Monday, October 29, 2012

Visual Fluency


Way back in the day, very few people could read, and even fewer could make books.  People relied on speech and a few drawings to handle their storytelling needs, turning to the professional writers and book makers rarely, and only for very special things like Holy Scripture. 
Fast forward to today, where reading and writing are as common, if not more common, than speech.  Think about how it would be possible for someone to carry on conversations with other people all around the globe for days on end without ever uttering a sound.  The written word has become as ubiquitous as the spoken word.
Along the way, if somewhat in the background, visual communication has evolved though, too.  Way back in the day, a painter had to apprentice for years, mixing up paint for a master, carrying firewood for the stove in winter, and doing bits and pieces under strict supervision.  It was a slow process that only had time and resources for special stories.
Today, it’s one push of a button to both take a picture and to show it to others.  In theory, a person could carry on a visual conversation for days on end with people around the globe, never uttering a word—or writing one.  Such a conversation would be more limited—I’m making coffee, I’m walking in the woods—but with some creativity, a lot could be communicated. 
We might now only reside at the dawn of a mass visual language, and as we move into the future and get more and more fluent in visual communication, a lot more will become possible.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Casting Call for Lighting


Did anyone tell Francis Ford Coppola and his cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, that they really should have used more light in that cave scene with Marlon Brando in “Apocalypse Now?”   If someone did, I doubt they would have listened.  Filmmakers and their creative teams know light is a character, too, serving a crucial creative purpose right along with the dialog.
Yet while watching some video tutorials on the new Photoshop CS6, I was struck by the amount of new features designed to get our photographs to look “better.”  Things like “more accurate” skin tone, “correct” color, etc., etc.  And I just had to stop watching.
We’re in an era now where we’re free (and obligated) to form our own opinions about what the lighting in our photos is supposed to look like.  Maybe that means underexposed skin tone, or harsh shadows, or a dark alley that’s actually dark.  You make the call.  Photoshop can’t do that for you—just like it can’t write dialog for a film.
So I say, cast your lighting as a creative element of your shoots, and make sure it performs to your creative vision, not some “non-vision” in a book, or worse, someone else’s vision.