Category Archives: Technique

Commentary, Ethics, Ideas, Photographic Myths and Platitudes, Technique

Photographic Myths and Platitudes: No Post-Processing!

6 Comments

(The following is another (more or less stream of consciousness) post that I wrote in reply to a comment I read somewhere else, in this case suggesting that photographic history implies that post-processing or manipulating photographs after the shutter has been clicked is ethically questionable and should be avoided. I’ll start with a modified version of the message I saw.)

…it is invalid to claim that Adams was a modern photoshoppe[r]… 

I… recommend to every beginner to do film… to develop a better feeling for composition… The most difficult in digital is to restrict yourself to [taking] a limited number of photos… in the beginning…

…I want to leave my photos as natural looking as possible…

This is an important conversation, for the beginner and for people who have been making photographs for a long time.

When people make pronouncements about how photography is supposed to be done or has been done based on notions about what great photographers do or have done, it is important to check those notions against reality. In photography there is a frequent mantra about “no post processing” and “get it right in camera” that has been, in my view, perverted to suggest that photographs are created in certain ways that do not correspond to reality – and worse, that other photographers should adhere to these false “rules.” It obviously is important to develop an eye for composition and an ability to operate a camera, but that is most certainly not the end of it, nor is there much of any evidence to indicate that great photographers have felt that photography is limited to what happens in the camera.

Did Adams ever make a “bad” negative look good in post? That depends on what you think of as bad. I’m can’t think of photographs that were poorly composed and where post-processing compensated for this. (However, there are some negatives that were damaged in the fire at the Yosemite studio very early on, and in which the composition is affected by this. I’m pretty certain that “Monolith” was burned along its top edge, which is partly responsible for the crop with which we are familiar today.)

Adams did, by the reports that I have heard first hand from people who knew him, make a good number of banal and boring exposures. In fact, like photographers today, he made far, far more uninteresting and forgettable photographs than great ones. His famous statement about a dozen successful photographs in a year being a good crop is a partial acknowledgment of this truth about photography.

Some of Adams’ most famous, most successful, and most universally admired photographs would have been forgettable without extensive work in post. It still surprises me how many photographers don’t know this and, in fact, believe that the opposite is the case. A number of other photographers who knew and worked with him regularly point this out in their presentation on Adams. One of their favorite and most compelling examples is the iconic “Clearing Winter Storm” photograph of Yosemite Valley. There are three powerful pieces of evidence in this case: the straight prints of the negative (which has been printed by others), Adams’ own shorthand instructions for his extensive dodging and burning of the image when producing prints, and the profoundly different appearance of the print we all know, in which clouds that were almost uniformly near white become a dramatic mixture of very contrasting tones. Further, Adams made a number of exposures of this exact composition – most of which are not as spectacular – but he selected one from which to create the brilliant print in post that became so famous. Continue reading Photographic Myths and Platitudes: No Post-Processing! →

Technique

Camera Stability and Long Lenses

5 Comments

I responded to a question somewhere else and thought that it might be useful to share the response here, too. A photographer asked some questions about using long focal length telephoto lenses for landscape photography and how to deal with the issue of camera/lens stability, bringing up related questions about things like live view modes, mirror lockup, image-stabilization, and so forth. Here is what I wrote in response…

Rocky Creek Bridge, Surf and Fog
Black and white photograph of Rocky Creek Bridge with winter storm surf and fog. Big Sur coastline, California.

If you are shooting landscapes from the tripod…

  • Do use live view – it is the mode that introduces the least amount of shutter vibration.
  • Either mode 1 or 2 will perform essentially equally well when it comes to shutter vibration. (In both cases, there really isn’t any shutter motion vibration before the exposure since it is initiated electronically.
  • If you use a remote release (and you do, right?!) then there is no reason to use any delay setting on the camera to avoid vibration. (Many cameras have settings for 2 second or 10 second delays – mostly there so you can run and get in the photo, too!)
  • Mirror lockup is irrelevant in live view. The mirror is up by default in live view.  To be even more explicit, live view and MLU are mutually exclusive modes – they cannot be used at the same time.
  • After touching the camera, moving the tripod, etc., wait a few seconds for vibrations to dissipate before making your exposure. I  think that 2-3 seconds is sufficient, though some folks will claim that even longer might help.
  • Speaking of this, I would tend to avoid using either auto-focus (AF) mode when making landscape photographs with such a long lens. Either can introduce some amount of vibration to the system, but especially the mode that momentarily flips the mirror down, auto-focuses in the usual manner, then flips the mirror up to make the shot in live view. I prefer to manually focus at 10x magnification. If you must autofocus, do so before switching to live view mode, and then turn AF off before making the exposure.
  • Realize that the large area of these big lenses, combined with their very long focal lengths and great magnification, make the system far more susceptible to vibration from air movement. Even relatively weak breezes can create enough vibration to create a bit of blur and soften the image. Continue reading Camera Stability and Long Lenses →
Equipment, Reader Questions, Technique

Reader Question: One Lens for Landscape and Wildflowers on Hikes?

2 Comments

From time to time blog readers email me questions about photography subjects. When possible I like to answer them here so that I can share the answer with others who might be interested. Here is a recent question:

“If you were going on a hike to capture landscape and wildflowers, and you could only take one lens, which one and why?”

