Photographic success

Rock Face, Elbow Valley, Alberta, Canada, August 2007

Now that I'm largely over the jet lag and had a chance to go through some of the shots I took while I was away, I've been reflecting on the photographic success of the trip.

For me there were 2 aspects to this.

Firstly were the great new locations. On recommendation, I spent some time at Elbow Valley Falls and then an evening & morning at Dinosaur Provincial Park. 2 great locations for photography, new to me and quite unique to Alberta (IMO). I could happily spend a lot more time around both areas taking pictures and exploring (on bike or foot). I'm glad I've got another trip to Calgary coming up - more opportunity to get back to some of the places I didn't have time for this time around.

The second area of success was on the technical front. I found I'm got (and continue to realise) a much higher percentage of good shots than ever before. For me, the big improvement has come from my findings on the histogram (see The great EOS metering test). I now get very few over-exposed shots when exposing to the right and I'm better able to target brackets (for HDR work or uncertain mixed lighting). There is some experience factor in there but not enough to make up the difference.

I also feel I'm taking better pictures: better balance of light and subject. That is, of course, all part of the on going journey of development.

Over then next few days, I'll post some of the results.

and service resumes

After a pretty successful trip, I'm back. I've not looked at a single one of the 600 or so shots I made while I was away so that's yet more work for me. Right now, jet lag is getting in the way. My body wants to sleep at all the wrong times (like the photo filled free-time) and fully alert when it's less convenient (such as my regular office hours).

On the photo front I can comment that I had a lot of fun picture-making time while I was away and I'll be blogging on such subjects shortly.

Of course the big news on my return were the announcements from Canon on their new gear - do I have thoughts on that? Not sure yet but some of the new stuff looks interesting for sure.

Away on my travels

I'm now off for 10 days on a business trip (with a bit of photo time thrown in) to Calgary, so posting may not be possible for the next week or so.

Hopefully I'll come back with another bunch of great pictures to develop & share, not that I've finished the work from the last 2 trips.

Updated portfolio

I've now got a load more photos to add to the portfolio and at the same time decided to make a few changes and implement an internal policy. From now, I'll restrict each of the 3 main portfolio categories to 24 shots (1 page of thumbnails). This will force me to cull all but the very best photos and keeps it quite fresh.

The 36 bicycles set will remain, and if I implement other projects they will get their own sections - this gives me the freedom to bring coherent sets of images together.

Check out the updates here.

Connection

Gathering clouds, France, June 2007

In response to a question I posed, Mark Hobson (The Landscapist) has posted a response, discussing the issue of the photographer connecting with subject and viewer. On reflection, I think I agree with him.

I take away 2 things from his response.

First, as a photographer, I cannot assume a viewer connects with my subject just because I do. Some might connect, of course, and that would give the image meaning for them but it is not an automatic process. I have to reach out in some way if I want others to draw meaning or have some kind of connection with the work.

Second, as a viewer, if I connect with an image I cannot assume others are. What for me has deep insight may be little more than a asnapshot to others. The reverse holds true as well - just because I may not connect doesn't mean others won't. We all draw differnt things from art, unless the artist delibrately sets the context for us.


As an illustration, I deliberately chose the photo to go with this post. On first glance it may look like nothing more than a snapshot of a random wheat field. I've titled it, that may give more context but I can't expect anyone to have thesame connection that I have with the scene.

In fact, it holds quite a lot of meaning for me. It is inspired by Van Gogh's "Wheatfields under Thunderclouds", a painting I was very much drawn to when I first saw it in the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. the connection for me, however is in the fact that it is one of two pictures I own (merely posters) that, once hung on the wall, make a house a home. For someone who moves a lot (6 times in 10 years), that becomes important. The other picture is Picasso's "Femme assise au capuchon".

Added depth in monochrome

There is a post & discussion, over at T.O.P., on how to get more detail out of the highlights in B&W and the issue of dynamic range versus film. It mostly revolves around the use of HDR techniques to extract the maximum information from a scene (multiple shots & bracketing) or file (multiple conversions).

As I commented, I've been using these techniques for colour work with some success but never thought to apply them to monochrome work. Having had a few difficult cases recently, I went back to take another look. Here are the results. In all cases - Capture one for the conversion (does the smoothest dark tone conversion, IMO), Photomatix Pro for HDR combination, Lightzone for final adjustments.

