Category Archives: Technique

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas, Printing, Technique

A Question About Noise and Prints

3 Comments

A reader asks:

I’m curious if you know the answer.  I don’t print very often so I’m not experienced with it.  I keep reading about noise in digital of course.  I also have read many remarks about noise not being visible in print under some conditions.  So I’m curious if there is a threshold.  For example, on the 5D2, what is the print size where noise becomes visible at a given ISO?  The 7D?  I realize that where it becomes objectionable may be subjective, but I thought it may be interesting to know when it is visible or invisible in print.

Let’s assume other technical details are handled well… good exposure, good focus, sharp lens, and no camera shake.

Thanks for writing. This is a great question and a subject that lots of people worry about. I’m not sure I know the answer, but I have an answer based on my own experience. The situation turns out to be a bit fuzzy in the end – in other words, if there is a threshold a number of factors could change your notions of where it might be. (I welcome comments from others who have experience to share.)

From reading photography discussions one could get the idea that image noise in digital photography is a terrible and limiting problem. Discussions often focus on questions like “which camera produces less noise?” and “how do I fix this noise problem.” We see 100% magnification crops of images in which noise is, indeed, quite visible. There are most certainly noise issues that we have to concern ourselves with, but all too often people get worked up over noise issues that are insignificant or even imperceptible – and which are often easy to resolve. Continue reading A Question About Noise and Prints →

Commentary, Ideas, Photographers, Technique

Video: Michael Adams on “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico”

2 Comments

As if on cue, right after I posted my “Photographer versus Photoshopper” piece yesterday, in which I mentioned Adam’s “Moonrise…” photograph, I saw this wonderful video interview with Ansel Adams’ son Michael in which he offers a basic description of the extensive post-processing that Adams applied to the original negative to produce the print we know so well.

The interview also reminded me of another topic for the “Photographic Myths and Platitudes” series that I am thinking about, namely the claim that great photographers always carefully compose and consider their subjects before they trip the shutter. Sometimes they do, but quite often it is more a matter of “tripping” over the tripod as one scrambles to capture a moment of beauty that appeared unexpectedly and which may disappear any second if you don’t work quickly. Of course, well-developed technical and aesthetic instincts help when it comes to turning such a moment into a photograph.

Commentary, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’

12 Comments

Read enough online stuff about photography and you eventually begin to recognize certain “common knowledge” assumptions about photography that are frequently repeated, quoted, and stated as truths. Unfortunately, quite a few of them are, at best, personal opinions rather than facts, and a good number are just plain wrong. I have a couple of ideas for a series of posts on this blog, and I’ve felt that occasionally dealing with some of these myths and platitudes might be one such thread. So, here goes — a new series: “Photographic Myths and Platitudes.”

I’ve seen writers attempt to draw distinctions between “photographers” and “photoshoppers” – in fact I just saw another today. The underlying assumption seems to be that if you are really a “photographer” you’ll be able to do everything perfectly in-camera and won’t have to do anything in the “post-processing” stage, and that “photoshopping” is a form of non-photographic cheating or tweaking that only has the purpose of making a poor photograph less poor. Further, quite a few who hold this view attempt to build their case on photographic history, often suggesting that “Great Photographer X” fully and accurately “pre-visualized” the image in its finished form, carefully calculated composition and exposure in such a way that the final print would be inevitable, pressed the shutter release, and captured a perfect image that could not be improved in any way by further work.

Of course, with the exception of a few genres of and approaches to photography, this is generally nonsense both as history and as a practical description of how photography is done. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes – ‘Photographer’ versus ‘Photoshopper’ →

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