Size Matters

No, not that size, I'm talking about print size. I wrote earlier today about keeping images simple to be effective, but I have been thinking more about it and it seems to me that print size is an issue here. If the prints are small - say 6X8, a size I often print at on 8.5X11 paper, then the objects in the image are pretty darn close together on the print. Blow the same image up to 16X24 and it's a whole different game - now objects that practically touched in the small print are inches apart. They don't interfere with each other to anything like the same degree.

Perhaps this means that complex images need big prints. Of course, the other thing it means is that simple images perhaps don't hang together so well in giant prints, needing more to look at.

I'm going to do some experiments with print size, using my 7600 to make 20 inch by whatever prints for comparison.

Sort o' Cave

Another badlands image from this weekend. Shot with my 17-40 at 17 mm., full frame sensor on the 1Ds2. I don't normally think of myself a wide angle kind of guy, but there are times when nothing else will do. In this case, the cave was at the top of a steep hill and stepping back three feet meant stepping down 4 feet, so either i needed a really tall tripod, not to mention a ladder to get up to the viewfinder, or I needed my 17 mm. lens. Actually, I bought it at the time when I was using the 10D with the 1.6 multiplier effect because of the small sensor, but have used it quite often on the full frame camera, less for near far compositions than for lack of room to operate, but some of those too.

Simplicity

I have written before about complex pictures being a 'hard sell'. I'm just back from photographing the badlands and I am dissapointed with a number of images I had thought would work, and consistently it's a problem of being too complex.

I'm going to go further and say that the primary problem of most failed photographs is a matter of not keeping things simple enough, of not being tidy, of not eliminating things which even if not downright distracting, don't actually add to the composition.

It's tempting to use cropping as a way to solve this problem, but what actually happens in many cases is you 'throw out the baby with the bathwater', that is, you remove some of the good parts of the image in a desparate attempt to remove the distracting elements, ending up with a weaker message rather than one spoiled by distractions - not a great tradeoff.

Truth is, some times you can find something lovely to photograph but no matter how you cut it, you can't find a way to eliminate the distracting, extraneous, surplus to requirement elements and it just doesn't work.

Other times, there are too many good things and it's tempting to include them all, yet even though they are interesting shapes, lovely tones, and well deserving of capture, put together they don't form a harmonious whole and yet again a weak image is the result. One must be as vigilant to not add something which doesn't contribute to the whole as one watches to be sure no distracting elements persist. Our work is cut out for us.

Another Badlands Image

Weekend Trip To Badlands

Drove down to Dinosaur Provincial Park yesterday afternoon (about 3 hours), cought the evening light, crashed for four hours and got up again to catch the morning light this morning and home before 1 - 6 hours of photography in less than 24 hours and now I'm back from picking up some 100 lb. rocks for the front path. I think I can justify some rest now thanks.

Abstract Rock Image

This is a severe crop of one of my rock stitches which didn't really work in full size and the fragment is saved only because of having such a high pixel count in the first place - bad planning, bad seeing, but glad to have the fragment none the less.

Magazines And The Images They Showcase

Popped into Indigo the other night to get the latest photography magazines - they had a good haul - View Camera, Camera Arts, Shotz, Photo Life, and B&W. In addition they had Black and White Photography and Lenswork but I have subscriptions to those.

Thumbing through the magazines, I was quite struck by how many of the images were unattractive in the extreme - this of course is a biased opinion and I may just be revealing my ignorance, lack of culture and just plain bad taste, but I wonder.

I went through pages of bromoil and other antiquated techniques resulting in oddly coloured hard to see images of no particular merit - the process was all - I got the distinct impression the people using these old processes were so pleased to have been able to produce an image at all that content was surplus to requirements. The number of manipulated images, double exposures and so on was high. this was particularly noticeable in Camera Arts which has a reputation for showing this kind of photography. There was a substantial amount in Shotz and View Camera, both of which don't usually showcase a lot of this work. B&W and Photo Life didn't in fact show much of this kind of work at all.

Perhaps it was just a bad month, maybe it's just me. I doubt it's just me - I've heard comments about and seen for myself how Aperture went this direction 15 years ago and lost a lot of subscribers.

I have abstract paintings hanging on my wall, some of my own photographs are fairly abstract, I own (paid for) platinum prints. I can admire portraits and fashion photography, sports and news, the distorted nudes of Bill Brandt, so what is it about these rather messy odd looking photographs that I'm missing if several editors think they are worth showing?

