Thoughts

Archive

August 31, 2011 by Matt Suess

TV Interview with me on Art Space in Arizona

Last month in July I was interviewed in a studio setting for Art Space – a tv show in Show Low, Arizona. The show started airing this month and I finally got a copy to share with you.

In the 12 minute interview I discuss a few of my photographs including “Fire & Ice”, “Old Betsy at Sunset“.

I also talk a little bit about my background, HDR photography, some of the processes I take while taking photos and printing, and traveling and living full-time in my rv.

YouTube Preview Image
Share

Archive

April 27, 2011 by Matt Suess

Real Photographers Don’t Use Photoshop Plugins, Right?

April 27, 2011

I read one of the funniest – actually saddest – photography blog posts in recent memory earlier this week. The summation of the article was that real photographers don’t use photoshop plugins.

That’s right – you with the Nik Software plugin running in the background while you read this – you are not a real photographer. Hey you over there using Topaz Labs plugins – you are a fake. Stop it, now.

You are only allowed to make adjustments in Photoshop if you want to be considered a real photographer!!! Can’t use any third party plugins. Can’t use any other programs. Only layers and layer masks and adjustment layers done using photoshop for you!

If you are guilty of using such photoshop plugins, be warned that the end result is not your style – it is the style of the software programmers. You have no style, no creativity, no voice and no vision in this Real Photographers Club if you are using photoshop plugins.

Sounds a little ridiculous to me, doesn’t it? But the above is the conclusion I had when I read that blog post.

Lightroom was used to process RAW files. Photoshop plugins used: Nik HDR Efex Pro, Nik Color Efex Pro, Nik Viveza, Photokit Sharpener. Additional manual work in photoshop was also done.

The use of photoshop plugins was compared to that of preparing and making a cake. The post says that one can get a cake with no effort at all by buying one already made, or with a little bit of effort by buying a box mix, or you can make one from scratch using raw ingredients. This writer stated that the only one that is completely yours is the one made from scratch. Everything else is not your cake. If you are using photoshop plugins, your cake isn’t from scratch because you used a boxed cake mix. If it’s not made from scratch it isn’t yours, isn’t your style, and isn’t your creativity.

Curious for clarification, I responding to his post on Facebook with my own following comment:

Begin Quote:
“Your views against using plugins reminds me of the argument some traditional chemical darkroom film photographers used to make (and some still do) against using digital. They would say using photoshop is not your own work and isn’t “100% from scratch”.

So now the only pure way to use digital is to use nothing but photoshop? No plugins whatsoever?

Photomerge, part of photoshop, could easily be a plugin but because it was made by Adobe and is built into photoshop – is that ok to use, but not a competing “plugin”? Same thing with photoshop’s smart sharpen – is that ok to use but not sharpening software plugins from Nik or Pixel Genius? Must be ok to use photoshop’s Merge to HDR Pro, but shame on you if you use Nik’s Merge to HDR Efex Pro plugin?

While I can do many or most of the things plugins do for me manually in photoshop, time is money and the plugins save me a boatload of time. My use of plugins doesn’t make my style any more that of Nik’s than your style is that of Photoshop’s.

Photography is a great, expressive art form that is really seeing some awesome advancements lately – and plugins are helping make that easier for the folk who can’t do it all manually or those that want to save time and achieve the same or even better results. No need to be dissing on the plugins – today is a much better and more creative world than when the only “style” was Fujichrome Velvia or Kodachrome ;-) ”
End Quote

I guess this writer was not looking for opposing viewpoints as my comment was quickly deleted from his Facebook page and the same comment was not accepted and thus not published on his approval-only blog comment section – yet he did end up rewriting a good portion of his post to counter some of my questions.

Lightroom was used to process RAW files. Photoshop plugins used: Nik HDR Efex Pro, Nik Color Efex Pro, Nik Viveza, Photokit Sharpener. Additional manual work in photoshop was also done.