Lock tie-up, Heidelberg, July 2007

Lock tie-up HDR, Heidelberg, July 2007

In this case, I did the HDR work in color then performed a conversion to B&W. There is clearly more detail in the far wall, and the water level in the opposite lock can be seen. Slight noise reduction necessary there to stop it looking too grainy compared to the rest of the image. Final print optimization not yet done.

Weir cascade, Heidelberg, July 2007

Weir Cascade HDR, Heidelberg, July 2007

Here, I worked the conversion in B&W from the start, to see how that affected workflow. No real problem as far as I was concerned. The image has 2 lots of colouration applied which is why it appear to be a colour image. I much happier with the fine detail in the smooth water over the weir and the less aggressive specular highlights in the foam.

Overall, a success: not for universal use but good for tricky shots and more abstract work. Just as I apply it for colour work.

Dissatisfaction

Looking again at the photo attending the yesterday's post, I realise what a hash I made of the conversion: posterization, too much noise reduction. Uck!

It didn't make the final cut first time round because I felt it wasn't technically strong enough but looking at the subject I quite like it. So here is another attempt at the same shot. This time, I made the main subject (the people in the street) stronger and letting the rest fall where it may.

Life on Belgrade streets, Serbia, March 2007

Sometimes we need to revisit our results after a while to see if things can be done better or rejected images actually might be worth resurrecting.

Masters of Photography

Reading the stuff on 20th Century photography following the post & links at T.O.P. I realised that my photo art knowledge was sadly lacking.


Doing a search (actually for Winogrand) I turned up this handy resource for photographers - a whole buch of names, their photos and links to other resources. Handy for those looking for further information.

Metering and highlights in the digital world

Life on Belgrade streets, Serbia, March 2007

Mike Johnston over at T.O.P. was bemoaning the ability of digital to capture highlights for B&W, Kjell H (the lentic blog) had a riposte.

I had a think about this, and I think they are both right. On the one hand we have the ability of digital to capture large amounts of information at the highlight end and, if you know what you're doing with editting software, it is easily recoverable. great, as long as you don't saturate any of the channels. There is then that saturation problem - once it's gone, it's gone: there is no roll-off at the high end as with film. Well known, well understood.

There are times, however, when even careful expose to the right will blow the highlights and the detail is gone. there is also the problem of how your camera meters runs the histogram (for my discussion on EOS histograms look here). Specular highlights, or any small area at the high end is typically lost without significant under-exposure. Picture at the top is an example - the sky is blown-out and any cloud detail there might have been is gone. For this shot, not a problem, but if your subject had a similar small amount of highlight it would be gone forever.

My ideal solution: a mythical filter that reduces contrast at the highlight end of the luminance scale so all the info is crammed in there. The new EOS 1DIII has something similar, I believe - an in-built highlight recovery tool as part of RAW processing.

Art for scientists?

While thinking about the contrast between my job and my photo life as displayed via the blog I wondered - is photography art for scientists?

I know many with a science/engineering background who are keen to serious photographers (not just holiday snappers) but very few who take up other art forms (save maybe the odd musician). I think it has something to do with the bit that comes between vision and execution: namely technique.

I don't believe vision defines artists, but the execution of that vision. Art is not in the concept but the doing and making.

Whether you ae an "art as verb" type or "art as noun" type, there is a clear part of the art process that is the "doing" requiring some sort of technique to be applied. It might be paint, pencil, sculpture or indeed photography. I believe that the technique one chooses is largely based on talent, some sort of aptitude or affinity for the medium. Hence the scientist drawn towards photography: it is a very technology, mechanial kind of art form. The camera is very much a mechanical (or these electronic) device that I think sits well with the scientific mind.

I know for me, personally, there is "art as concept" going on in the brain. I can see the world as a seres of pictures, moments, whatever. I also know that I have not the aptitude to capture what I see with brush or pen but have a natural feel for the use of a camera. I like the mechanical aspect in bringing my vision to fruition, working the camera seems to come quite natural.
With the advent of digital editting it also fits in well with my bits & pieces approach to working. In the darkroom one has to have the patience and appliction to seethe job through. with the comptuer I can come and go to the work, tweaking and refining, erasing mistakes and so on.