Photographs certainly don't have to be pretty - they can definitely present a message designed to make you uncomfortable - but in the case of these images, the message I get is, 'turn the page'. I can't see people living with them on the walls. I doubt people would collect them were they offered cheaply and unsigned and not made by the photographer, no matter how identical. I have a horrible feeling that they are appreciated more for their being different than they are for for their skill, message or emotional responses. That would make them collectable but not admirable, valuable but not wonderful.

It may be that I simply don't get the language of these photographs, just as I don't get a lot of 20th century classical music. Are they in fact created for a minority of intellectuals and the rest of us poor slobs aren't meant to 'get' it. Is it remotely possible that any of these photographs is going to have staying power - that they will become icons of 21st century photography - I frankly find that hard to believe.

Why is it that editors of some magazines favour this kind of work while others don't. I can't remember any of this kind of thing in Lenswork. Of course, Brooks Jenson is a middle aged white guy brought up through the Ansel Adams, Fred Picker et al school of photography, just like me. Does this mean that the other editors are simply unlike us, perhaps with a political science degree, a background of writing for the radical student newspaper and having values radically different from mine.

I worry that the fault is mine, that what is considered fringe now will be the norm in a few years and that most people will 'get' it, that my dislike for these images is akin to someone criticizing Picasso in the 20's and 30's, only to find out later that there's a lot more to it than first realized, that it took skill and imagination to paint cubist pictures, and with a bit of education it can be appreciated every bit as much as a Rembrandt.

But, what if I'm right and this is the 'emperors new clothes' and we've been hoodwinked into believing there is merit where none exists.

Disturbing... No answers.... Yet....

What To Do With Our Photographs

If you are anything like me you have hundreds or thousands of prints and no where to put them. Sure you can get a few images framed - but at $200 a pop, that eats into one's equipment budget. You can pin images to the wall - when allowed, give them to friends, swap, get published, sell images, but realistically that probably still leaves you with a huge number of images and maybe no idea what to do with them.

This is where I'm at right now. Here's some thoughts about how I am going to go about fixing this problem.

I'm going to create a series of portfolios. Some will be closed editions - 'best images of 2004', others will remain open indefinitely - 'Industrial Abstracts' - images will be added to these and possibly some will leave as better images come along which leave older images looking a bit anaemic. I'm going to create some that by definition will have images leave - '10 best black and white ever'.

I'm going to break down and fork out the money for portfolio boxes, probably from Light Impressions Direct. At present I have dozens of unlabelled paper boxes of various manufacturers stacked up with varied quality images.

I hope to settle on a single type of paper so there is consistency, though I might have to have semi gloss and matte. I think I'll use 8.5X11 paper, even though for a long time 13x19 has been my standard size paper. With working with the f type semi gloss papers on the 5000, I have come to appreciate a heavy weight paper of fairly small size that is easy to hold in one's hands and doesn't require standing back to view. I'll print them with at least a 1 inch border around and generally more. I haven't settled on a paper yet. I feel that Moab Entrada is a bit textured for such small prints, Epson Enhanced Matte a very nice surface but a bit light weight and possibly subject to some yellowing since not behind glass. I have some of the new glossier ultrasmoothe paper from Innova coming that Michael Reichmann recommended - I'll let you know how that works out. I hope Innova fixes their confusing paper labelling - sort of a gloss, glossier, glossiest, only not so obvious which is which.

With such small prints I suspect it will be important that the dot gain (spread of ink on paper) be minimal - some recent 8.5X11 prints on Hahnemuhle Pearl look to be good that way as was Enhanced Matte - not so sure about the Moab. Also, I'm convinced that prints on the 5000 look sharper than from my Epson 4000 I wonder if dot gain is the issue.

As things stand right now, were I to 'pop my clogs' as the English have been known to say (die that is), my family would find a jumble of work prints, reject prints and good prints, none signed, no indications of which are keepers, etc. so I think this will be a good idea.

Preparing For Cruise

I took reader advice and arranged to rent a 100-400 mm. IS lens. Now, this combination weighs nearly 10 lb. and I'm wondering about using a monopod. I understand from reading that engine and other vibration (people walking by) would render tripods less than effective on board ship though I wonder if that still applies with an IS lens.

With a monopod, the deck could vibrate up and down but couldn't introduce any rotatory movements other than slow rolling of the ship so it might help steady pictures beyond what the IS can do - and the IS would help. I could even consider putting something soft on the bottom of the tripod to cushion against said vibration but that might introduce other movements. Anyone have any experience?

