Prior to the Covid-19 lockdown, I was often on planes and traveling internationally. As a result of travel restrictions, I began to explore and reconnect with some parks in New Jersey that I hadn’t visited in years. The experience holds two lessons for the photographer. Never disregard the familiar in favor of the exotic, and rethink the traditional landscape photograph.

In terms of the first point, consider this image of a dragonfly in flight in a state park called Six Mile Run. It is not a close up you would find in National Geographic, but nonetheless a capture of an otherwise unremarkable moment. This required an adjustment of shutter speed and a quick decision as to suitable background. I do have to admit to a certain liberty taken. I selected and slightly enlarged the dragonfly and pasted the larger version over where the smaller one was. It’s the same scene with the same dragonfly but with a slightly enlarged version to make it more visible. Suddenly, an ordinary scene in a state park becomes a little less familiar.

The second lesson is rethinking what may be considered traditional landscape photography.  Not all of us are fortunate enough to live near the Alaskan glaciers or the Rocky Mountains or Niagara Falls. Sometimes a small, tightly cropped portion of a forest or natural area can be as appealing as a panorama. Below is an image of the waterfall at Schooley’s Mountain in Morristown, New Jersey,

It is an opportunity to hone skills in terms of creative effects.

In looking for interesting places to photograph, always remember that something can be interesting even if it's local.

Landscape photographs do not have to be of the most dramatic and exotic places. John Constable built a career and lasting renown for his landscapes of his home countryside, often focusing on details and finite space. We can learn a lot from him as photographers, and I encourage you to go on museum websites (National Gallery in London, e.g.) and study how he treated the subject.

New Jersey is often derided for its industrial landscape, but it has many pockets of beauty. Beauty alone is not enough, however. You need to pay attention to how it will look. You may take ten pictures and hope for the best, but a good photograph depends upon the elements of composition— where things are placed in relation to each other, what is included and excluded, vertical versus horizontal, etc.  There is no substitute for composition. You can improve a lot of things but there are limits on what you can do once the image is captured.

Here is the unedited image of a small segment of the Musconetcong River in Bloomsbury, New Jersey.

I took many images of the river and at least a dozen of this scene, both as portrait and landscape, and with shutter priority as well as program (letting the camera decide speed and aperture). First, I wanted the boulders in the foreground, and though the one in the lower left is slightly cut off, I didn’t care. I wanted these rocks to anchor the image. They are taken at a strong diagonal, a technique that pulls you into the image. Second, I wanted to capture the rapids. I set the shutter speed as slow as I could, given that I was shooting hand-held and not with a tripod or monopod. I shot at 1/10 of a second in order to get the water to blur and become smooth. I wanted to create the sense of motion. I essentially divided the picture into three parts, all angled: the lower part being the rocks and shore where I was, the middle being the river, and the top third being the trees on the other side. I felt this was a good balance.

Using both Lightroom and Photoshop, I adjustments to increase contrast, decrease glare in the water, sharpen and warm up the scene, and to bring in detail. I have learned through much trial and error to use these filters subtly in order to preserve the natural effect and avoid the artificial look that comes from overuse. Here is the final product:

Much can be done to improve contrast and sharpening using software, but they are not for wholesale repair. You can’t take a bad picture (subjectively speaking of course) and turn it into a good picture based on software.

Kingston Mill is an atmospheric place close to where I live and is therefore convenient for photography. There is a 19th century mill, an 18th century stone arch bridge, a canal built in the 1830s, and the Millstone River, all providing opportunities for landscape imagery. It is also a place that provides opportunities to shoot the same scenes in different weather conditions and seasons.

This image was made in the morning when the fog was heavy. It was shot in color but given the fog,  leafless trees, and brownish stones, color did not add anything to the image. By converting the image into black and white, I focused on the subject of the heron on the dam framed by the trees. In the original image, the detail in the upper right corner was blown out. I brought it back essentially by using the dehazing filter. Regardless of what software you use, there are certain filters that allow you to decrease the highlight in an area to allow the details to emerge.  However, since the point is to capture the fog in the scene, you want to balance bringing out the details with maintaining the effect of fog.

