Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas, Technique

Experiment #1: The answer

5 Comments

Here is the answer to the questions I asked in the little experiment that I posted earlier today. (see “Experiment #1: What do you see?” And, my apology for the formatting issue that may cause the image on this page to extend into the sidebar. This is the result of a modification to the web site made over a year after the original posting of this message. I have decided to leave the example images intact, with the side-effect of the odd formatting.)

Examples A and C are completely identical – two copies of the very same file. To be clear, there is literally no difference between them. One is a simple copy of the other file with a different name. Here is a 100% magnification crop from the source file used for A & C:

Example B came from a different source file. The blur was added to the original file in post, so it is uniform across the entire image both in the source file and in example B posted here. This source file was then converted to jpg in exactly the same way that the other file (e.g. – the other two examples) was converted. Here is a 100% magnification crop of the source image used for example B:

So, A and C are literally identical. B came from a source file that was so blurry that it looks like it was shot with a defective lens.

Thank you to all of you who took the challenge and looked long and hard at the  sample images. I have three more little tests planned for sometime in the near future.

Dan

Commentary, Community

Ansel’s Moon

Leave a comment

Edie Howe has posted a delightful little slide show made at this week’s Yosemite Valley event, sponsored by the Ansel Adams Gallery, that commemorated the making of the famous Ansel Adams photograph of Half Dome and the rising moon. The idea was that position of the moon and timing relative to daylight would duplicate those at the time of Adams’ original exposure. I enjoyed Edie’s sequence (nice final photograph, Edie!) and looking at some of the (pardon the awful pun) luminaries of Yosemite photography as they held forth in Ahwahnee Meadow. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there!

Perhaps ironically, the moon was hidden behind what appears to be a bit of a snow squall above Half Dome, though it appeared to be clear both before and perhaps after the historic moment! In a way I think that this might have been the most appropriate thing that could have happened. While I don’t think that trying to re-make Ansel Adam’s photograph has any more validity than trying to re-write a Mozart symphony, the event seemed like a great opportunity to: gather together on a beautiful evening in this wonderful meadow, contemplate the evening with the additional context of thoughts about Adams and his photography, meet a number of people influenced by Adams’ legacy, and focus on Adams’ photograph rather than trying to create one’s own version – since the imitative exercise turned out to be impossible!

I wish I had been there.

Commentary, Ideas, Locations

Thoughts About Photographing Icons

9 Comments

Earlier today I posted a photograph of an icon, Yosemite’s Half Dome. The idea of photographing such a thing evokes a variety of thoughts and concerns that I suspect many photographers understand: Is it too easy? Has it already been done? How will the shot stand in comparison to those that have already been done by greater and more famous photographers? Why bother?

It is interesting to see the variety of ways in which photographers respond to this issue. At one extreme are those who perhaps chase the icons, realizing that they are beautiful and compelling and that there sure as heck is a market for them. (Experiment: Take two of your best photographs from a famous location, one showing an icon and one showing something less familiar, and post them at Flickr… and see what happens. :-) At the other extreme are those who fall into the camp represented by a photographer who, when asked how to photograph icons more or less replied, “Don’t.”

I suppose I’m somewhere in the middle. Let’s use Yosemite Valley as an example since it is so familiar and since I frequently have the opportunity to travel there to do photography. I most certainly do not head straight for icons when I shoot there. In fact, when I photograph in the neighborhood of most of the icons you will frequently find my camera pointing the other direction. After visiting the Valley for decades, I think I’ve come to understand there is much more to this place than the post card shots.

However, icons are icons for a reason. Every so often I’m in the company of someone who is seeing the Valley for the first time, and through their reaction I am again reminded of the visual power of some of the icon scenes. (I wish I could experience what it must be like to emerge from Wawona Tunnel for the first time having never seen that stupendous view of the Valley before!) So I will shoot icons, but I suppose I at least think I’m more selective about how and when I’ll shoot them. I look for a different angle, a way to position the icon as a background element in a photograph of something less iconic, or perhaps unusual conditions.

It isn’t for me to say how successful I might be at this, but it seems that it is perhaps more of a challenge to find a way to shoot an icon in an interesting way than it is to shoot something that is less familiar.

So the photograph I posted earlier today fits into this category – you can’t get much more iconic than Half Dome! I’ve been trying to learn to understand this particular location – the variables of season and time of day and weather and technical issues about capturing the scene – and I now have a couple images in mind that I’d like to shoot here eventually when the time is right. This one gets close to one such shot I have in mind… but I’ll be back at this overlook many more times.

Commentary, Technique

If ‘Photoshopping’ is Cheating

13 Comments

I recently read (another) article suggesting that work done in the post-processing phase using digital tools lessens the value of the photograph and suggests that the photographer is less than competent or perhaps “cheating” – and that real photographers get it right “straight out of the camera.”

There is much more to say about this bizarre notion, but for now here is a little “thought experiment.”

In order to believe that image modification in digital post-processing is cheating or otherwise lessens the value of a photographer’s work as art, it seems to me that you would have to accept that a whole list of analogous traditional film photography techniques  must be equally wrong, including:

  • use of filters
  • use of swing, tilt, shift
  • choosing a film based on its “personality” (One word: “Velvia”)
  • dodging and burning
  • selecting and/or altering film development methods in order to alter the image
  • selecting different grades of paper for different prints
  • using any focal length other than “normal” – whatever that means
  • cropping
  • spotting prints
  • any use of artificial lighting or reflectors
  • pre-exposing negatives
  • the original USM technique done with negatives
  • any corrections to the color balance of the original capture
  • all black and white photography – as the world is never black and white

Of course, every one of these and more are standard stock in trade for photographers working with film and traditional darkroom techniques.