“Real chefs don’t use cake mix!” was his reply on Facebook when I asked him what difference does it make how the cake was made as long as it tastes good. Wow!!! Arrogance?!? The only conclusion one could arrive at based on that comment and his analogy was that real photographers don’t use photoshop plugins. One other exchange with me exploring his assertion got me blocked from his Facebook profile. Oops – should I have just agreed?

I don’t particularly like arguments, but come on – how can one make such a claim?

I wonder if it makes a difference if the chef bought the eggs or if he got them from chickens he raised himself. Did the chef make his own butter or was it bought in a store? Did he grow the other ingredients himself like humans used to do since the beginning of time up until about a century ago or did he buy the ingredients in a store? If the chef puts the mix in the oven in a pan from a certain manufacturer, isn’t the cake the pan manufactures’ style because the finished cake takes the shape of the pan? What is considered made from scratch these days anyways?

Seems like one could draw the line anywhere. This writer chose to draw the line at plugins because he doesn’t use them, and in the same swing dissed everyone who does. All this while admitting he hasn’t even tried plugins since “a long time ago”, and further said that he “doesn’t keep up with them”. Plugins sure have changed since “a long time ago” and are not the canned recipes they used to be. Whereas a cake mix box has exact instructions to follow for a correct cake, the plugins of today are meant to have their stock presets modified and changed by the user to achieve better and more personal results than “out of the box”.

Honestly, who cares how you got to the end result if you did it yourself. Sure all plugins have presets – but who ever uses just those presets without making their own creative modifications to them? If one only used the factory presets, then maybe one could make a comparison of plugins to boxed cake mix. But today’s plugins allow for so much creative control through the use of control points and brushes and layers and layer masks that they really resemble raw ingredients rather than a cake mix box.

For me and other photographers, it’s all about the end result – the print (or in the above analogy the cake). Is the print beautiful and do I respond to it emotionally and is it in the photographers vision? Is the cake moist and delicious and fulfilling?

Does the art collector dropping his or her hard earned cash really care if you used one photoshop plugin, two of them, or none of them and just used traditional photoshop techniques? Never met one that did. Their concerns are 1) do I have an emotional response to this photograph I am considering purchasing, and 2) did this photographer use the best materials so my investment will last?

It reminded me of the Nikon vs Canon or Mac vs PC debates. Pssst: by the way, you are only a real photographer if you use Canon and Mac ;-)

Lightroom was used to process RAW files. Photoshop plugins used: Nik HDR Efex Pro, Nik Color Efex Pro, Nik Viveza, Photokit Sharpener. Additional manual work in photoshop was also done. Texture layers added in photoshop - one texture of my own, another from FlyPaper Textures (see link at right of blog).

Photoshop plugins are there for the experienced user to bring out results that are faster and just as good or even better than one can get by doing it the long and manual way in photoshop. In workshops that I teach I show you the old, manual way to do things in photoshop, then show you how much easier, faster, and better it is to use the right plugin for the right situation. Something that is easier and gives better and quicker results shouldn’t be bad, should it?

The worst thing for a student learning how to use photoshop and express themselves creatively is to tell them they can’t use a certain tool because they won’t be considered a real photographer. Plugins can stimulate creativity, enjoyment, and ultimately better photographic prints if used correctly and with restraint.

We photographers of today are so lucky to have such a wide range of tools available to us to express ourselves through our photography. Never let someone else tell you that you are not a real photographer because you use photoshop plugins. Let your prints do the talking and let the enjoyment you have using these plugins show in your prints and keep plugging away.

And hey – if you can do everything the old fashioned manual way in photoshop – that’s fantastic. Way to go. Just don’t disrespect and decry all of the other photographers (and there are probably millions) who do use plugins to help them along the road to a great print.

I’d love to hear what you think about plugins, pro and con – and I promise not to delete any comments or un-friend you if you think “plugins are for sissies” as one Facebook comment expressed :-)

Comments on my blog are only deleted if they are spam, commercial, vulgar, or not on topic. No waiting for approval either before your comment is posted. Opposing viewpoints are always welcome here!!