Perhaps a tripod with the legs all together and sitting on my foot would be the ideal - just enough cushioning, don't need a separate tripod and extra ball head - I might just experiment with my 300 mm. lens and see what shutter speeds I can get away with.

I'm curious about photographing the ship itself - while on board - anyone with any experience?

I'll be storing images on an Epson 2000 but this only gives me one copy of images so I'll take along my Mac laptop too. It can handle raw files extra software and can burn DVD's for me as backup. Theoretically that makes the epson redundant but carrying the Epson in the field means not having to buy extra cards.

Looks like for lenses, I'll be taking the 24-70 (I'd like the 24-105 but not enough to pay for it), the 100-400 and I'm still tempted to take the 70-200 since it is noticeably sharper in it's range. It's heavy though, hmmm.

I'll take my sensor brush and spinner, lens cleaning equipment, a mini trecker bag, a polarizer (not for skies, for water reflections - to boost or minimize, depending). I'll take my nodal slider - the tripod bracket that lets me stitch.

I presume that there is 110 volts on board for charging camera batteries - for razors if nothing else. I'll check.

Wonder if I can get any semi - abstract images of the ship - or even of the engine room - I hear there are tours.

Whole new experience, starting to get a little excited.

Frank Meadow Sutcliffe

Sutcliffe was a Yorkshire photographer of the late 1800's, based in Whitby, a coastal town. There he photographed the harbour, the villiages and the people.

A few of his images are often included in most historical collections and books. His environmental group portraits do look a little staged but given the equipment of the time this is hardly surprising. His sense of composition and pose is superb and a number of his images are absolutely excellent.

Not only is he good - his images are available inexpensively - really inexpensively - check them out. See if you can pick up a Stieglitz for 100X the price, you'll be lucky.

Dreaming Of View Cameras

I quite like using view cameras I own two - a Technica V and a very pretty and well built wooden Shen Hao. I have absolutely no desire to go back to processing black and white film and particularly to scanning film or heaven forbid making silver prints.

I gave serious consideration to the Betterlight scanning back but found that the maximum exposure was such that it precluded much of the work I do.

At this point, there is no good alternative. One could use a medium format digital back (assuming of course that one had $30,000) but they aren't even full 645 size and need heavy geared view cameras best designed by people who normally make military tanks. They are completely unsuited to 4X5 wooden view cameras. Thus my lovely cameras sit unused in months, and the last time I used them, it reminded me why I switched to digital.

No, for now, stitching is the best alternative for landscape and industrial work, using the best camera one can afford. At my office I have a 16X56 inch print shot from my 10D using 8 images - I have never made a print that big from large format and no one has suggested that the image would have been better had it been from large format.

William Corey

Known more for his work on Japanese Gardens, I was particularly intrigued by William Corey's 8X20 camera portraits. Who would have thought that such an odd format would work really well with portraits. Do check these out, then have a look at his work on gardens.

The whole idea of mounting an 8X20 camera vertically - in itself a challenge, then using it to make portraits is pretty mind boggling. The technical difficulties involved are impressive, but even had the images been shot digitally and cropped, they would none the less be interesting - I have the feeling I know a bit about these people, something many portraits don't in fact show.

Note the use of hands as a very important part of the portraits, and also the good use of background to frame the images.

Badlands Further Edited

Since I presented the previous version of this image, I have cropped from both top and bottom in the belief it makes the composition stronger. I have made both local and global changes in contrast as well as brightness and in general brought the image into better balance (in my opinion). No doubt this isn't the end, if my prior track record is anything to go by - I will find further adjustmens to make as I live with the image.

Black And White

I seem to be in a bit of a black and white mood lately - some of the images I have already shown in colour I'm finding I like even better in black and white.

The image above was in fact a lovely orange rust, but I prefer the more abstract look of black and white. i think the point is that colour can be a distraction.

Tracking Visitors

One advantage of tracking visitors of course is to see the growth in traffic to one's website or blog. Another is that I can check to see how people find me and it's allowed me to visit dozens of other interesting sites and the work of some very good photographers.

My website has now been visited by people from 109 countries, including Greenland, Sudan and Cambodia. It really is amazing how much the internet has shrunk the world - who would ever have thought that a part time photographer from Calgary, Alberta, Canada would have his work looked at by people from such diverse locations.