The image would have worked without the bird, but I think the bird makes the image. I also decided to keep the bird as a smaller part of the overall image, rather than just do a close up. The point after all was to capture the scene and atmosphere and not do a nature photograph of just the bird.

You should never be discouraged to go out photographing in inclement weather. Sometimes fog and overcast clouds allow you to create moody images. Not everything has to be the bright blue sky.

This photo of English Bay in Vancouver, taken a few years ago, reminds me a bit of Stonehenge (without the megaliths) and an ancient gathering of people. What are your thoughts on it?

This very simple photo from Asbury Park, New Jersey is one of my favorites. In cropping, I kept the curving line of footprints in the left corner. I brought out detail in the sky to create layers by using editing software. I also converted the image to black and white to create atmosphere. What are your thoughts about this photo?

Who doesn’t like a sunset?

When photographing a sunset, the image can be made more interesting by making sure it has context.  Perhaps other elements give it relevance or maybe the sunset alone is all you need to consider. The timing of the shot is also important; there are moments when the sun is still up, near or at the horizon, or below the horizon, affecting both color of the sky and the ability to shoot.  There are many choices and decisions.  You can shoot repeatedly, but which one will you decide is the best?

Here is an image I made at English Bay in Vancouver, prior to actual sunset but as the sun was descending.

Here is what the image looked like in raw form, as shot, with no polarizing filter, only a UV filter,

Let’s start with composition.  I wanted the people at the beach as part of the image.  I did not go right up to the water’s edge, but situated myself to make sure I could get a wide enough view to show a sampling of the people.  For safety reasons, I focus below or to the side, hold down the shutter button to maintain focus, close my eyes, and move the camera slightly up or to the side and take several shots. 

Of course, never look at the sun and always take the appropriate steps to protect your eyes.

There are ways to handle exposure—by taking several shots, exposing for the sky, exposing for the dark areas, changing exposure settings to underexpose, using filters, or employing other techniques.  There is an old saying, expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows.  Others may be more sophisticated at the moment of capture than I am; I rely on Lightroom and the ability to process the image through the software to make comparable adjustments.  In this case, I made use of the dehazing filter, taking it to 100%, the white point to -100 (all the way to the left), slight adjustments to vibrancy and saturation (+10 each) to bring back the coloration, and +75 to the shadow filter to bring up some detail in the now darkened beach and people, but not completely to lose the silhouette effect.  It is true that for some images, too much dehazing can make it look artificial or create a vignette or make certain parts too dark.  I was satisfied with the effect and the use of other filters to keep it as natural looking as possible.  I was also able to bring out enough detail to render the mountains in the distance distinguishable from each other.

I think I captured the sense of being there.  It was not as dark in reality, but there is an evocative mood to this image that appeals to me. 

Ultimately, the final image should be only what pleases you. 

I took this photograph in Havana, Cuba as the light was fading towards the end of the day.  You will notice that the musician is in focus, but the women are not.  For me, the blur of the women indicates motion. 

So many times we come across a street scene that exists for only a few seconds, if that.  We don’t always have time to adjust shutter speed so we take the shot, and before we can take a second photo, the scene has changed.  Upon pulling this image up on the monitor, I saw blur.  Does that mean the image is lost or irrelevant?  Not necessarily.

I could have cropped out the women and just showed the musician since he is subject of the image,  however, the women walking past seem to ignore him, as if this is nothing new or interesting to them.  That adds something to the story that the image tells.  Without them, it is the musician.  With them, it is a more complete street scene. 

I look at a lot of photographs in galleries, museums, books and online, and there is often a flaw of some kind, like blur. Think about this.  Does it really ruin the image or does it perhaps add to it in its own way?  If, like me, you’ve competed in photography club competitions, you may well have heard the judges criticize various images because of a slight cut-off of a person, or a blur, or some other minor element.  Hear what they say, but decide for yourself.  If the image works, it works.  I think this one does.  Feel free to disagree.

