Making vs. Taking

Many great photographers have worked their entire careers taking photos of found or "existing" light. A large portion of my personal scenic work is just that and I revel in the beauty that can be captured in such photographs.

Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and Jay Maisel are but a few truly great practitioners of “Existing Light Photography” and there is no argument that they and others have produced multiple thousands of amazingly inspirational images. But the difference in taking photos and making photos lies in the control or creation of light within the image. Relying on found or existing light many times does not offer either the technical qualities or artistic expression that an advanced photographer requires

George Hurrell of 1930s-1940s Hollywood fame worked entirely in incandescent light and was the absolute master of celebrity portraiture,taking hours and often days to achieve the exact lighting he desired. Richard Avedon and Helmut Newton became masters of advertising/fashion photography by their innovation in controlling light within their images.

My point is, so much can be added to the creation of an image with the mastery of artificial lighting instruments. Be they constant incandescent or florescent light sources or the newest versatile strobe systems, it is the subtle and reproducible qualities of controlled source lighting that create the drama of the majority of today’s commercial photographs. As the collective eye and mind of modern society continue to evolve and become ever more sophisticated, the quality of light in each image, especially each still image, becomes ever more important.

Whether you’re looking at the absolute control of a Hurrell publicity photo or the mixed existing/artificial lighting of a Herb Ritts shot it is the mastery of the added light which transforms the image from a snapshot to a masterwork. And attaining proficiency isn’t really as difficult as it seems.

Once proficient with the tools, the development of your own personal style and aesthetic isn’t far behind. And it is within that personal style and aesthetic that the difference between technically proficient images and the creation of art lays!

I am presenting a hands-on lighting seminar on April 30 in Grand Rapids. If you're interested in attending, contact me or visit www.willfields.com/seminars/ for details.

Baby Wranglers, or How to Get Great Pics of Your Kids

I have baby pictures of our kids hanging in my house and I’m regularly asked how I got such fun images. The answer is a baby wrangler, or division of labor.

It’s really difficult to operate a camera and make a child smile or laugh or coo. But if you operate the camera and have a “wrangler” beside you doing all the things required to keep the child safe and performing, the pics become really easy. This applies to working with pets as well. It’s all the same thing.

Whether you’re in a studio or on the floor at home, the key is that the ”wrangler" has to get the child to laugh and be involved in their play without worrying about how the photos are being taken or even if they’re being taken. The wrangler’s job is to draw the expressions out of the child. It’s up to the camera person to capture the image. And after some practice the team work between the two can become really effective.

I know two moms who get together regularly to take shots of their young kids. They set up the situation (swings at the park, lying on the floor, whatever) and usually “wrangle” their own child while the other shoots.

If you don’t have a friend to help, use a tripod and a remote. If you have the situation set up (this is creating a photo, not taking candids) with everything ready to go you can wrangle and just click the shutter when you think you’ve got what you want. What does it cost to fill an entire card on a digital camera? The trick here is knowing (or at least have some idea) of what you want and then creating the image.

This even works with adults who are camera shy. Try it out and let me know how it goes.

Edward Weston was a child pornographer?

I was recently trying to find the "Day Books" of Edward Weston at a local library and they showed in the catalog but were "Removed From Circulation". I went to ask for help and as soon as I mentioned the books by name the Librarian gave me this weird look and asked why I was looking for them? I explained my work and that I was wanting to read again Weston’s thoughts and discussions on the difficulty of surviving as an artist. And that seemed to reassure her that I shouldn’t be arrested and she went on to say that the library board had removed the books from circulation due to “inappropriate interest” by several members of the community. That caught my attention but I still didn’t know what she meant.

The nude photos he had done of his young sons have now been labeled as child pornography!

How many artists throughout history  -- from Botticelli to Anne Geddes -- have attempted to capture the beauty of young children? I have a number of images of my two year old son on the day he wandered into the back yard naked except for his beloved rubber boots. Is this child porn?

Where is the line drawn? And what are we losing in drawing this line? There is no doubt that pedophilia is one of the most deplorable crimes in existence but it is very sad that we feel we have to outlaw the artistic exploration of the beauty of children because of a small minority of incorrectly hard-wired individuals.