Since age 10 I have been enthralled with the bobsleigh. That was the first time I was old enough to realize what it was. I watched every segment of the sport on TV during the Lake Placid Olympics of 1980. I built my own toy bobsleigh run out of clay, cotton and plywood, built bobsleighs to accompany it, and pretended to race all of the different colors of the competing countries. Fast forward to 30 years later and a childhood dream has come to pass. Last week I got to photograph and spectate the 4 man bobsleigh in Whistler, British Columbia. I can tell you that it was the best sporting event I have ever been to, period. I can’t even begin to describe the feeling that 1000 plus pounds of athletes and machine passing at 95 miles an hour generates, within a proximity so close, that I could high-five them. Pure insanity. Try to capture it on film, well on sensor I guess, and it is just plain ridiculous. This is the coolest idea since sliced bread. These are the guys who never let the runners of their flexible flyers rust. With all of this excitement and emotion built from the past 30 years of my life, I decided that one image I had to have was of the final turn, the turn where the riders experience 5 Gs. To put it in a different perspective, that is 5 times the force of normal gravity, and the average person passes out at 9 Gs. Again, did I state this was crazy. I slowed my shutter and tried to maintain focus on the sleds as they went through this turn at lightspeed. If it weren’t for digital, I would never have been able to come up with this image. A USA sled coming through the final turn at the Whistler Sliding Venue. I don’t need to play with those homemade toys anymore.
For starters, I feel that I need to qualify this review with a little bit of my history with Apple Computers and Aperture software. I bought my first Mac over 20 years ago and have been using them exclusively as my publishing platform since. My standard saying is, “You can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.” I purchased Aperture 1 on the day that it was available and haven’t used it since Adobe released Lightroom, I found that Lightroom was better integrated with Photoshop for the way that I worked on my images. I know that the issues I had with the first version of Aperture have since been resolved from reading other people’s reviews; so with the release of Aperture 3, I felt a strong urge to give my “until death do us part” hardware company another shot with their software. I have spent a total of about 8 hours working in Aperture 3 prior to creating this review. I loaded it into a 2 year old Mac Pro, with OS 10.5.8, 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors, and 8 GBs of ram.
I also want you to have a brief overview of my current workflow. All of my initial editing, renaming, cataloging, and keywording is currently accomplished using Photo Mechanic by Camera Bits, Inc. I can tell you that this will never change. Photo Mechanic is super fast, super responsive, and super easy to get those images organized to a point where I can work on them further. Once I am finished in Photo Mechanic the images are imported into Lightroom. This is where I apply global and some local adjustments prior to finishing the images in Photoshop. All of the Photoshop images are stacked with the original raws and assigned a rating, color code and flag per the way my wacked out brain works. At this point, they are ready to send out for usages, added to the web, or uploaded to my Photoshelter account.
I had a bunch of tasks in mind once I downloaded my trial version of Aperture 3, yesterday. I have a set workflow in place, so my main concern is how easy it would be to integrate Aperture into that workflow. Next, I wanted to review all of the new features and adjustment tools. Then, I wanted to see what I could produce with some of my current images and how fast I could do it.
I opened Aperture for the first time in a bunch of years last night after dinner. I watched all of the videos that pop up as you start the software for the first time and then was off to the races. I decided to only import two folders from my terabyte of images that reside on my computer. I figured if I couldn’t get a good idea as to how this software would work with creating only two projects on the platform, I could stop right there and continue on with my current workflow. I chose two folders of images that I captured in Yellowstone this past summer, both of which contained untouched raws, HDR merges, and final Photoshop selects. With this first stage, I discovered my first problem. Aperture does not read any of my Lightroom ratings, color coding or stacks. It does organize the files so I can see them in the order in which they reside in Lightroom, but all of that important info attached to the photos falls by the waste-side. There might be a way to do this and have it work, I just don’t know it yet. Also, I discovered that Aperture drops all of my IPTC contact info from my Photoshop finals. And yes, this info is present when viewing the images in Photoshop and Lightroom. Everything else appears to be correct – filenames, keywords, and IPTC data on the original raws.