Had I made a book and were it a riotous success, I might have sold a few thousand copies (that's the nature of photographic books). Instead, my website has been visited by 24,838 people, my blog by 62,513 visitors - that makes my exposure anything from 10 X 20 times more than a successful book.

Of course, photographers sites are largely visited by other photographers, not people collecting photographic art, and more particularly not people who tend to buy photographs. It seems we may achieve fame but not likely fortune. Still, one must not discount the importance of one's work being looked at by other photographers - people who have looked at lots of images, who know a good one when they see it, who appreciate the work we do to get subtle things just right, and who know how to 'read' a photograph.

It may be nice to get money from someone who doesn't even know your image isn't a painting and who asks 'is it a print or is it real?', but sharing our work with fellow photographers is really very nice, thank you.

D.O.F., Sensor Size, Focal Length And Stitching

In any discucussion group, start talking about sensor size, multiplication factors, depth of field and you'd better stand back and hold onto a fire extinguisher because it's opening pandora's box. More mis information couched in scientific terms will be spouted and more harm done than had the subject not been raised in the first place.

Here's a little exercise to warp your mind. We'll take it as given that small sensor cameras have greater depth of field than large sensor cameras given the same f-stop and lenses covering the same angle of view. Anyone who has tried to blur the background with a consumer digicam of normal focal length knows it's nigh on impossible - just too much depth of field, while large format photographers pray that everything in the image is in a single plane of focus such that the lens or back can be tilted to include all, since they know darn well, that no useable f-stop is small enough to get everything from 3 feet to infinity sharp with a 210 mm. lens.

OK, so here's the trick. I decide to shoot an image with one of those 2/3 inch sensor ultrazoom cameras but I'm going to shoot 9 images in a 3 X 3 matrix such that I'm going to end up with a 45 degree angle of view (roughly that of a 50 mm. lens on a 35 mm. camera). I know from experience that the digicam has huge depth of field so I'm going to end up with a stitched image which also has great depth of field, near and far being nice and sharp. That seems to make sense, but then I ask myself, what is the difference between using a single 2/3 inch sensor repeatedly vs. a single sensor 2 inches across (we're ignoring stitching overlap for simplicity). It seems to make sense that there shouldn't really be any difference, except that in one case we use the lens from the digicam to repeatedly move around the image taking multiple shots, and in the other case we need a new lens which will cover the imaginary 2 inch sensor (2/3 inch times 3). We'd need wider coverage for the 2 inch sensor, but we know from our large format days that depth of field doesn't change from a Xenar lens to a Super Symar XL of the same focal length- only the circle of coverage changes, so the fact that our 2 inch sensor needs more coverage is in fact irrelevent.

OK, this is getting complicated. So, if I have discounted the difference in sensor size, how is it that large sensor or film cameras have less depth of field than small sensor cameras? Well, we have to remember that to 'zoom in' to capture 1/9th bites of our image, the small sensor camera has to use a much longer focal length than were it capturing the 45 degrees spread of our subject. In fact, ignoring overlap, we'd need a lens of 15 degrees coverage for each of the 9 images to be stitched, corresponding to a focal length three times that needed to capture the scene in a single shot. We remember of course that on any given sensor size, longer lenses tend to have less depth of field than shorter lenses, distance for distance and shot from the same location. Take a long enough lens (like my 300 mm. on my 1Ds2) and you can run into trouble getting 500 feet and infinity both in focus.

So, when we stitch, depth of field is exactly the same as if we were using a single larger sensor and lens combination - that's to say, less than we thought we were going to get.

Of course, we aren't enlarging those digicam images as much (since it takes 9 of them to make up the image) and we understand that depth of field isn't a done deal and in fact depends on how big a print you make and how close you plan to view it.

Whew.

Hang in there with me just a little longer.

The mathematical formula for depth of field is directly related to the f stop, the maginfication, and the viewing distance, while varying with the inverse of the SQUARE of the focal length - and that's where the single image from a short focal length lens covering 45 degrees on the digicam (say 10 mm.) has a lot more depth of field than a 50 mm. lens on a 35 mm. type camera. 10 squared is 100, 50 squared is 2500. That's what more than makes up for the magnification from sensor size to print size. It's that business of using a 3X longer focal length to make the parts for our stitched image which means that in the end the depth of field is just the same as if we'd used a 3X bigger sensor and lens of equivalent field of view (which just happens to require a lens of 3X the focal length.

