Category Archives: Commentary

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 →

A Few (More) Thoughts on Back-Country Photography

I recently was asked a few questions about backpacking photography, mostly related to equipment, so I thought I’d post something to augment an existing article on this website: My Backpacking Photography Equipment. (You’ll probably want to take a look at that one, too!)

Backpackers, Near MIlestone Basin
Backpackers, Near MIlestone Basin

Scott emailed recently to ask several questions, and I’ll consider some of them here. His first question has to do with gear, as in  “how much” to take. He suggests that it is hard to find a balance between high enough quality imagining, sufficient equipment to cover possibly opportunities, and carrying the stuff! Once you start carrying the stuff on your back, fundamental compromises among conflicting demands are necessary.

He carries the following gear: Continue reading A Few (More) Thoughts on Back-Country Photography →

A Few Thoughts On EVF Versus OVF Cameras

This is one of my occasional posts adapted from something I wrote elsewhere but felt might we worth sharing here on the blog.

A person had asked about “switching” from a Canon DSLR to a Fujifilm mirrorless camera, and some others had replied with points about the ergonomics of the smaller cameras along with some comments about using electronic viewfinders (EVF) in place of optical viewfinders (OVF). Since I use both (OVF and EFV, Canon and Fujifilm) I thought my thoughts might be relevant. 

Note: A few details of the article were updated on March 8, 2018 to reflect more recent developments – for example, referring to contemporary products from companies mentioned here.

EDITING CURRENTLY UNDERWAY


If the goal is a smaller camera and you already are invested in a Canon DSLR system, one option is to consider one of the much smaller Canon bodies. I know a couple of serious photographers who use the little SL1 for travel and certain other kinds of photography, often with smaller and lighter lenses. This gives you a traditional SLR OVF if you are concerned about using an EVF.

Here are some thoughts about perceived/real potential “downsides” (from some perspectives”) of the Fujifilm x-trans cameras specifically and regarding mirrorless cameras in general:

The EVF — The EVF versus OVF issue is complicated and, in a number of ways, subjective. Early on there was a lot of resistance to the EVF products — I think it was a combination of resistance to something new along with the relatively poorer performance of the initial versions. (They were slow, had lower resolution, and generally did not provide as positive of an experience.) I had such cameras a long time ago. (Does anyone else recall the Canon Pro1 of a dozen years ago?) More recent EVFs are far better in every measurable way — though they still won’t be for ideal everyone.

EVFs have pluses and minuses. In the minus category…

  • they show you a video image of the world, rather than an optical view of the “actual” subject
  • as video devices they are never be truly realtime displays — there is always at least some display latency
  • it takes more battery power to drive a video display.

In the plus category…

  • they are usable in extremely low light due to exposure simulation
  • additional useful data can be overlaid on the scene image
  • useful focusing aids can be incorporated into the display, etc.
  • they can reduce the size/weight of the camera and permit use of smaller lenses

In the end, you simply have to try an EVF camera for a while. Lots of people are fine with them, and even some of us who prefer the quality of an OVF are happy to use EVF if it is part of a package that has other advantages for the kinds of photography we are doing. Continue reading A Few Thoughts On EVF Versus OVF Cameras →