Next up were the features. I have to say that I am pretty amazed here. The browser is super fast even while you are uploading, something that Lightroom lacks. I managed to find my first bug fairly quickly. I went right into the adjustments tab once the import was complete, selected an image, chose the retouch adjustment, and proceeded to clone dust out of an image. I have to say that I usually do this in Photoshop, because even Lightroom is way too slow with its version of this tool. Aperture proceeded to crash 5 times in a row. So it looks like I will either need to slow down on the way I clone and become more patient, or continue to work this process in Photoshop.
Now I wanted to master an image and see if I could get similar results here in Aperture to what is available to me in Lightroom. This is where Apple left me drooling. I have to say that they are crushing Lightroom in their ability to apply local adjustments to an image. You can see what I was able to get out of my raw in just a couple of minutes using only Aperture 3. The adjustments tab contains over 20 adjustments, and 30 presets, and this is the kicker – they can all be applied locally, with a custom brush that you create. In addition, you can create presets for both individual adjustments or a series of them. The adjustments do apply super fast, although there was some glitchyness as the hardware applied it to the raw. Sometimes it only displayed part of the image during it’s redraw process, this was fixed by just clicking on the image again. Not a big problem, but it definitely contributes to frustration. I also tried clicking one of my existing .psd files to see if I could go back into Photoshop and make additional adjustments to a final select. This was not a problem, however, Aperture needed to create an additional psd of the existing psd to do so. Meaning it was treating my final Photoshop file as a raw. All of the adjustment layers were present and workable. My main wish here is that it would read my psd as the psd and open it directly, and then re-save it as the original.
With the discovery of how amazing the adjustments tab is I decided to see if I could match an image in Aperture with one that has been processed through my current Photoshop workflow. And to my amazement it actually exceeded the current Photoshop image, by holding more detail in the highlights, and giving me a very close rendition (as seen below) without using anything but Aperture. This could make it a more powerful editing tool for me, bringing images into Photoshop only for merges and panoramic creation.
So what else do I like? The GEO tagging feature is a really cool option. I do not GEO tag my photos in the field, but with a quick click of the “places” tool in the upper right hand corner of Aperture, I was able to tag all of my Yellowstone photo locations in a couple of minutes by dropping pins on the map exactly where I know I stood. Then I was able to easily attach the specific photos to those locations. Way cool. The slideshow feature is really impressive too. It gives you the power to pretty much create a movie with your images, add music, add video that you have with your D-SLR, sync those images to the music, and then export the whole show directly to youTube, Quicktime, or even as full resolution HD. Having the ability to upload directly to Flickr and Facebook is a welcome plus for me also.
I know that I haven’t even touched the surface of this software and upon more review could find even more likes and dislikes with it. My main objective here was to see if it will do a better job for me personally. Anything that speeds up my editing processes, contributes to my bottom line and that is an ever growing necessity in this industry.
Am I going to make the switch back? Well that’s not an easy question to answer. Losing my ratings, stacks, and color coding would make my life a little harder. I will have to decide how important it is for me to keep those settings, and if the answer is yes, then making the commitment to update all of the folders and images accordingly. However, the adjustment tools are calling me like the Sirens of the Odyssey. I think before I jump off of the boat half cocked, I am going to do a little more research and see what Adobe steps up to the plate with in Lightroom 3. Never-the-less, if I was a current Aperture user, I would already have the upgrade. And as it stands right now, I really want to make the leap.
Pros:
-great image adjustments – especially on the local adjustment level
-slide show and places
-uploading to Facebook, MobileMe, and Flickr – it would be even cooler if they added posting to Twitter and personal blog galleries similar to what Photoshelter offers.
-speed when browsing and adjusting
Cons:
-doesn’t read Lightroom’s ratings, color coding, and stacks
-duplicates current .psd files as if they were raws
-crashes and glitchy redraws with certain tools in certain situations
As I conjured up the words for this post in my head, I was convinced that I was going to discuss what has inspired me, what currently does inspire me, and what I think will inspire in the future. Lately, I haven’t been looking to photography for inspiration, I have been looking elsewhere. I have been reading about architecture, painting, and music, and I figured that would encompass what I would write about here. I think that has all changed now though, due to a beer, some in-depth thought, and a long, hot shower.
