Mark EspositoFine Art Photography Blog

One of the reasons I love color photography is due to the unique emotional impact it produces when done right. Of course doing it right has some tough challenges, from the camera to the computer, to the print, the mat and the frame. Lots of ways to get frustrated along the way. I guess this is why lots of photographers stop at the computer. Mastering the camera alone is hard enough. Add to that Photoshop and all of the other software you need, and the challenge is daunting. If anything, that’s an understatement. So what’s this got to do with color? Well, making an emotional connection with color is a huge technical challenge, not just artistic. It’s not as easy as it looks.

Technical Challenges

if you’re not interested in a technical discussion, skip down to the next section

Camera technology has always offered latitude when it comes to reproducing the colors that we see. At the same time that means there is imprecision. With film, one type produces more highly saturated colors while another does better with skin tones. Digital photography has even more latitude up front by allowing for quick adjustments in how the camera will record color. With either technology colors can be adjusted on the computer. So the color in a Fine Art print is NOT simply a WYSIWYG process. The challenge of producing an emotional connection with color starts out as a technical one, and then becomes an artistic one.

Why is color such a technical challenge? You can’t find a camera that perfectly handles white balance in every situation, and has a perfectly calibrated sensor or film, and never under or overexposes. So it’s still up to the Artist to figure out how to represent or reproduce color, whether the goal is to be completely accurate, or to represent a personal vision. In the case of the photo shown above, you’re seeing what I saw as closely as I could represent it. In this case, for me, no personal vision could compete with what was already there, at least from the perspective of color.

To add to the difficulties, JPEG, the most common file format for photography, by design throws away some of the color information in a photo in order to compress the file to make it smaller. It therefore can’t perfectly represent nuances in color. In some cases it can’t represent the color at all, because it threw away the hue of a color by averaging other colors in the same area during compression. In Fine Art color photography, where color is one of the key components, we can’t afford to throw anything away. (By the way, the RAW file format does NOT throw anything away, so that is the preferred format for Fine Art Photography) I’m not bad-mouthing JPEG though. It works just fine for other print media, like most magazines and Wedding albums.

What about the paper? Even the highest quality paper has it’s unique attributes, which means that it’s going to take the ink differently. Some papers are matte, some glossy, and others in-between, and the same print on each of these will look very different. These all have an impact on the colors.

The Emotion of color

Now to the artistic side of this discussion. Black & White photography produces a range of emotional responses, sometimes very powerful. I’m not sure that they are the same responses that color might produce. That’s hard to figure out. For me there is something different with color. Of course it’s silly to think that all emotional responses are measurable or exactly reproducible between people. Obviously emotions belong to the viewer, and they are highly personal, and often based on experience. However, there must be some commonality as lots of people tend to respond in similar ways to certain attributes of art that is well-done, especially color.

I can’t put my finger on why the Tulips photo shown above evokes such an intense feeling (in me), but I know for sure that it’s the colors that are doing it. How about the composition? There is definitely a composition, and I’m sure it plays an important role, but I’d like that to be invisible. The foreground tulip has been isolated in a background bed of supporting colors, rather than a staged black background. Just as important, there is no outside world, just color. The composition doesn’t lead me to consider the outside world. No sky, no people, no environment. Maybe that’s why I like it. Rather than looking at it compositionally, I only want to enjoy the colors and the feeling that I could live inside that scene forever. I’ll need a waiter though!

To the Designer of all designers, and the creator of color and light – Thank you!

- Mark Esposito

Comments welcome

It’s hard to overestimate the importance of clouds in Landscape Photography. When I started out doing Landscape I thought blue skies were the best. I guess if you’re used to boring overcast clouds of whitish-grey, the saturation of a blue sky is really pleasing to the eye. However, artistically, it becomes a large space with nothing interesting to hold your attention.

If you’re shooting Macro, these clouds are just what you needed as they diffuse the light leaving no harsh shadows and good saturation. Usually with Macro photography we aren’t including the sky in the photo anyway.