Share

Archive

February 4, 2011 by Matt Suess

Interview with me on Nik Radio

February 4, 2011

A couple days ago I was interviewed by Scott Sheppard – the host, executive producer and anchor of Nik Radio, sponsored by Nik Software. In the 20 minute interview I talk about my history with photography and being a photojournalist, my current work as a full-time artist selling at art festivals, and the gear and software I use to create my work.

You can listen to a streaming online version of the interview here. You can also listen to it via itunes by subscribing to the podcast here.

As many of you may know, I have been a big fan and user of Nik Software for years and I highly recommend their products. They have provided me with a coupon code for me to share with you to save money on all of their software products. Simply use the coupon code mattsuess during the checkout process to receive your discount.

In my photo workshops I spend a big part of them teaching and sharing with you the way I use Nik Software to enhance my work. You can see my latest workshop schedule here.

Share

Archive

December 13, 2010 by Matt Suess

Signs you are at a bad art festival and problems with Zapplication

December 13, 2010

There’s a great quote in one of my favorite movies of all time – the 1998 movie The Big Lebowski – in which The Stranger says, “Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes, well, he eats you.”

Well, fellow photographer and artist Christine Hauber and I recently got eaten by the bear at an “art festival” put on by a local Art Center, and the bear is Zapplication (Zapp). For us artists, Zapp is a website through which the vast majority of shows are now relying on to facilitate the jurying of their art festivals. Seems simple for the artists: log into their website, find a show in your area, select your 3 or 4 or 5 digital images of your best artwork and include a booth photo of your typical display, explain you and your artwork in 100 characters or less, pay a jury fee, and wait to hear if you get into the show or not.

No more getting in touch with the shows to have them mail you an application, no more filling out application forms, getting slides made of your artwork, and no more mailing out application forms hoping they arrive before the deadline. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Shows are popping up all over the country lately on Zapp hoping we apply to their shows. It is a great opportunity for the show: they get a nationwide pool of artists already signed up to Zapp from which to draw from, they add some splashy marketing text explaining how their show is the best one to apply for, and they rake in the money in jury fees from hundreds to even thousands of artists hoping to fill 50, 100, 200, maybe 300 available spots.

And every once in a while, the jurying part of the show just completely fails. You give the show a little credit in advance – take for example an area Arts Center putting on the show – so you should be confident that you will be entering a well juried fine art festival, right?

Enter the hungry bear…

Wooden clothes pins to display loose photos?? At a juried fine art festival? Really?!?

As artists applying to fine art festivals, we expect – and the public expects – a tightly juried show where quality is paramount to their festival. Quality of artwork and quality of presentation. While quality of artwork can be subjective, there are pretty common guidelines representing quality of presentation.

Now I am not saying there is a time and a place for such a presentation – but the time and place should not be a juried fine art festival, put on by an Arts Center. In the above photo, this person’s display consisted of photos strung along a clothes line with wooden clothes pins holding them up. And this wasn’t even the only booth with such a display!

I split the blame between Zapp and the festival jurying the show, with the victims ending up being the participating artists as well as the attending patrons. Zapp has become a juggernaut in the art festival application process, making it way too easy for art festivals to collect tons more in application fees for their shows than what was previously possible, and reducing the overall quality of shows.

Not all art festivals are allowing bad work - how do we keep it that way?

One would think this would mean a much better juried art festival, but every once in a while the system simply breaks down. In today’s digital age, it is way too easy to produce great looking jury photos that often don’t even closely represent what an artist actually is displaying. Zapp has made the jurying of artists too random and impersonal.

Getting juried into a show isn’t about a body of work, artist biographies, and experience any more. It’s all just about those 4 or 5 photos that may not even quite represent what the artist truly offers and which certainly doesn’t prove that the artist in fact even created the artwork themselves (of which should be the subject of another blog post).

The "Evil Empire" of art festival jurying?

Zapp has the ability to have the shows request more information about the artist and their artwork in the application process. Shows like the La Jolla Festival of the Arts require more fields to be filled out when applying, asking more about you as an artist. They appear to not just rely on a couple images and 100 characters – they take the time to get more information about the artist to help them jury a higher caliber of artist.