Making up for...

... the lack of photos recently, something I did at the weekend.

Fleet Street in pictures

Good day for photo exhibitions: The Daily Telegraph has a story, and photo gallery, running on the history of Fleet Street newspaper photography running at the National Portrait Gallery.

Looks like an interesting exhibit for many reasons: history of reporting, celebrities through time or just for the antique gear-heads.

Breaking news: AP at war

A feature running on the BBC website highlights AP war reporting over the years.

It's an interesting slide show & series of interviews - well worth a look.

Thinking, seeing, in aspect ratios

Just looking at the pictures for the last two posts, I started thinking about how I visualise aspect ratio [AR] (if indeed I do). The "Cycle tunnel" shot is from the SLR, aspect ratio 6:4 (3:2), "Atop Alpe d'Huez" is from the digicam, AR 5.33:4 (4:3). Neither ratio is quite perfect - 6:4 looks a bit long (landscape too wide) - a bit less rock on the right would be better; 5:4 a bit short (landscape too tall) - light cropping from the bottom, maybe a sliver off the right.

So what is "ideal", how do I view AR and what about square images and wide panoramas?

One thing I have learnt about my own way of seeing is that I almost always think in terms of width of framing, even for portrait subjects. I then aim to capture everything I want in height through position or focal length. Taken to extremes, when I visualise a square image, I hold the camera in portrait orientation so the camera naturally frames the width I want. For panoramics, I always look for the extreme parts I want to capture to left and right, then selecting focal length to capture the height I want - number of shots falls out naturally from there.

What about "normal" shots - single frame, no cropping. In the past I thought I liked a slightly wide landscape AR (say 16:9) and for portrait a slightly short AR (say 5:4). Now I'm not so sure. The wide landscape AR comes from my view of the "grand scenic" - mountains and the like - which I often view in a panoramic kind of way. Not really indicative of the majority of landscape orientation shots. I often find myself cropping the long side of shots from the SLR - not quiet from 6:4 to 5:4.

SO that leads to the final point, and the first question: what's ideal? For me, I think something between 5:4 and 6:4. I might experiment, but 2 obvious candidates are 5.5:4 (round the difference) and 5.66:4 (1.41:1, format of A-size paper, and about the average). This won't be a universal truth of course, but might inform my general framing & cropping. What about Golden Ratio (6.472:4, 1.618:1) - seems so wide it's never considered in general photography.

Beginning of something useful?

Atop Alpe d'Huez, France, June 2007

There is a move afoot, via Lloyd Chambers' website, diglloyd (actually his blog), to get Phase One to produce a monochrome version of one of their digital backs. This then knocks onto Kodak, who produce the sensor. To read the whole thing go to the post of 26th July and read forward from there.

As Lloyd points out (and demonstrates with examples) you need far fewer pixels for the same resolution in B&W compared to colour - interpolation of data is a killer for detail. This means that cheaper sensors can be used assuming that more pixels = higher cost. I base that assumption on the fact that some makers are selling low res (4-5MP) cameras now for around $100. No frills, basic cameras. Put a monochrome sensor in them and I'd snap one up in no time.

If this is successful, maybe there will be a move to introduce monochrome sensors into other camera segments, maybe in line with my earlier thoughts on the subject. How about an exchangeable sensor DSLR? Canon used to make an exchangeable back film SLR, so you could run B&W and colour film side-by-side. Then would open up the whole notion of an upgradeable camera: slap all the important chips & stuff on a unit that slots in & out of the main body. Modular cameras for the masses.

It'll never happen, of course, but one can dream.

Labelling the blog

I finally decided to apply labels to my posts, largely because I was having trouble tracking older posts.

So now you can check out your favourite(!) topics and posts by type. Of course, my idea of a grouping is entirely personal.

Things which cannot be photographed

Cycle tunnel, nr Cluny, France, July 2007

Something I noticed this evening reminded me of an even more impressive sight I saw during he week. Tonight, the wind was blowing through the trees in such a way that the leaves shimmered as they turned into and out of the evening sun. red leaves in particular glittered.

