Category Archives: Ideas

Borders and Watermarks

From time to time people ask about the border around my photographs and the inclusion of various text elements within them. Since the question came up again recently I thought I’d explain.

John Muir Trail, Yosemite
The John Muir Trail crosses Cathedral Pass near Cathedral Peak on a late-summer morning

First, borders and watermarks and all the rest are an intrusion in an image, and we would all prefer to see photographs without those elements – preferably in the form of beautiful prints. Prints are the target output for my photography, and online versions are merely stand-ins for the prints. In an ideal world, it would be lovely to be able to share photographs online in an equivalent form.

However, I have to balance my desire to share with the realization that being overly innocent about these things is unwise.Opinions about this vary widely — ranging from those who feel fine about putting full size photographs out there “as is” to those who won’t share anything online at all. My position lies between those extremes. I think that it is possible to enjoy my photographs as they are presented on the web — at least that’s what people tell me! I also understand that no technique can completely thwart the bad guys. So I have arrived at a balance that works for me.

I do several things with photographs that I release “into the wild” in electronic form: Continue reading Borders and Watermarks

Myth: Diffraction and Motion Blur Worsen With More Megapixels

They don’t.

Another post that I wrote just before this one (“Why Your 21MP File “Looks Softer” Than Your 12MP File at 100%“) explains why pixel-peeping* photographers might imagine that cameras with greater photosite density (e.g. – “more megapixels”) might produce “softer” photographs, based on what they observe when they compare 100% magnification images on the screen. These cameras do not produce softer images – the results will either be equal to or better than those from lower photosite density cameras in this regard. You can follow the link to read the original post.

A reader wrote and suggested that perhaps the images from the camera with greater photosite density really are softer, but the cause is a greater susceptibility to diffraction blur or motion blur.

No. Neither is the case.

These are two additional misconceptions that can be fed by (yet again!) pondering 100% magnification crops on the screen without thinking through the actual (non-) effect of what you see there when it comes to actual photographs. Continue reading Myth: Diffraction and Motion Blur Worsen With More Megapixels

When Inspiration Takes a Vacation

It happens to (almost) everyone. The pendulum sometimes swings towards enthusiasm, inspiration, and creative work that almost seems to flow all by itself. But pendulums swing both directions, and one of the prices we pay for doing creative work is having to cope with the inevitable dry periods when enthusiasm, inspiration, and creativity are nowhere to be found, periods when you can find yourself questioning your talent and abilities. (I think that one characteristic of “mature” artists is that they understand this cycle and are less likely to be undone by it – both because they are familiar with its existence and because they have learned ways to deal with it.)

I don’t claim to be the definitive expert on this issue, but I have some experience with it in both photography and music. There is much more to be said about this than I have space for here, but I thought I’d share a reply I wrote in a forum where a poster posed the following: Continue reading When Inspiration Takes a Vacation

Photography and Gear Fetishes (Another Adapted Forum Post)

Earlier this week I dropped in on a photography forum in which the OP (original poster) suggested that the causal correlation between buying Really Expensive Gear and producing better photographs was weak. Oh, yeah!

Here is a slightly adapted version of my contribution to that discussion:

I’ve thought quite a bit about why so many “photography enthusiasts” seem to be much more interested in acquiring photography gear than in making photographs. Reasons might include:

1. Equipment is necessary in order to make photographs, so acquiring some is not unimportant.
2. Because it is, frankly, easier to write about gear in definitive (or seemingly definitive) ways than to write competently about photographs, there is much more written about gear – and newbies should be forgiven for having a false impression that the gear one has is more important than the photographs one makes.
3. Almost all of us do find the equipment fascinating to some extent. Some grow past this, but for some it ends up being more about possessing expensive and supposedly high-end stuff than anything else. (Photography is not the only area where this occurs.)
4. Because people more often encounter photographers when they are operating cameras than when they are exhibiting photographs, they associate the gear with the activity more than they associate photographs with it.
5. Some want to look like (what they imagine) professional photographers (look like).
6. Some are told, before they have enough experience to question it, that they must have “the best” gear if they are going to make photographs. I’ve actually seen rank beginners struggling with $6000 bodies and sets of L primes or big white telephotos… for their family vacations.
7. Some love to shop.

[The OP’s] notion that the causal correlation between expensive gear and photographic skill or quality is weak is one that I would agree with.

I think that a “cure” for the counter-productive obsession with gear at the expense of photographs may be to do everything in your power to focus on photographs – not photography, not cameras, not lenses, etc. If you are not or do not become passionate about producing photographs, then you might want to consider a different hobby. :-)

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 from G Dan Mitchell.