The shows themselves need to take this upon themselves to improve the look of their show and attract the right patrons to the show they are advertising. They need to take the time to read and consider more information about the artists they are considering allowing into their art festivals. In the last few years I have noticed a decline in the quality of artists at shows that have billed themselves as having the best artists around. I have talked to fabulous artists who did not get into these shows that really deserved to be there. And I have heard patrons comment that the quality of certain shows has gone down in the last few years – a direct result of the jurying process.

It really seems from my perspective that the more that shows rely on Zapp’s basic application process, the more these shows suffer from a quality standpoint of accepted artists. This in turn dramatically affects the number and quality of the patrons attending the show. Patrons may expect to see the photographer shown above displaying their work at a craft show or flea market, but certainly not at an art festival. I know of many patrons who have stopped going to certain shows due to the drop in quality of the artists accepted into the show.

Zapp has made it way to easy for shows to find artists, dramatically increasing the amount of applicants to these shows. The increase in applications reduces the odds of getting into a show (the 2010 Cherry Creek show received 2251 applications for just 230 spaces). It increases the amount of money a show brings in in application fees (which typically range from $25 to $50).

But with an increase in applicants comes an increase in the time needed to jury a show. This is probably why most shows do not ask for more information like La Jolla does. Instead these shows jury artists based the 4 or 5 images you have, spending perhaps 10 seconds per artist during a first round screening.

How do we change the system? Does it need changing? Are you happy or upset with the way our artwork is juried for Zapp shows? Do you agree or disagree with my observations? Has the quality of shows gone downhill recently? Feel free to add your comments below.

Share

Archive

April 22, 2010 by Matt Suess

Why I’m not getting an iPad…yet

Photo courtesy Apple.com

April 22, 2010

I am sort of an Apple geek. Since 2001 I have owned and still own and purchase Apple’s laptops, desktops, iMacs, iPods, Airports, and  iPhones – of which I have owned all 3 models and will be getting version 4 as soon as it is released this summer. I swear by their products. They are built extremely well, work without problems, and do what I need them to do for both work and play.

Most people who know me just assumed that an iPad would be added to my collection as well. Yet as of right now, I am just not compelled enough to go out and get one. For me there just isn’t quite enough need there right now.

I have to confess – I have not yet seen one in person yet. But even still, I have done my research and while there are some aspects of it that interest me – primarily the large screen – I can’t justify buying what really just seems to be a larger iPhone.

I spend a lot of time on the road in my RV traveling, photographing, and selling my artwork at art festivals. I travel with my iPhone, MacBook, and 27″ iMac. I get wireless internet on my iPhone, and with my Verizon wireless MiFi 2200 which allows my iPhone, laptop and desktop computers all to connect to the internet at the same time via wifi through the Verizon card. (See my review of the MiFi 2200 here). With all three devices close at hand, where does the iPad fit in?

For me, it just doesn’t. I can get a lot of work done on my iPhone, such as searching for directions, doing quick internet searches, email checks, some blog updates, etc. When I am done driving for the day, the laptop is there to take over doing more intense emails as well as updating my blog and website, doing a quick scan of photos taken during the day, and other business I need to take care of. Photo editing and processing is saved for the iMac.

If I had an iPad, what would I use it for that can’t be done on any other device I have? I can’t import my RAW camera files into it to edit. It has no camera on it, meaning it can’t take photos and can’t be used to video skype. It won’t fit in my pocket like my iPhone does. In fact, if I had one, it would probably travel with me in the same case as my laptop.

About the only use I can think of that would be beneficial to me would be to use it to show my portfolio of images. That could be helpful at some of the fine art festivals I do, yet not enough reason to go out and get one just yet as I have done well enough without the iPad.

I probably will eventually get one – but most likely not until it features a video camera. Having the ability to import and store RAW camera photos in the field would also sway me rather quickly. Until then, I will be passing on the iPad for now.

