Category Archives: Ideas

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas

Megapixel Mania – An Extended Riff

11 Comments

I read (yet another… ;-) megapixel rant somewhere online yesterday, and it got me thinking again about the fixation on megapixels as a measure of camera “value,” and the odd and sometimes irrational ways that people respond to this issue. It is well known that over the past decade or more, as digital photography technologies have become more and more prevalent (displacing film in many areas), camera technology has continued to advance in many ways. Among these advances is the ability to increase the number of photosites on sensors of a given size – e.g. give us “more megapixels.”

The responses to this tend to fall into three broad categories: Continue reading Megapixel Mania – An Extended Riff →

Ideas, Reviews, Technique

Review: “Light & Land” by Michael Frye

3 Comments

Over the past few weeks I have had the chance to go through Michael Frye’s new ebook, “Light and Land: Landscapes in the Digital Darkroom.” Many are no doubt already aware of Michael’s reputation from his photography, his workshops, and his other publications including his “Photographer’s Guide to Yosemite” and “Digital Landscape Photography: In The Footsteps of Ansel Adams and the Masters.” I have the .pdf version of “Light and Land”, and I understand that an iPad app version may also be available.

Light and Land - Michael Frye
Light and Land - Michael Frye

It is typical for photographic “how to” books to focus on specific techniques, and to be organized around a presentation of these techniques – perhaps with a section on curves, a section on black and white conversion, and so forth. This approach has its place, especially for certain types of learners and at certain points in the learning process. It is important to understand the basic techniques and operations that are available in the “digital darkroom” of such programs as Photoshop, Lightroom and so forth. That said, the bigger and more important issue is how to call upon these techniques creatively and effectively and appropriately in order to make photographs. Not all “how to” books do an effective job of illustrating this.

Michael’s “Light & Land” takes a different approach, and one that more accurately and realistically reflects the thought process of a photographer who is calling upon this arsenal of techniques in the service of creating beautiful photographs.  He writes:

“The digital darkroom gives us tremendous control over our images. We can make them lighter, darker, add contrast, change the color balance, increase saturation, turn a color photograph into black and white, remove telephone poles, blend exposures with HDR, combine ten images to capture infinite depth of field, or put a winged elephant in the sky.

But what do we do with these choices?” Continue reading Review: “Light & Land” by Michael Frye →

Commentary, History, Ideas

No Post Processing? Really?

22 Comments

As I do from time to time, I’m reposting a response I shared in an online discussion somewhere else on the web. In that discussion, a proposal was made to come up with some sort of enforceable standard regarding what post-processing could be allowed in photographs. (In the context of the original discussion – wildlife photography – the idea wasn’t quite as crazy as it sounds here, but still…) It seems to me that there are always a few notions underlying these ongoing discussions: that the issue is one that comes up with “digital photography,” that there is some ideal photography that is purely and objectively “accurate,” and that we would actually want to do such a thing.

Here is what I wrote:

It seems so obvious that I’m almost embarrassed to point it out, but does anyone actually believe that there is such a thing as an objectively accurate photographic image, free of interpretation? Which acknowledged “great” photographers can you point to whose photographs are purely and objectively accurate? If digital post is a problem, what about camera movements, contraction/expansion of space via focal length, use of artificial light and reflectors, polarizing filters, graduated neutral density filters, choice of film/paper/chemicals based on color or contrast preferences, selective focus via DOF control, allowing motion blur with long shutter speeds, any night photography, and on and on…?

As I wrote somewhere else earlier this week:

If the goal of photography was to make objectively accurate reproductions of real things… I wouldn’t bother.

Have an opinion on this? Feel free to leave a comment…

 

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

 

Commentary, Ideas

What is ‘Real?’

9 Comments

This is another one of those posts “borrowed” from something I wrote in a discussion somewhere else on the web, in which some folks were debating the relative value of two versions of a photograph, one of which was more or less “straight from the camera,” and the other had been modified in post in a number of the usual ways. Here, with a bit of editing, is my stream of consciousness reply to that thread:

The boundaries are difficult and subjective. The “no alterations” people are denying how photography actually works with the possible (and arguable) exception of certain types of documentary and journalism photography. I know it isn’t news to most reading this, but photography is not an objectively truthful medium. In the end, I’m less interested in some hopeless attempt to literally recreate the subject than I am in what the photograph tells me about the artist behind the camera.

Specifically in landscape photography, an attempt to “reproduce” the objective reality of the original scene by eschewing “manipulation” is going to produce something in almost all cases that is not an honest or accurate recreation of the subject we saw as we made the photograph – even if that is what we were interested in. The nature of the subject and our perception of it is never wholly visual – it is bound up in a web of senses evoked by sound, the movement of air, warmth or cold, and much more. In order to somehow evoke something closer to what we felt when we saw the original subject – and that is what we are interested in, right? – we must strive for something other than a limited pseudo-true visual reproduction.

There are boundaries, but even they are not absolute. For example, many would call the classic landscape photographs more “truthful” than some of today’s color-manipulated images. But what could be less realistic than a black and white photograph? I’ve never been out on a day when it was black and white outside! On the other hand, a photographer who makes a claim to believable portrayal of the subject and then pumps up the contrast and saturates the color into Thomas Kincaid territory is going to encounter some issues about the honesty of his/her work.

G Dan Mitchell Photography
Flickr | Twitter (follow me) | Facebook (“Like” my page) | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission fromG Dan Mitchell.