A comment was just posted over on my Art Concepts in Photography, Part 1: Texture article, but after I had composed my reply, I realized that it would be better suited to an entire post. Here is the comment:

Though my question has little to do with your most recent article, I find that the expertise you’ve shared since I began following your site to be compelling and hope that you can provide me an answer that will serve my needs. I have seen many digital photos over the years, some pretty dismal and some pretty spectacular. My question was born out of seeing, for the first time, an exhibition comprised of 150 works by Ansel Adams, which were nearly all “Silver Gelatin” prints. My question is (setting aside for the moment the composition, line, form and majestic beauty of many of the locations) can any digital print be made in such a way that a knowledgeable observer would not be able to distinguish it from a print made using the silver gelatin method?

In the interest of full disclosure, I should probably mention that the comment was posted by my father, who, having a degree in fine art and a gallery of his own, takes a vested interest in some of the topics I discuss. That said, I thought it was a very relevant question and one that many of you might have thought about, too, so here’s what I think.

There are two other parts to this series, Part 2: Composition, and Part 3: Positive/Negative Space.

Having spent most of my developing years surrounded by it, I have always taken for granted many of the fundamental guidelines of art. Perhaps due to the complexity of its technical aspects, formal photography courses tend to focus (no pun intended) on the equipment and techniques of creating images and not as much on their content.

Learning the traditional “rules” of art (or what I would call the rules of design) is important for two specific reasons. First and foremost, to make your work better. Following the rules–as well as judiciously breaking them–will strengthen your compositions, but you need to know what they are before you can do either. Second, to enhance your critiquing ability. By learning the basic terminology of art you will be able to take full advantage of critique from your peers as well as articulate your own.

So let’s get started! Today I’ll be discussing texture.

I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has returned to read this humble blog time and time again. You guys and gals consistently offer insightful and useful comments and I really appreciate your participation. The month of July was a benchmark in Single-Serving Photo’s history, reaching 2,442 unique visitors, the most who have ever stopped by in a single month!

For laughs, here are some other statistics that might interest you:

Scott Kelby, editor and publisher of Photoshop User Magazine, Layers Magazine, and President of the National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP), took notice of my visual article on histograms (Histograms, Huh?) and linked it in a Monday links roundup on his blog, Photoshop Insider

I just want to say: thanks Scott, you definitely know quality when you see it! You should all give Scott’s blog a read, he provides information from within the hallowed walls of NAPP and his publishing enterprise as well as industry insights and lots of great photos.

There’s been more talk than usual lately about keeping a camera with you; taking it places you might not normally take it; the disappointment of missing what could have been a great image if only you had; and the question of whether having the camera with you, though not at the ready, would even help.

Opinions differ, but you can’t lose by having the camera around even if you don’t think you’ll use it. I happened to be driving around Narragansett Bay (actually, across it) in Rhode Island this weekend and, because I was there specifically to take some family portraits, I thankfully had my camera with me and was able to capture this scene.