Share

Archive

August 17, 2009 by Matt Suess

Must Be Some Camera

Essay by Matt Suess

I have been asked countless times, “Wow, what type of camera do you use?”, or “Must be some camera that you have”. or “My camera doesn’t take pictures like that”, etc. One time in particular, a gentleman was looking at my work in my booth at an art show and said something along the lines of, “Sure must be a great camera you have to get these great pictures”.

I looked at him for a moment, and responded with a smile, “No. Actually, it was some great photographer who did this.” The expression on his face gave me the feeling that he was thinking that I was trying to pull one over on him, and he smiled while responding, “Sure, but it still bust have been a great camera!” He was fully expecting me to reply, “Yes, you caught me – I have the best camera in the world and that is the only reason why these prints look so good.”

My actual response was, “I am sorry, but it is not just the camera. In fact I can produce beautiful work with any camera, even yours.” His smile dropped and he looked me in the eyes and said, “Come on, you use a Hasselblad.” I replied, “I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong, but you are wrong. I do not use a Hasselblad camera.” At this point, the conversation was over – he thought I was flat out lying to him and the only reason why I have the quality I have was because I used a Hasselblad camera.

What this individual was not able to comprehend is that the camera is just one of many tools for the photographer. It is not the end all, be all.

Is it the high end kitchen utensils that popular chef Emeril uses that makes his dishes so renown? Take him into your kitchen. Would he be able to produce a meal far superior to yours using your own utensils – utensils that may not be the “best in the industry”?

Part of the misconception of, “the better the camera, the better the photo,” comes from the basic fact that nowadays just about everybody has a camera. Everyone has experience taking photos. And yes, everyone takes some photos that perhaps they even surprise themselves with by the way the print turns out. But not as many prints come out as great as they would like. What’s the most obvious thing to blame – their technique? No. It is definitely the camera that took the bad photo. The print doesn’t look anything like what they remember. They assume if they purchased a better, more expensive camera, they would get better photos.

So they buy a more expensive camera and find that, yes, they are now sometimes getting better pictures. Camera quality, at this basic level of photography experience, does indeed play an important factor. Their logical conclusion is: the better the camera the better the print.

"Serenity at Scorton Creek" - Cape Cod, Mass. Over 20 hours of work in my digital darkroom went into the making of this fine art print.

"Serenity at Scorton Creek" - Cape Cod, Mass. Over 20 hours of work in my digital darkroom went into the making of this fine art print.

What these individuals do not understand is that, sometimes, there is more than meets the eye when it comes to photography and fine art prints. The camera is simply a tool – a very important one at times for sure – but it is just one of many variables that come into play when producing a fine art print of the utmost quality. The real “magic” comes from the printing. It is with the printing that the artist’s intent fully comes to life. The camera is just a tool used to move one along the path towards the final destination that is the print. A bad print from a Hasselblad can be worse than a good print from a cell phone camera.

I am selling the final print – I am not selling based on the camera I used. If I “fooled” someone into thinking that I used a Hasselblad, is it now all of a sudden an inferior print once known a Hasselblad wasn’t used?

Is it worth less?

Maybe it should be worth more!!

Printing is the most important part of the process for me, and the part that consumes the most amount of time. Countless hours of work go into each and every one of my prints. While there are some images I am able to print with only a few hours of work, others have taken months (not continuous, fortunately) to produce a print I am completely satisfied with. I even have one photo that I worked on, from time to time, over the course of a full year before I was satisfied with the print!

I wasn’t bothered by that gentleman walking out of my booth convinced, in his own beliefs, that I simply had a “really good” camera. In fact, it was a compliment to my printing, technique, experience, composition, vision, creativity, and, the least of which, the camera I used. A great camera is not going to make a great photographer.

I will write future articles discussing the methods and procedures I use in doing my own printing. For those not interested in that, and only want to focus on the camera I use, I will tell you that I currently use a Canon 5D Mark II camera. It is a 21 megapixel digital camera. It’s not a top of the line camera, nor is it a bottom of the line camera. But boy, you should see the pictures this camera takes… ;-)

July 2006, Revised August 2009

Share

Archive

August 25, 2007 by Matt Suess

A Little Common Sense, Please!

