthusiasts and professionals often shoot RAW, as they have cameras with the ability to store the more or less unaltered RAW data. During post processing with the right software, they have more data to work with, something that theoretically results in better quality final images. Computers have powerful processors and the human mind and eye is more aware of nuances and details than the automated algorithms and parameters the camera work with.

This image of Fillipa Hamilton have been all over the news the last few weeks and the spark that have reignited the photo manipulation debate recently.

What I’m trying to explain is that the light that initially hit the sensor has already been subject of manipulation and interpretation even before you load it up in Photoshop. Also, even for images that do not appear manipulated, like documentary news paper shots and the likes, it is very common to alter contrast, often in certain areas of the image only, improve sharpness, enhance tonality and adjust colors. Why? It makes the images look better! For fashion and non-journalistic photographs the post processing may involve everything from cloning away an ugly mole or the power-lines ruining an otherwise beautiful landscape, to making a model slimmer with pearly white teeth. It is not uncommon for photographers to use hours and days working images that they used a few minutes to set up, plan and shoot. Manipulating images is almost completely necessary to compete in this industry, regardless if you’re just a wedding photog or an artist. It is commonly suggested that minor adjustments to color, contrast and similar, is “ok”, because it does not really alter the contents of the photograph. I’m forced to ask, then what is the limit?

If you convert a photo to black and white, you remove a lot of information and often completely change the feel and understanding of the specific scene. You change what the viewer feels when he examine the image. What is the difference from removing a mole or doing other manipulation and why should the removal of the aforementioned mole be a sin, while changing colors is all right? My point is this, digital or film, it does not matter, none are more “true” than the other, they are just slightly different means of capturing reflected light onto something that is of vastly inferior capacity compared to an human eye and memory. Analogue photography is not anymore “real” than digital photography, it is just an interpretation with a wide range of technical and practical limitations and pitfalls determining the final outcome. Heavily photoshoped images can be stunningly beautiful, just as the same scene shot on film. They will differ, especially in colors and texture of the final print, but none can be said to truly represent the scene as we saw it.

Another element in this whole shebang is the human one. The human eye and the brain is also just a filter that subconsciously converts and conveys information to your consciousness. You’re probably aware that we only see a limited part of the actual light flowing all around us, infrared for instance, is invisible to the human eye. Our brains also do funny things to the light hitting our retinas, it notices and enhances certain things and ignores others. Cultural background (for instance various colors are perceived to have different meanings in different cultures) as well as deep-down fundamental instincts play a key role. It’s completely understandable that our brains will react to and highlight dangerous things that we see, it’s a result of evolution. Yet, it also means that what we see is not really as genuine as we might think, more like a limited excerpt of the full picture.

Nikita Krushchev apparently using his shoe to make a point in an UN meeting in 1960.

So, if our brains and eyes are not capable of showing us the truth, who are we to criticize manipulated images, especially when knowing that even images we would consider “pure” and “unaltered” are in fact not so? It’s a philosophical question and I don’t have the answer to it. But I’ll be so bold as to suggest we might want keep in mind that every image we’ve ever seen is the result of many layers and levels of manipulation. From the photographers choice of viewpoint, focal length and exposure to the medium and the development/processing of it. A photo that to your eye appears to be a representative and mirror-like remake of real life can only be so due to considerable manipulation of image-making technologies, and it only shows a resemblance that looks real to our human eyes and brains, which are, if ever so brilliant, equally prone to misinterpretation and subjectivity. Reality is very, very relative.