Category Archives: Commentary

2024: Favorite Photos

For various reasons it took me a long time to commit to a set of favorite photographs of 2024. I chose the title of this list carefully, as I do every year. Note that it is not “Best Photgraphs” or “My 15 Favorite Photographs” or similar — it is just Favorite Photographs of 2024. Why is that? These are, indeed, among my “favorite” photograph from 2024, but I can’t say for sure that they are the favorite, much less that they are my “best” of the year.

Making this annual list is both a pleasure and a big challenge. The pleasure comes from reviewing hundreds of photographs and, in the process, both rediscovering some of them and reliving the experiences behind making them. The challenge? There are several. The first is that it is very hard to winnow them down to a manageable number. I probably stared with nearly 100, made a quick cut to half that many, labored to make the next 50% cut, and finally got the number down to the 15 you see here. (My target was a dozen, but now that I’m eight months late… it was time to just put them out there!)

The photographs include several themes in my photography: The Sierra Nevada, travel and street photography, the desert and ocean, wildlife and nature. To qualify as a “2024 Favorite” the photographs had to have first been publicly shared in that year. First up is a display of the whole set, followed further down that page with larger individual files with a bit more information. (Clicking on the larger photographs opens their original posts in new tabs.)

2024: Favore Photographs — G Dan Mitchell
2024: Favore Photographs — G Dan Mitchell

View larger versions of the individual photographs below. Click on any of them to visit the original posts, which include additional background information.

Continue reading 2024: Favorite Photos

Considering the Fujifilm X-E5

Fujifilm recently announced the X-E5, the latest camera in their X-E series. I think this model series is intriguing.. It is small and lightweight, well designed. has a lot of useful features, incorporates a high resolution sensor and IBIS (in body image stabilization) , and is compatible with Fujifilm’s excellent lenses. It has a few other features that may or may not appeal, along with one “elephant in the room” issue.

Fujifilm XE5 Silver Body
Fujifilm XE5 Silver body. (Used with permission from Fujifilm.)

(Notes: I omit the hyphens between X and E in this article. I have rounded prices to the nearest dollar. Photographs of Fujifilm products used by permission from Fujifilm. Affiliate links in this article lead to B&H Photo — they return a small fee to this website if you use them to make a purchase — thanks in advance!.)

Right up front, let me be clear about one thing: I have not had my hands on the XE5 yet. I owned the XE1, my first Fujifilm camera, about a dozen years ago. Our photographic household has had the XE2, XE3, and XE4, and I have recommended all of them to various potential buyers over the years. While I cannot give a “hands on” review of the new camera at this point — hey Fujifilm, I’m here if you have one to loan! — I am qualified to comment on its features and who may find them appealing.

The XE Series

Let’s start with a bit of XE history. The original XE1 camera came out in 2012. At that time it was one of only two interchangeable lens x-trans* cameras from Fujifilm — the other was the more expensive “flagship model,” the XPro1. The XE1 was a smaller, less-expensive alternative for those who wanted a Fujifilm rangefinder-style camera with interchangeable lenses. Importantly, the XE1 (like later XE models) used the same sensor found in high-end Fujiflm APS-C cameras, which at that time was the 16MP sensor used in the “flagship” XPro1.)

(*”x-trans” refers to Fujifilm’s unique arrangement of the red, blue, and green photo sites on the sensor, a design that was said to help control aliasing/moire on cameras that do not use anti-aliasing filters, among other things.)

Continue reading Considering the Fujifilm X-E5

Plants in the Canyon

Plants in the Canyon, Death Valley
“Plants in the Canyon” — A desert holly plant manages to survive on a gravel wash deep in a Death Valley canyon.

Winter is my favorite time to explore Death Valley. Occasional weather fronts pass by, producing interesting clouds and some precipitation. The temperatures are far more comfortable, and it can even be cold in the mountains. I usually time my visits for December or January, though I’ll visit as late as the beginning of April, by which time it is noticeably heating up. This year I went at the end of February, and I was pleased to run into fewer people than usual.