On the other hand, not all Landscape photos need the sky. Take a look at the photo of Spiderock in my earlier blog post here. The overcast sky took away from the mood I wanted to portray, so I left it out. I had to clone in some dark grasses (in Photoshop) in a small strip at the top. (not shown)

Finally, here’s an example from my recent trip to Arizona. The site is called Church Rock. As great as Church Rock is, the clouds made the composition. I used Nikon’s super wide-angle lens Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 to exaggerate the clouds. I’m printing this on Epson Exhibition Fiber paper, which has super bright whites. Printed at 16×24, or even cropped at 16×20 it’s really beautiful.

More Info on Clouds

Wikipedia has a short article on clouds that might be helpful here.

I just ordered the following book on Amazon since it had some good reviews, and it’s inexpensive.

Click on the image to order it.

Just got back from the Photography Workshop in Arizona and Utah. Had a great time getting to know Alain and Natalie, and some very good sites that I hope to return to many times. For me this trip was a real test for my Nikon D3 and lenses. I wasn’t sure how well they would do for this kind of Landscape, shooting at f16, with tripod and remote shutter release. I say this because the prevailing belief seems to be that you need Medium Format to do justice to a great Landscape. I’m sure that 40 Megapixels makes a difference, especially when printing at very large sizes. However, the image below prints beautifully at 12×18, and can easily go much larger. If Art is the goal, and not just sharpness for sharpness sake, the D3 at 12 Megapixels did just fine with the right lens, f-stop, and Mirror-up. :^}

Spiderock turned out to be the most dramatic (for me) due to some great light just before sunset one night. I’m not kidding when I say that this light lasted 10 seconds. Once again it shows that the first hurdle in Landscape photography is just being there. Sounds easy, but being there at the right time often means 6:00am and 8:00pm, when most folks are sleeping or resting after dinner. Add to that a hike to get to the best location and you can see the commitment that it takes.

Let me know what you think of it by leaving a comment! Soon I’ll have a link to purchase a high quality print of this image.

Technical Details: Nikon D3, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8, 1/30 sec, ISO 200 @f16

(if you don’t see the option to leave a comment, click on Read More)

I happily broke the Rule of thirds (just about) with this photo in order to get the clouds. The rule seemed to violate what my eye told me was right, so out goes the rule. (you know what they say about rules)

The reason it works (for me) is that the tree and clouds fill the top half of the photo, so there isn’t much dead space in the sky.

I was thinking about a title for this scene, and what came to mind was “Canyon Seating”. It looks like a great spot for a sleeping bag as well. That would be some scene to wake up to – if you could get past the fear of something licking your ear, or rolling down the hill into the canyon.

Interestingly this was shot with the Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye lens, which you would never guess. It’s a fantastic lens that I would recommend highly for most Nikon bodies. (except the D3/D700) In the uncropped version you can see some curvature in the horizon, but cropped I don’t see it.

Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye – Buy on Amazon

Technical Details: Nikon D200/10.5mm, 180/sec @f9
My current gear: See the Bio page

(if you don’t see the option to leave a comment, click on Read More)

I’m heading off to a Photo Workshop in Chinle AZ and Monument Valley Utah with Alain and Natalie Briot in the next couple of weeks, so I hope to have something new to show when I get back. It seems like good composition would be easier at a place like the Grand Canyon, but this is far from true. The senses are overwhelmed by the vastness and power of the view, but that doesn’t automatically translate into a great composition on print. In fact, if you just throw the wide-angle lens on the camera, trying to capture the feeling, you’ll probably end up with a bunch of busy photos with no subject for the eye. It may still be a pleasing image, but it probably won’t go beyond that.

This image had something that I really liked beyond pleasing, but I had to do some serious cropping to get the foreground right, and as such I think the print will have to stay on the smaller side.

Feel free to comment on it.

By the way, Check out Alain’s new book coming out on Composition link here

Nikon D200/12-24mm @ 14mm

Click on Read More to Add a comment