Interview: Landscape Photographer Guy Tal

Welcome and thank you for doing this interview, Guy. As someone who is always inspired by great landscape photography, I think your images stand apart in many ways. Since I  focus more on the technical side here (software), I thought it would be useful to share your creative insights.

Thank you, Dan! I appreciate the kind words and the opportunity to be featured on your site.

An obvious question first: what motivated you to go into photography as a medium? Living on the Colorado Plateau, you can explore a world that is not only beautiful but also unique in terms of North American landscapes.

It wasn’t so much a deliberate choice as an evolutionary process. I loved hiking and spending time outdoors since I was a child. At one point I decided to photograph interesting things [so I could] share them with friends, and I became passionate about photography. It took some years to recognize that there was more to it than pointing the camera at interesting things and managing a successful exposure, though.

Over the years, I studied the works of other photographers and became more aware of the importance of composition and visualization. When I was finally able to scan my images and edit them myself in Photoshop (version 2.5 running on a Silicon Graphics Indy system I had access to at work) I was able to complete the workflow from concept to print with little reliance on commercial labs. It was then that I began to realize the true creative potential of the medium… .

Living on the Colorado Plateau is no accident. From the first day I visited, I knew this was where I belonged and it took me a few years to be able to make my home here. It was not an easy feat to accomplish, which makes me appreciate it even more. I recently released a collection of Colorado Plateau portfolios in electronic format hoping that the new medium might help reach those who may not be as familiar with the place. It is a wild, beautiful and unique desert with a fascinating natural and human history and deserves to be appreciated and preserved.

I agree. I think more photographers should approach wilderness preservation as one of their core promotional goals. So what made you decide to try photography as opposed to another medium like painting or even video? Is there something about photography that makes it easier to achieve your goal of promoting wilderness preservation?

Video does not appeal to me much. I think many consumers of photography no longer have the ability or discipline to study an image carefully and derive joy from nuances of composition and expertly placed tones. The world of TV, multitasking, video games and mass entertainment does not promote contemplative pursuits, instead providing the occasional momentary “wow” before moving on to something else. Personally, I don’t consider it a positive trend and hope my still images can play whatever small role in giving people the choice to stop and think and consider rather than be passively entertained.

Painting is something I wish I could do well. Becoming proficient in any art takes many years and, by choice or by circumstances, I spent mine learning to become a photographer rather than a painter. I do hope to make time for painting later in my life, if the opportunity presents itself.

In your bio, you make some interesting statements about the medium that I’d like to explore. The quote is: “…photographs have a binding connection with real events, real elements, real light, and real moments in time. Any obvious departure from these realities will cause an image to be dismissed outright…” You go on to say, “my goal is to produce images that inspire without venturing outside the realm of the believable.”

As someone who’s first inspiration was nature photography, and who has worked with digital technology for many years, I believe your goal is right on the money. I suspect that -technical mastery aside- the almost surreal quality in much of your work, comes from great timing and great light. That is, only modest amounts of digital modification happening in most shots. Is this the case?

For the most part, yes, although “modest amounts” can be a subjective judgment. I don’t consider post-processing to be a bad thing. My images are expressive personal creations based on my experiences, thoughts and inspirations in the wild. Certainly natural elements and available light are essential to the success of an image but I believe the artist should play a role in the work as well. This role begins in the field with planning and forming a concept based on knowledge and emotional appeal, followed by careful and deliberate composition and technical decisions based on visualization to capture the image. But, it doesn’t have to end there.

There are a lot of creative choices to be made in post-processing, printing and finishing the work as well. Since the driving force behind my work is a binding connection with the subjects I photograph, I don’t want to stray too far, and choose to have my end result be close to those things that made up my experience at the scene. Still, these decisions are self-imposed rather than dictated by any notion of what’s “right” or “wrong” … . Art should ultimately represent the artist, not the capabilities or limitations of a given piece of equipment.

I aim to make images under the best possible conditions, which evoke real emotions related to real events, but if the camera alone can’t fully convey what I have in mind then, well, to hell with the camera.

One theory we hear and which I tend to agree with at times, is that like real estate, timing and location can be everything in nature photography. Not just timing in the sense of good light, but in the sense of something unique happening in that good light. Getting yourself to the right spot at the right time. There are so many talented shooters out there now and the technology is so accessible, that I can think of few better ways to set oneself apart from the crowd and the hyper-saturated market of stock nature photography and landmark photography. Do you agree?

I agree in part. If the only things setting your images apart are tenacity and luck then your work doesn’t really say much about you – the artist/photographer/person behind it. Being yourself – a unique person with your own life experiences, sensibilities, beliefs and thought processes – is, in my opinion, the only thing you have that others don’t and that sets you apart from the crowd. As long as your images contain something of the unique person behind them, they will be unique as well. Jay Maisel perhaps said it best when he was asked how one can become a better photographer. His response was: become a more interesting person.

