I've spent these last few days doing a massive exhumation of the junk in my office, going through boxes, crates of slides and photo magazines that are mostly from about 2001-2003. The careful sifting of stuff has been a revelation. I didn't deeply realize how drastically digital photography has transformed the medium until I looked at these "old" (most of them 10 to 15 years in age) materials.

Photography has been both my passion and vocation for decades, but not until I looked at these old materials did I realize how much had changed. Before digital, a few of us had the photography field to ourselves, because of the complexity and cost of the medium. Unless one used Polaroid film (now virtually defunct), instant results were impossible. I recall waiting weeks to get my Kodachrome slides returned from the lab. Quality mid-day slide exposures were next to impossible on a sunny day without flash or reflectors.

Yes somehow we prevailed. My old magazines extol the virtues of 3 megapixel cameras (now my agencies and other photo buyers won't even touch anything less than 12 MP and nobody will look at the original slides because their workflow can no longer deal with the medium, plus the possibility of liability for lost/damaged slides). Although a few diehards like myself had adopted Adobe Photoshop technology back in the early 1990s, the early 2000s marked the time when digital imaging software came of age (now a necessity for most photo professionals) and the buzz was all about scanners, which were horribly expensive, $2,000 and up. I still have and use my old LS-4000 (now discontinued) when the occasional photo request comes in for one of my older, timeless images.

What's interesting is what has prevailed: photography is still about light and composition. Also, the emotional wallop always has and always will pack a punch; as I thumbed through old magazines, I cried again at the photos of 9/11 and reveled in Ansel Adams's timeless and amazing images.

What we have today is enhanced craft. The art has always been there. The photograph I post here is a blend of these two things. Let me try to give the thought process involved. With my wonderful workshop folks last weekend we explored a stately if somewhat gloomy cypress grove on the coast. At the end of our walk we came upon a happy family with two toddlers, one of whom was dressed in a red sweatshirt. I asked the parents if it was okay if we photographed the kids running back and forth near the line of trees. They agreed. Prior to that moment my camera had been set up for landscape photography, i.e., f/22 and slow shutter speeds, low ISO, with tripod. I lost a couple of frames with a blur of children before I realized I needed to be set up for action. On my Nikon D300 I dialed up the ISO to 800, opened up the lens, and took a series of photos.

In the computer, I first processed the shot in RAW for optimum exposure, color balance and contrast, actually taking the color down a little bit on the very bright red clothing. Then I ran a b/w adjustment layer on the image, taking the opacity down so there would be a hint of green. Then I used a layer mask to bring out the original colors on the two kids. I also added an empty layer and used my gradient tool (black gradient to transparent) to do a custom darkening of the edges, to bring attention to the kids.

Art and craft, now at an amazing new level of photography that pretty much anyone can do. This would have been next to impossible even 15 years ago. I've sent a copy of the photo to the family with the kids, something else that would have only been accessible to high-end pros 15 years ago. Finally, we can show that wonderful image as it appears in our mind's eye.