I just recently completed two wonderful photo expeditions to remote areas in Northern Arizona and Southern Utah that provided me with breathtaking views and amazing photos. But they also left me disappointed in the utter disregard some people have with respect to the land.

Granted, there are major problems in this world regarding pollution and damage to the environment on a global scale. That is not the purpose of this article, which focuses on the smaller, more localized problems that can be attributed to individuals rather than entire populations. While not as grand in scale, these issues are equally important.

In April of this year I spent a third of the month in the wilderness both car camping and backpacking. In nearly every location I visited, there were signs of human tampering be it candy wrappers, cigarette butts, toilet paper, glass, food, right down to trampled vegetation, car/atv “donuts” in the  ground (caused by intentionally spinning the rear of the vehicle in a circle pattern), and more.

All of these problems were found in remote areas – places that very few people get the chance to see due to the difficulty in getting there and/or the fact that they are not well known yet. I say “yet” because in the internet age, it is only a matter of time before previous “hidden” locations become well known and heavily traveled, making this article even more important. Popular locations have even greater problems with trash and human scarring.

I spent a total of three nights on two separate occasions in April camping at one of these small, “hidden” locations in Northern Arizona. The remoteness of this area will hopefully slow the damage already started by those who have been here simply because many people will not be able to get to this location. Miles and miles of deep sand, rugged roads, and no cell phone coverage make this a very hazardous location to travel to. Inexperienced and unprepared drivers who try to visit often find themselves stuck, causing even more damage to the area.

These ATV drivers could find a more appropriate place to park than where they did!

These ATV drivers could find a more appropriate place to park than where they did!

This past Friday night and Saturday morning my wife Marci and I had this place to ourselves. But just before noon, some 20 people on 14 ATV’s stopped here for lunch. Rather than parking in an open area just a couple hundred yards from the entrance – an area that is ideal for parking – they all proceeded to park off the sand and on the sandstone rock formation itself! An area which I have also seen tour vehicles parked.

Unfortunately, this entrance to an amazing landscape has been permanently scarred by engine oil as well as tire marks and scraps from car undercarriages. It is also too easy to find pieces of trash here as well. Marci and I spent time picking up the trash we found – some of which was definitely from the lunch group.

This large oil spill leaves it's permanent mark at the entrance.

This large oil spill leaves it's permanent mark at the entrance.

Later that day five SUV’s arrived and decided to camp near us in the parking area. They fortunately did not drive their cars up on the rock entrance. But they did their own damage by driving their SUV’s all over the hill along the back of the parking area – an area where no other tire tracks existed before they got there – all so that they could set up a tarp connected to 3 of their cars. One driver took his SUV straight to the top of the small hill driving over lots of vegetation, just to unload his tent and supplies, then drove right back down.

In the desert plants and vegetation can take years to recover from human damage. Items such as toilet paper and wrappers do not break down and decompose like they might in wetter environments. Trash left in the desert will be there for a long, long time.

The only way these pieces of metal and plastic will disappear for good is if someone removes them...

The only way these pieces of metal and plastic will disappear for good is if someone removes them...

...Marci and I did just that.

...Marci and I did just that.

While the issues discussed here seem small – a wrapper here, some tissue there – with more people visiting these areas the trash and damage will add up fast if no one does anything about it.

We all need to do our own part to keep the areas we visit clean and trampled-on as little as possible. It is very simple and easy to do, and all it involves is a little common sense and a quick look around before you leave.

Refrain from making your own roads and trails while driving and consider where you park. Be aware of what you are stepping on – sandstone and vegetation can be equally fragile. Pick up your own trash and even trash you find that is not your own.

Everyone needs to do their part to protect these delicate environments so that others can enjoy these wonders and landscapes in their natural form – free from human contamination.

May 2007

"Land Before Time"

"Land Before Time"

Share