I drove out to this remote canyon in the middle of the day, then loaded up the pack and walked a few miles into it. I think I saw only two other small groups the entire time. The route passed through some wonderful canyon narrows, and I paused to photograph them going in and then again coming back out. I paused here because the canyon itself was interesting but also because of the green desert holly plant growing in the gravel of the wash.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” (Heyday Books) is available directly from him. Blog | Bluesky | Mastodon | Substack Notes | Flickr | Email

Join the discussion — you are welcome to leave a comment or question. (Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

(All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others.)

Photographic Myths And Platitudes — Diffraction Limited Aperture

It has been a while since I posted an article in my “Photographic Myths And Platitudes” series — so here is a new one! It is a bit different than some of the previous posts in that it is based on something I wrote elsewhere in response to a lengthy (and long-winded!) discussion that suggested hyper-awareness of the so-called diffraction-limited aperture

What is the diffraction-limited aperture, you ask? It is a real thing — not a myth — though it is sometimes over-emphasized by overzealous techno-photographers.  In simple terms, as you stop down a lens its potential maximum resolution declines as a result of diffraction blur. (Keep in mind that other factors affect sharpness, too. Also, this happens to every lens, from the cheapest to the most expensive — it is a universal optical phenomenon.) At some aperture, the increase in blur becomes significant enough, in a technical sense, to be more of a “limitation” on image sharpness than the ability of the sensor to record detail — e.g. the “number of megapixels” of the sensor. A simplistic interpretation of the concept suggests that a photographer should avoid other apertures in order to “get the sharpest image.”

As with many things in photography, it isn’t that clear-cut.

Now on to my original post. It is a bit technical, though I think most photographers should be able to follow it — and I will conclude with some simple, straightforward practical advice. (And here I remind readers that sharpness is not the most important, much less the only important thing in photography. Far from it!)


Sharpness, or at least the perception of sharpness, is a more complex thing than choosing the aperture the provides (to the extent that this can be determined) the highest optical resolution at the sensor plane, measured at either a) the best performing point in the frame, or b) the average across the frame.

(Speaking of “the extent that this can be determined,” I wonder how folks would answer the following question: Which is “sharper,” the image with the best center resolution but slightly lower corner resolution or the image with slightly less center resolution but better overall resolution across the frame?)

While we might consider whether f/16 will be softer than f/8 on some lens/camera combination — it almost certainly will be softer — it isn’t irrelevant to ask: “How much softer, and will this affect my print?” In quite a few cases the difference in maximum resolution in the print will be essentially invisible. In other words, while you will get optimal resolution at some particular aperture, you will actually still get extremely good print resolution at a smaller (or larger) aperture, too.

If there is no particular photographic reason to choose a smaller (or larger!) aperture, you might as well use whatever aperture you think will produce the highest resolution. That best resolution aperture will vary based on the lens you are using, the camera format, and arguably the photo site density of the sensor. To generalize, if you are shooting full frame it will probably be somewhere in the f/5.6-f/8 range with many lenses. (Other things can affect that — for example, what the maximum aperture of the lens is.) On a cropped sensor camera you could, in many cases, use either the same aperture or guess at one stop larger or so — while realizing that there could be resolution downsides to going larger with some lenses. Trade-offs abound! (I’ll spare you the technical discussion of all of the variables. You can think me later.)

But, seriously, if you are calculating the “sharpest” aperture to the closest 1/3-stop for each lens and using that aperture in the field and avoiding others that are slightly different, you probably aren’t really gaining anything significant from your efforts, and you may be sacrificing things that could make your photographs better.

That said, if we know that some mid-range aperture can provide the highest resolution, why use other apertures? And if we do use other apertures, won’t we end up with a softer print? Continue reading Photographic Myths And Platitudes — Diffraction Limited Aperture