The video you see here is of Danny MacAskill, an amazing urban trials rider. I would be hard pressed to believe that anyone out there hasn’t seen this video yet, as it has been viewed over 14 million times on youTube. I myself first saw it in May of last year, then again when Heather’s father sent it to me in August, and then again last week when my own father forwarded it on to me. Yes Danny does inspire, if not put you right into a state of disbelief, he defies gravity. And no, I can not ride like him, nor would I really ever want to, I think, maybe I would, never-mind.
The answer came to me as I was toweling off from my shower. The past few weeks, I have watched my 4 year old daughter Jade become obsessed with reading. She wants to be able to read War and Peace so badly that she will try reading to the point that her head collapses on the kitchen table in exhaustion. She falls asleep trying. That was my answer, my moment, my epiphany when this whole piece came together. It’s not that Danny MacAskill can do those amazing things with his bike that inspires me. It’s the fact that he has tried so hard, probably to the point of falling asleep on that machine, which has allowed him to do all of those tricks on his bike that inspires me. The pursuit of something you want so badly that you are willing to fall, injure, fail, repeat, redo, ect., that drive, that stamina, will show you success never before imagined. Danny is proof of that, Jade, will be proof of that. My only hope is that I can continue to fall asleep everyday with my camera in my hand in pure and utter exhaustion from trying so hard. And if not, I know that some of the inspiration is currently sleeping a few doors down.
In the popular view, photography is more realistic than any other graphic art because the camera takes its images directly, optically from reality….However, all art is illusion…and a photograph as much as a painting is a two-dimensional exercise in triggering perceptual responses, not a two-dimensional version of the real world.
The nature photography world is locked in an unwinnable and pointless debate: how far should you process your nature images before you stray from photography into art? This debate can be seen as a continuum, with those photographers who inherently distrust digital photography altogether (preferring the ‘purity’ of film) occupying one end of the spectrum; let’s call them the Purists. These people shun altering the content or look of a photograph after depressing the shutter (although filters and reflectors may be used in the field) and believe that any processing that does occur is acceptable only so far as it helps to faithfully reproduce what the photographer actually saw in the field at time of capture.
On the other end of the spectrum are the digital manipulators. These types spend as much time (if not more) working an image at their computer as in the field taking pictures. These photographers employ cloning, processing affects, HDR, and the creation of composite images regularly to freely alter the content and look of their images. Let’s call them the Processors.
The Purists and the Processors have been engaged in a battle that has heated up to the temperature of molten metal since the advent of digital cameras. The Purists accuse the Processors of lying with their wacky creations, and the Processors accuse the Purists of hypocrisy. (A similar debate about how the camera should be used occurred when colour images became possible. Ho hum, plus ça change…) While most photographers would situate themselves somewhere more in the middle of the continuum, enough people exist at each pole to drive plenty of photo forum discussions and blog topics across the whole of cyberspace.
But this entire debate rests on a flawed assumption.
What the Purists and the Processors are arguing about is how much a photograph is or is not reality. But as Michael Freeman points out, all graphic art is an illusion. Graphic art includes paintings, drawings, writing—and photography. No two-dimensional medium is capable of reproducing our three-dimensional world; all attempts are necessarily a representation or interpretation of what is real.
How did this debate even originate within nature photography? Part of the answer lies in the nature of the camera as an artistic tool itself. The camera is designed to record and present visual information derived “directly, optically” from reality. It works in real time, with real objects. Because of how well the camera records and reproduces visual information, it came to be associated over time with communication of visual information to large amounts of people. Thus, at some point, the camera became less associated with artistic expression and more with communication of information. Information (as opposed to opinion) is often seen as objective and neutral; the origin of the camera as a purveyor of fact (reality) is born.
This association clearly continues today. In the September 2009 issue of Photolife magazine, we read the words of renowned aerial photographer and filmmaker Yann Arthus-Bertrand on his work:
I am an extremely dedicated photographer: a beautiful photograph that means nothing is of no interest to me. For me, photography is not an end in itself but a means for transmitting a message, for bearing witness, and for moving things forward. I feel more like a journalist than an artist because I attempt to bring knowledge through my photographs.
The camera has become conflated with the communication of information rather than a platform for artistic expression for its own sake. But this association has not served the photo community well.
