Category Archives: Ideas

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

Equipment, Ideas, Technique, Tests

Experiment #1: What do you see?

37 Comments

(Update July 30, 2011: Since the original test was published quite a while ago, I have added this link to the outcome of this test. Of course, if you want to give the test a try yourself, you should read the whole article, try answering the questions, and only after that come back here to follow the link to find out how your response compares.)

Yesterday I posted a series of three images in a couple forums I frequent along with a request that a few people try a little experiment with them. Here it is for anyone else who would like to participate.

Below on this page are three images presented at a typical web viewing size. The question has to do with what you see when you look at them in your browser. (Please read some additional material further down that explains why you must only look at the photos in your browser for the purposes of this exercise.) Considering all aspects of the presentation of the images, in the end there are three possibilities:

  1. all three images seem identical – e.g. there are no perceptible differences among them.
  2. all three images seem different from one another – e.g. each is visibly unique.
  3. two images seem identical but one seems unique – e.g. one is visibly different from the other two, and those two seem visibly identical

Before you give it a try, there are a few “conditions and warnings.”

  • You could easily cheat by opening the files and looking at EXIF or other data. But don’t. Or if you cannot resist, please keep your observations to yourself. I’ll stipulate that you could find differences in file parameters by looking there – but that isn’t the point in this case.
  • You should not assume that I am incapable of modifying EXIF and file size and so forth in ways designed to trick those who “cheat” and inspect the files directly. Nor should you assume that I have. Or that I have not. Or whatever… :-)
  • The question is not “are they three separate exposures or one exposure,” so if, for example, you think that the water looks exactly the same in all three images that, in and of itself, isn’t relevant to the question – and your assumptions may or may not necessarily be correct.
  • The question is not whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent photograph – I make no claims beyond the fact that it is used here as a test image.
  • The question is not “what would they look like at 100% magnification?” Interesting question, but here the question is just about what you see in the images as presented.
  • If you think that you see differences among them, the followup question concerns the nature of the visible differences. Note that the follow-up question is not “how might the differences have been produced?” Just describe what you think you see.
  • There is no “point” inherent in the exercise, though when I explain more after getting some responses you might or might not draw some of your own conclusions. For now, just compare what you see.

(Follow-up observation. Having access to server logs, it is interesting for me to note the percentage of people who share a response versus the number of page views… ;-)

(Note on 9/10/11: Especially on flat-panel monitors, the position of the image on the screen may create visible differences that are not in the source images. Try to view the samples in the same location on your screen to avoid being misled by this. Once you make your observations and read comments here and in the follow-up post, you may see that others noticed and commented on this.)

I have set this up so that clicking on each image will open it in a new window or tab – though it is a bit awkward in that you’ll need to manually return to this window after doing so. Once they are open in three tabs (best) or windows you can click between them to compare more carefully if you wish – but do stick to viewing them in your web browser since that is part of “the question.”

After viewing, leave a comment stating which option (1, 2, or 3) best describes what you see. In addition, if you select option 2 you might offer a brief explanation of differences you see. (Again, not analysis of downloaded files please! That isn’t the question and it spoils the “game” for other participants. ) If you select option 3 tell us which one is different from the other two and perhaps what you observe about the visual difference.

Here are the images (Click to open each in new windows if you would like – you’ll have to manually return to this window each time – or feel free to view them here “in line.”):

A.

B.

C.

Thanks for participating!

Dan

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, Ideas, Locations, Technique

‘Aspens Close Up’ at California Nature Photographers Blog

Leave a comment

I just posted a short piece at the California Nature Photographers blog concerning one approach to photographing fall aspen color: Aspens Close Up. (That blog is a group effort that includes contributions from a number of us who photograph the natural world in California – take a look and consider subscribing to the feed!)