In some ways that is  a very simple question, but it other ways the answer can be quite involved. Since the question did begin with, “If you were…”, let me start out by literally saying a bit about my own photography – but reminding readers that my approach is individual and idiosyncratic and may not match up with your preferences at all.

If the goal was to cover as much ground as possible in a single lens, and accept some photographic limitations in exchange for carrying less gear, with my Canon full-frame DSLR system I would most likely use my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L. On full-frame, the 24mm focal length covers a pretty decent wide angle range, and 105mm is long enough for many subjects. The lens also focuses reasonably close – though not macro-close – and the image stabilization feature is useful in situations where I might want to hand-hold the camera. On a week-long backpacking trip through a high and remote section of the Sierra a few years ago, I used only this lens (and tripod, remote release, a few filters, etc) and came back with good results. To extend the usefulness of the lens for close-up flower photography I sometimes carry an extension tube, though others might just bring along a close-up “filter” or two.

There are things that I would miss with this single-lens setup. A personal preference in my shooting is to work with longer focal lengths, so for me having nothing longer than 105mm would seem like a bit of a restriction. And while this lens plus the extension tube works pretty well, it won’t be as good as a dedicated macro lens.

Another alternative that I’ve thought about but have not yet tried (since I haven’t had the gear long enough just yet) would be to use my small Fujifilm X-E1 (seen”Fujifilm X-E1: From DSLR to Mirrorless“) with the 60mm macro and perhaps the fine little 18-55mm zoom. I know that is more than one lens, but the total kit size is smaller/lighter than my full-frame DSLR. You could go with just the excellent little zoom plus a close up filter or two as an alternative. I use this particular brand/model and like it a lot, but there are alternatives from other manufacturers that also have a lot of fans.

Moving on from what I might use, let’s briefly consider some other options that might appeal to other photographers.

If you are primarily interested in the wildflowers and are a very serious photographer, you might prefer to simply carry a dedicated macro lens of whatever focal length seems best for you. This will be your best bet for close-up wildflower photography and, accepting the limitations of having only a single focal length, will produce excellent image quality for non-macro subjects as well.

Another option that would work well for a lot of people is one of the entry-level DSLRs (like the Canon t1i-t5i series or alternatives) with the “kit” lens in the 18-55mm range plus one or more close-up filters. These can produce quite decent image quality and the package is small, light, versatile, and not too costly.

This begins to lead to the question of what your primary goals are in your hiking photography. Are you a very serious photographer who regularly produces large and high quality prints? Or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, are you a much more casual photographer who wants to bring back some beautiful records of your experience and share them with friends and family, perhaps mostly online? More than likely, you might have to determine where you fit between the extreme ends of this spectrum. How important is the weight/bulk of the equipment? Are you going to grab shots handheld or stop and use a tripod?

For some who are more concerned with the weight/bulk issues and perhaps not likely to make 20″ x 30″ prints, there are lots of smaller, lighter and often less expensive options that can be very good choices. These include some of the smaller and lighter mirrorless cameras such as the Fujifilm model I mentioned above (at the high end), and also some of the point and shoot cameras, many of which can produce excellent photographs.

Good luck with your choice… and with your photography!

Articles in the “reader questions” series:

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | 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.

Commentary, Equipment, Post-processing Workflow, Technique

Post-Processing: A Shadow Recovery Example

4 Comments

(In another forum someone asked a question – actually, more like posed a challenge – related to how much usable detail and quality could be extracted from a raw file that contained areas of very low luminosity, as could happen with a badly underexposed image or with an image of a scene with a very large dynamic range. Since I went to the work of responding and illustrating my response, I figured that I might as well share it here, too. With minor revisions, here it is.)

First, I actually have a “real” version of this photograph in which highlights were slightly blown, but which I preferred to use since I could bring them back in post and get a bit more shadow detail to start with. (It looks a bit bright to me as an on-screen jpg, but it makes a fine print.) That photograph ended up looking like this:

Kolob Canyon, Morning - Morning light slants over the top of sandstone cliffs above early autumn foliage in Kolob Canyon, Zion National Park
Morning light slants over the top of sandstone cliffs above early autumn foliage in Kolob Canyon, Zion National Park

This photograph and the other I’ll move to below were both shot from a tripod with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II at ISO 100 using the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS at f/16. While the “keeper” used for the photograph above had a 1/4 second exposure, the example I’ll use below was shot at 1/30 second.

The exposure challenge in this scene was the very large dynamic range between the bright spot of sky at the head of the canyon and the much darker colorful foliage in relatively deep shadow in the foreground. Exposing for optimal quality in the foreground would completely blow out the sky, while exposing for the sky would necessarily grossly underexpose the foreground.

I originally thought that I might like to have four bracketed exposures in case that would let me produce a better final image via layer blending, but it turned out to be unnecessary and the final image (as shown above) has a single source file with no blending. However, this means that I still happen to have one very badly underexposed (by three stops) version at 1/30 second which I’ll use here as the starting point for what I plan to illustrate in this post. Follow along with me and see what I can do with the very underexposed version of the file… Continue reading Post-Processing: A Shadow Recovery Example →