In the case of timing, I’m always curious to know how people go about it. Do you often find yourself trekking for long periods and then a few times each outing, you “earn” that timing by being in the exact right place at the right time? Or do you scout a lot and go back later? Or even go back multiple times to get the one shot you’re hoping for? Good examples of that might be “Cold Beauty” or “Waiting for Rain”, shown below. Did you have to go back to those spot multiple times, saying, “I need to come back here when _____ happens”?

I do plan a lot of my images. I spend a lot of time outdoors and will often identify compositions or concepts that I can develop under different conditions. I will then return to these places when I feel the timing is more conducive and appealing. Sometimes it takes one return visit and other times I may go back year after year until, some years later, I finally find what I’m after. But yes, there are also many cases when conditions happen to be perfect when I find an interesting subject to work with.

I think many people are under the mistaken assumption that photographers just wander around blissfully and stumble upon amazing things just by the law of averages. While this happens from time to time, the more common scenario is quite different. It takes a lot of time and effort and familiarity with both the place and the craft to develop an awareness for things that end up making good images. You study and experiment and think and go back and constantly refine your perception until you finally extract the nugget of beauty from an otherwise random and chaotic scene.

When you do need to edit things digitally, how do you find the right balance in your finished photographs? Do you strictly go for realism as you remember it, or if there is some prominent feature of the composition you feel is really important (for example a tree or a pool of icy water), do you add extra styling or “accent” to that? If so, are there any Photoshop plugins or other tools you find indispensable in this regard?

I review some of the techniques I use in my eBooks Creative Landscape Photography and Creative Processing Techniques. My goal is to stay faithful to the experience and emotional connection with the subjects as I felt them while in the field. What I try to do is to project myself into the moment and re-live the experience in my mind, remembering the things that inspired me and translating them into processing decisions. There are various ways to do it. One of the most powerful is to actually write about the making of the image and pick hints out of the text that inform the technical steps required in order to place emphasis where needed. There are a few examples of this method in the eBooks I mentioned.

Ironically, in a commercial sense, “more contrast / saturation / sharpness” is exactly what many buyers want (example: stock shots). They’ve been conditioned to view somewhat exaggerated features and colors as being qualities of “a good picture”. When you’re just selling prints (i.e. shots not taken for a specific client) do you ever add anything to the prints beyond the way you’d want them to look in your home or office?

I do go out of my way to educate my clients about my work but sometimes they just want to have it their way. I am fortunate in that stock sales are not a big part of what I do. My target audience is fellow photographers, artists, and art collectors who generally do possess a deeper and more refined understanding of fine art photography than most stock buyers.

I notice you sell medium and larger format prints. What type of printer do you use most often and why? Given the very high quality of your photographs, do you find that selling prints is mostly a way to offset the price of pro printers, inks and paper, or is it also a solid income generator for you? Many people get into photography thinking “I’ll sell my nature prints”, so, knowing the high quality of your work and how interesting the scenes are, and the fact that you have a well established presence online, you might provide some needed perspective on that.

I use a 24 inch Canon imagePROGRAF printer and a 17 inch Epson Stylus Pro printer for most of my work. The main reason for making my own prints is that I’m extremely particular about print quality and want to have absolute control over every aspect of print making. On the occasion that I sell prints larger than 24 inch I use a reputable service bureau (West Coast Imaging in California). Over the years I have come to trust their quality and expertise. I still personally inspect every print before delivering it to the client.

While there are some photographers who make a good living from print sales, it is not an easy business. I owned and operated my own gallery for a while and can say with confidence that the realities of running a retail business, especially in tough economic times, can be a daunting proposition. If you are fortunate to have the proper resources and location, or representation by a prestigious gallery, you may be able to make sufficient income from prints. But, if your plan is to simply place your images on a web site and wait for the orders to come, you are likely in for a disappointment.

Almost done! Which aspect of photography is more enjoyable and meaningful to you: the process of finding a great scene and capturing it, or picking up the finished print at the end of the process, knowing how much someone will enjoy that shot and perhaps come to appreciate nature and preservation of same a bit more (see also: having a “tangible” feeling of accomplishment)?

That is not an easy question to answer. Being out in the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau is as vital to my spirit as eating and breathing are to my body. This would be true whether I am photographing or not. I do love working on my images in my studio and producing prints as well, and also find it immensely rewarding to receive positive feedback from fellow photographers and others who find my work meaningful. If there is any part of it that I like less than others it is probably in the business realm rather than anything having to do with making images. In particular, I do not enjoy marketing much.

Is there anything I haven’t touched upon that you¹d like to share with us?

A lot! I’m being facetious. There is no way any interview or web page can sum up all the things that motivate and inspire someone.

If there is one thing I could say to your readers, it is: follow your own voice. You will never know if or how much your own original, creative work can inspire others unless you try it.

Forget about making more copies of well-known compositions and let your heart lead you to those things and subjects and images that best reflect who you are. And, should you need help in finding your voice and distilling those things that make up your own style – find a good mentor who is willing to work with you rather than enforce their own process, methods or sensibilities on your work.

NOTES: If you’d like to learn more about it, you can read my review of Guy’s excellent eBook on Landscape Photography. There is a lot of good creative insight, as well as coverage of core photography fundamentals like exposure techniques and digital capture tips.

Guy Tal is on 500px