Let’s imagine two photographers standing side-by-side by a mountain lake. Both compose and snap a photograph of the scene before them. Will their images be the same portrayal of reality? Obviously not as even superficially they weren’t standing in the same exact spot. But beyond that give-away, their images are likely to be different in other respects too. One may choose to frame more of the lake and less of the mountain; the other may select a long lens and focus on the mountain’s peak; one may use a consumer camera while the other has a professional camera body. How each photographer makes the image is the first way in which a photograph becomes an illusion of reality. Not only does the equipment used have an impact on the final result recorded, but what each photographer chooses to include—and by extension, exclude— determines what image is rendered. The photographer uses a combination of sensory perception, emotion and conscious or unconscious thought to constrain the real scene in front of him into a two-dimensional illustration.
The second way in which a photograph becomes an illusion of reality is when it comes time to turn the data captured by the camera (whether on film or sensor) into a mode capable of being viewed by people. This is where the Purists really get their knickers in a knot. Although many Purists are happy to step into a scene, pick up a stick and throw it away, they will frown on those lazy Processors who decide to just clone out the stick in post-processing. We agree that a good photographer tries to get the best data possible at the time of capture; the principle of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ definitely applies to photography! But does it really matter if you have to walk into a scene to physically remove a stick or whether you clone it out in post-processing?
For some magazines it matters. Many editors will not accept nature images that have been ‘digitally manipulated’. Aside from the definition issues that arise with such a term, what does this mean? At the time of capture, a scene can be manipulated or altered from the eye-view of the photographer by the use of special filters, lens choice and ‘pruning’ but the same effect will not be accepted if done at home on the computer? The silliness of this position is revealed when we compare the reaction to traditional, black and white photography to digitally altered, colour images. There is a certain amount of gravitas associated with black and white imagery that is likely left over from the fact that photography was birthed in a world incapable of colour expression. Modern fine art photographers tap into the flexibility inherent in this tradition and present their work in black and white. And yet, if we were truly representing reality, wouldn’t all nature images submitted in black and white be rejected by Purists now that we can shoot in colour? The legitimacy attached to black and white expression survives because of its origins, not its accuracy in communicating reality. It is an allowed exception in the nature photography world to the demand for realism because it was the only way a photograph could be made in the beginnings of the craft.
Framing the debate as a question of ‘how far’ you can go with digital manipulation is a direct result of viewing the camera as a device to record reality rather than a tool for representation or expression of real things. We have become hung up on seeing the camera as a way of communicating information about our subjects and forget that we cannot replicate our three-dimensional world into two-dimensional ‘facts’.
This type of thinking has brought us to a zero-sum game. The Purists refuse to embrace new tools of expression (like digital technology) and are limited in their growth as artists and photographers. (At this point, a short clarification is in order: we do not think all those who shoot in film are Luddites. Medium choice is the artist’s prerogative. We happen to shoot both digital and film for various purposes of expression). The Processors straddle the grey-ish area between photographers and software artists. Neither side can understand the other and believes that their perspective is the morally correct one. Where do we go from here?
We have to re-frame the debate. If we can junk the distinction between communicating information and communicating artistic expression, then we can approach a photograph for what it is rather than what it should be. All graphic art should be judged on how well it expresses its subject matter, and nothing else. If the idea or story the artist meant to convey is successfully told, then the image succeeds. If not, well…time to practice some more.
This means that we all have to adjust to the idea that a photograph is an illusion, a representation, and not literal truth or reality. We as photographers need to do two things: educate the public by not pretending our photographs are ‘reality’ when they are not, and be permissive with each other to avoid that tendency of photographers to pretend they have only ‘manipulated’ their image to make it look ‘like what I saw’. Who cares? The viewer was not there with you when you snapped the shutter. She should be encouraged to engage with the image for its own sake rather than be called upon to compare your work with some objective realty. When we free up photography to be about expression, then this medium will really soar.
Rob Sheppard recently made a post regarding creativity. You need to read Accidental Creative’s Manifesto, it explains everything. Then come back and have a longer look at this photo I made of the sunrise on the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Those who know me best know that I have been friends with Art Wolfe for some time now. He was a huge inspiration before I even had a career in photography and now our relationship has turned into a great friendship. I have spent the last 10 days with him traveling around Washington, sometimes photographing, sometimes driving (12+ hours straight one day), sometimes working and more often than not, laughing. I can count on him to make me laugh to the point that my stomach muscles are sore by time our trips are over. He invokes a drive in me to work harder and push my creativity farther than ever before. Sitting and watching the world pass you by is not an option for Art nor is it even in his vocabulary.