Thus it doesn't matter whether you use a 200 mm. lens and small sensor to shoot multiple parts of an image or to shoot the whole thing with a bigger sensor - and that makes sense.

Now wasn't that fun?

Travelling Light

I'm trying to decide what to do - I get to go on an Alaska Cruise in May and needless I plan to photograph every opportunity I get - no idea what to expect but that's ok. I can't take my usual camera bag - so far I have been able to stuff it in the overhead bins - with a bit of work and adjustment - but it won't go through those airport test rigs and one of these days they are going to turn it down. I'm not sure I want that much very expensive equipment lying around either.

I'm tempted to pick up a Panasonic FZ-50 and just have fun, and plan to shoot 4 image stitches of anything I think I might want to save. I know the sensor is noisy but in raw, I won't lose detail and the lens is damn sharp - better than the kit lens with the Canon Rebel XTI (400).

Problem is, I have a horrible feeling I'll regret not taking my real camera (the 1Ds2) with me. Ideally I'd use it with a 100-400 IS zoom for handheld shots of glaciers and icebergs from ship, but I don't have one and am not about to drop $2000 to buy one.

I have a 300 f4 - damn sharp lens, but it's not IS. I do have a 70-200 which in a pinch could be used with a 2X extender but that is marginal at best and only if stopped down two stops which rather spoils the handholdability. My 1Ds2 is quite noisy at higher ISO's so cranking the speed up to 800 is not an option (400 is mostly ok).

In some ways it would make the most sense to pack a pocketable consumer digital and take the 1Ds2, a couple of lenses (my 24-70 and my 70-200 and perhaps the 1.4 ex I already own) and a tripod.

Of course I could flaunt the norms and go with my lovely wooden 4X5 Shen Hao but no, that isn't going to happen.

In the Fall, I was at a medical conference in Victoria and had a chance to visit Butchart Gardens. The Japanese Maples were incredible and I was able to take a lovely picture with my Canon S3IS which my daughter now has (long story, soft head). One image was great and I have posted it before, but it barely makes a decent 8X10 print - of course why I didn't decide to shoot multiple images for subsequent stitching is beyond me now - sigh! I was so taken with the picture I actually briefly thought of flying back out to the coast with my good equipment to reshoot that one picture. I didn't - I couldnt guarantee the leaves were still as good or that I'd find the right light or no wind again.

So now you know my dilema. I'll let you know how it plays out.

More Badlands

A 5 image stitch on the 1Ds2 means I can make LARGE prints of this image. Do click on it to see a larger version of the image. There's lots of detail to enjoy at that size too.
Below is a very small section of the print - click on it to see it approx. 100%

Seeing Fatigue

I notice that when I'm out shooting - after a while (anything from 2 - 4 hours), I kind of stall out, not being able to see anything worthwhile in the landscape. I know it's time to go home, or at least to move on to new territory - I know that can work because quite often I see something after I have packed up and started home and it's generally well worth the effort to stop and unpack the equipment again. Sometimes those are the best shots of the whole day.

The Right Weather

So, if you had your pick of weather in which to go out photographing, what would it be?

If you are a snapshooter you will almost certainly pick a nice sunny day. If you have a bit more experience, you would like thin cloud veiling the sun to cut the contrast that even digital sensors struggle with. If you have been around a long time, cloudy bright looks more attractive.
Some want super clouds to sit over their landscape images, others like me typically don't shoot sky so clouds aren't a big deal other than as a filter for the light. People who put some effort into their photography often like early morning and around sunset for the softer light, longer shadows and warmer colour of the light which can transform a landscape.

If you are really serious about your photography though, you do the best you can but take what you are given and adjust your photographs to the kind of lighting on offer.

My preference is for a cloudy day with the sky unevenly bright - a really dull day with no cloud detail at all can be very difficult to photograph, but I have photographs from noon on a sunny day to two hours after sunset, with the meter barely reading, storm light, flat light, light reflected off of cliffs into deep shade. Noon may mean short shadows on ground, but what about canyon walls, or buildings - vertical surfaces suddenly acqure long shadows.

Variable cloud cover gives you the chance to photograph in just about any level of contrasting light from flat to soot and chalk, simply by waiting for the next cloud to be in the right position relative to the sun. You can almost dial up your desired lighting. Of course, I can't promise the wind isn't going to suddenly come up just when the light is right, but patience will out, most days.

Mind you, it makes a difference whether you want black and white or colour images - warm evening light doesn't mean much in black and white, but a lower light source and longer shadows does.