Louis Pasteur once said that “Chance favors the prepared mind.” The photographer must always be alert; there is no off duty. You never know what you will see, and all of us have stories of the images that got away.

Here is one of my favorites from a few years ago at a bus stop on State Street in the Loop area of Chicago.  Shot in color, I transformed it to black and white because I wanted primarily the silhouette, the shape, and the tones.  Backlit against the advertisement, which amazingly said “man kind,” this captured a woman at the end of day, shopping done, waiting for the bus to go home.  I like it because of its humanity and of the intimate and solitary moment of an individual doing a very normal act like waiting for a bus, and yet I find something profound about this moment, this person, and her place in the city.

I welcome your comments.

From time to time I am asked if there are particular books that I might recommend for the beginning photographer.  There are four types of photography books I bought when starting out.  One was a general guide to photography so I could learn concepts and practicalities of exposure, depth of field, and technical aspects.  A second category related to camera-specific books as a supplement to the manual.  The third type of book was the specialty book, such as one that focuses on landscape photography or printing.  A fourth type that might be considered a specialty type would be one that focuses on a particular image-processing program.  What I found, after a while, was that there was significant redundancy, outdated instructions on a particular software program due to ever changing features, and better and more comprehensive explanations online. 

What you really want to do is find a general "how to" guide that explains not just how to operate the camera but which helps you understand both taking of images and processing them.  A book that covers recommended settings and what they do along with processing features (workflow, working with layers, etc.) will provide the basics.

The specialty books for the most part repeat the same basic principles and applications, albeit in the context of the particular topic.  Sometimes, even if repetitive of basic principles, they are worth buying if the images themselves are inspirational to you.

Which brings me to the main point: mastering basic techniques only teaches you how to take a technically acceptable picture.  The books featuring histories of photography or the work of individual photographers provide context and help you to see what has survived critical and popular acclaim.  In my opinion, the more of these books you read and the more you understand about photography as an art form, the more your eye improves.

There are numerous authors that feature regularly and some write more practically than others.  Some take you step by step through an application; others seem to write the same book over and over, changing the title and shifting the focus a bit but showcasing their own photographs more than providing new insight. 

If I had to mention one author that I found clear and informative, it would be Lee Frost. 
In one of the first books I bought, he simply suggested projects such as photographing the taxi cabs in each city.  This book helped me focus and provide a discipline that has served me well in travel photography.  I learned to create series of images around topics, and that helped me to avoid being overwhelmed in new places when I had limited time.    

After all these years, I still try to shoot taxis.  Here is one in Mexico City. 

The still life maintains a place not just in painting but in photography as well.  Today’s photographer, if alert, may find ready-made still life moments that say much about a locale and its people.  For those who like urban photography, the city offers many opportunities for images that present themselves without the need for arrangement.   Take this photograph, for example, made in Amsterdam.

Dutch still life paintings often contained insects or examples of rotting fruit to show the passage of time and the inevitability of death and decay.  Since I used an example from Amsterdam, I felt the image was interesting as a modern take on a 17th century exercise.  This image is something analogous to decaying Dutch flowers—the trash that was the result of an enjoyable moment in the present. It is the same message of the inevitable decay of life. 

I believe that the more one knows about art, the more creative a photographer might be.  My studies of art have enabled me to see patterns and understand composition better.  Perhaps the same is true for other photographers.

The following photo was made in Zagreb.  Here I cropped it to even out what was seen of the chairs, to serve as a frame.  This received a purchase award in a county competition for photography. 

Keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with photographing your own empty bottles and cups; they can also provide a foreground image for a broader shot.

The key to an image like this is tight cropping.  On occasion, you might want to rearrange a bottle, perhaps to show the label, but otherwise it is surprising how often still life photographic opportunities present themselves.  For those of you who never considered the merits of an image like this, think of it as part of a long tradition.