Here are two more photos from Mount Rainier National Park. The star trails image resulted in only 3 hours of sleep in order to be at Reflection Lake for sunrise. The high pressure that has been in place in the Pacific Northwest gave way briefly one evening to produce enough clouds for an unbelievable sunset. I now get to go home for a month, shoot a bunch of architecture projects, and catch up on running my business before it all starts again in Grand Teton National Park when Art, Gavriel Jecan, and I will be leading a workshop together. The whirlwind never stops…
Darwin Wigget and I decided to write for each other’s blogs this month. We agreed on a topic, wrote our articles, and selected our images without even hinting to each other on how we were approaching the subject. I emailed him my article and ten images, he in turn did the same. This is his article-mine can be found on his blog. We are planning on working together on a single topic article every other month, so stay tuned. Our next posting will be at the beginning of August.
Some photographers seem to have an innate creativity; they view the world in a way that is novel and fresh and not contrived. Where does this creativity come from? Is it genetic? Or is it something we can buy in a bottle or from the local drug dealer? Why is it that some photographers are so clever with their vision while many of us just seem to produce the ‘same old, same old’ over and over again? Is there a magic pill or set of mental gymnastics that we can try to make us more creative, or is the answer something deeper? Here are my thoughts.
All the photographers and artists that I know who are extremely creative have a strong inner drive and motivating passion for what they do. They simply can’t help themselves—they are fueled to go! Galen Rowell has described this trait as the inner rat. The rat is a voracious creature residing in your gut that drives you out time after time to create new images. The rat is not stymied by suffering and leaving the comforts of home; in fact, it seems to grow stronger in the face of adversity. The rat propels nature and outdoor photographers to shoot at temperatures diving toward -40 degrees Celsius, to sit in blinds for 12 hours without food, and to make other people look at you and think you are mad. The rat makes you hang off cliffs, wade into alligator-infested waters, and sleep in a bivouac sac in a meadow full of hungry grizzly bears. In short, it is this inner, almost insane drive that seems like the predominant prerequisite to success as a creative being.
I believe we all have a hungry rat within us. Some people have a fat, satiated little rat that sits on the sofa with a TV remote and a bag of Cheetos while others have a gigantic, emaciated rat constantly looking for its next meal. The one factor that most suppresses the size of the rat is ego. The fear of being judged, rejected or ridiculed always keeps the inner rat tiny. The ‘fear to create’ is the biggest rat-trap of all. I see this situation a lot: people often have an inner drive to create yet are absolutely terrified to show the world their images. They are the lurkers on photo forums and the long time camera club members who never show their work. In short, their insecurities cage the rat and wither the rat’s desire. After awhile any creativity they have is lost in their insecurities.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the ego maniacs. Here the photographer wants to show the world his photos, show how clever and amazing he is. The real reason the photographer shoots is for public recognition, for ‘atta boys’ and pats on the back. This kind of photographer often does have a voice of his own and a rat pushing him to create but the rat has learned to feed on the junk food of life–accolades. It has become a junkie needing a constant injection of adoration. These junkie rats force the photographer to constantly post on every possible photo forum where they hang on to each and every comment, aggressively countering any post that is anything but complimentary. Soon the work of such a photographer becomes repetitive and stale. The photographer constantly tries to repeat past successes and the accolade-aholic rat stifles any further creative growth. Without accolades the photographer loses his passion and therefore his creativity.
The truly creative photographers I know have a rat that drives them independent of their ego. These are self-confident people who create and are not afraid to share their works but also create for their own inner purposes and not for public adoration; they simply ‘shoot from the heart’ with little or no worries about how the outside world views their work. They are not arrogant about their work and processes and often are the people most willing to share their passion with others. Secrets have no place in their life-work. They shoot to please themselves and they create simply because they have to. And finally, they have learned to control the rat, they have learned balance and that life is richer than just their art and their expression. They let the rat lead when necessary but in the end are the master of the rodent.
In summary, I believe ego is the biggest stumbling block in being truly creative. We all have passion, we all have an inner rat, and we can all be driven when we feel a connection. It is simply the fear to create and the need for recognition that kills our creativity. The photographer who is confident in themselves, and who lets her inner vision thrive will be a photographer who has a big, creative rat. On the other hand, if you constantly worry what others will think of your work, how you will be perceived, or how famous you will become, then you will likely lose any creativity you had—you are destined to kill your inner rat. If you shoot simply to please yourself and to satisfy an inner desire without regard to how the world will view your work, then you are on the path to true creativity.
Some photographers seem to have an innate creativity; they view the world in a way that is novel and fresh and not contrived. Where does this creativity come from? Is it genetic? Or is it something we can buy in a bottle or from the local drug dealer? Why is it that some photographers are so clever with their vision while many of us just seem to produce the ‘same old, same old’ over and over again? Is there a magic pill or set of mental gymnastics that we can try to make us more creative, or is the answer something deeper? Here are my thoughts.
All the photographers and artists that I know who are extremely creative have a strong inner drive and motivating passion for what they do. They simply can’t help themselves—they are fueled to go! Galen Rowell has described this trait as the inner rat. The rat is a voracious creature residing in your gut that drives you out time after time to create new images. The rat is not stymied by suffering and leaving the comforts of home; in fact, it seems to grow stronger in the face of adversity. 
The rat propels nature and outdoor photographers to shoot at temperatures diving toward -40 degrees Celsius, to sit in blinds for 12 hours without food, and to make other people look at you and think you are mad. The rat makes you hang off cliffs, wade into alligator-infested waters, and sleep in a bivouac sac in a meadow full of hungry grizzly bears. In short, it is this inner, almost insane drive that seems like the predominant prerequisite to success as a creative being.
I believe we all have a hungry rat within us. Some people have a fat, satiated little rat that sits on the sofa with a TV remote and a bag of Cheetos while others have a gigantic, emaciated rat constantly looking for its next meal. The one factor that most suppresses the size of the rat is ego. The fear of being judged, rejected or ridiculed always keeps the inner rat tiny. The ‘fear to create’ is the biggest rat-trap of all. I see this situation a lot: people often have an inner drive to create yet are absolutely terrified to show the world their images. They are the lurkers on photo forums and the long time camera club members who never show their work. In short, their insecurities cage the rat and wither the rat’s desire. After awhile any creativity they have is lost in their insecurities.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the ego maniacs. Here the photographer wants to show the world his photos, show how clever and amazing he is. The real reason the photographer shoots is for public recognition, for ‘atta boys’ and pats on the back. This kind of photographer often does have a voice of his own and a rat pushing him to create but the rat has learned to feed on the junk food of life–accolades. It has become a junkie needing a constant injection of adoration. These junkie rats force the photographer to constantly post on every possible photo forum where they hang on to each and every comment, aggressively countering any post that is anything but complimentary. Soon the work of such a photographer becomes repetitive and stale. The photographer constantly tries to repeat past successes and the accolade-aholic rat stifles any further creative growth. Without accolades the photographer loses his passion and therefore his creativity. 
The truly creative photographers I know have a rat that drives them independent of their ego. These are self-confident people who create and are not afraid to share their works but also create for their own inner purposes and not for public adoration; they simply ‘shoot from the heart’ with little or no worries about how the outside world views their work. They are not arrogant about their work and processes and often are the people most willing to share their passion with others. Secrets have no place in their life-work. They shoot to please themselves and they create simply because they have to. And finally, they have learned to control the rat, they have learned balance and that life is richer than just their art and their expression. They let the rat lead when necessary but in the end are the master of the rodent.
In summary, I believe ego is the biggest stumbling block in being truly creative. We all have passion, we all have an inner rat, and we can all be driven when we feel a connection. It is simply the fear to create and the need for recognition that kills our creativity. The photographer who is confident in themselves, and who lets her inner vision thrive will be a photographer who has a big, creative rat. On the other hand, if you constantly worry what others will think of your work, how you will be perceived, or how famous you will become, then you will likely lose any creativity you had—you are destined to kill your inner rat. If you shoot simply to please yourself and to satisfy an inner desire without regard to how the world will view your work, then you are on the path to true creativity.