On Wednesday evening I was out having a few beers outside a local bar. The wall of the building next door was covered in ivy, all 4 stories of it. the wind was blowing down the street in such a way to make the ivy ripple like waves. It made the wall seem alive, as if the whole brick surface was rippling.

Both these events made me realise that there are some things that cannot be photographed. The photo image is just a point in time and sometimes things are more than points in time. Both the wind effects I describe could never be captured in a still image satisfactorily (I know, I've tried). Whilst movement (or the sense thereof, as above) can be portrayed in a still image, there will always be events that are best viewed as movement.

Hopefully those of us with cameras spend enough time away from the viewfinder to notice the dynamic events all around us, as well as trying to capture the moment.

A couple more Perouges

I can never quite decide with images like this whether I prefer colour or black & white. There are merits to both, of course. Then sometimes I try something a bit more unusual:


It may seem I've posted quite a lot from a single morning's photography but with good reason. It was the one time on the trip I had time to just concentrate on making pictures: much of the rest of the week's efforts amounts to holiday snaps. Fun if you were there.

More from Perouges

Skyline, Perouges, France, July 2007

Having posted a shot from Perouges, I thought I'd write a little more about the photos I took there.

Perouges, just north of Lyon in France, is an interesting location both to stay and to photograph. It is a small mediaevel citadel preserved in near-historic condition. It is clearly a tourist spot and has been the location for many films set in mediaevel France. It is a maze of cobbled streets and interesting architectural corners.

Overnight we ate in the restaurant of the one hotel in town, a very pleasant (if somewhat expensive) evening - something of a modern meets ancient dining experience.

In the morning, while the rest of the team ate a late breakfast I spent some time wandering around photographing the life out of the place. There is so much of possible interest that i didn't want to pass up the opportunity. With limited time and fast-brightening skies, bracketing everything was the order: many bright highlights and dark shadows. With no tripod, developing the pictures is a challenge.

Here are a couple more results from the morning's efforts.

Gallery, Perouges, France, July 2007
Angles, Perouges, France, July 2007

A travelling dilemma

Dramatic, Calgary, June 2006

In a couple of weeks I've got a business trip to Calgary, very nice. As a result, I'm taking the weekends off.

Calgary is a city I like a lot, having spent quite a lot of time there tagged onto my ski trips. This, however, will be about the first time I've been and stayed the weekend during the summer and I'm not sure how best to use it.

I could try and hook up with some people for some cycling or take the cameras and head off for a day or two's shooting. Trouble is where to go? Calgary is a pretty functional city, not a lot to get too excited about photographically (apologies to Calgarians) - I'd really want to make the photography about something that is unique to the area. Normally I'm pretty laid back about weekend plans but this is one occasion where I need to pre-plan equipment for whatever I do, so it actually requires forethought. Decisions, decisions.

A roll of film: 36 bicycles

A while back I discussed the idea of entering into a 1 day project involving a roll of film I wanted to expose. The result is "36 bicycles", some of which illustrate this entry.

What was the project? I took the camera (my old SLR) with a 50mm lens and set at f/4.0 out onto the streets. The aim was, in the course of a morning, to shoot 36 individual images of different bicycles around town. I picked the subject as I knew there would be plenty of opportunity and it's static: a little more helpful in the change of working method.

There is the crux of it - the change in working. Normally I shoot a lot of landscape stuff, tuned exposure, small aperture, wide angle, careful composition. This was about being more spontaneous (see the thing, shoot the thing), not worrying as much about the technical bits (I did use auto-exposure) and not taking multiples. I was looking to sharpen up my ability to capture a moment as I saw it.

The whole exercise had me on an up-and-down feeling, even for the 3 hours it lasted. I started out optimistic that I could do it in no time, then had a bit where I wondered where the next shot would come from, finishing on a flurry and subjects to spare. With a small, old camera people paid me little heed and I learnt to ignore the few whose heads would turn my way. Losing self-consciousness is important in doing this kind of work, I think, which is probably why I'll never be a decent documentary photog.
I've posted the entire collection in a folder on my portfolio site. Overall, there are about 3 that don't work technically, a few that didn't quite show what I thought I saw but on the whole I'm quite encouraged by the results. Hope you like some of the results, too.

Another weekend away...

...this time to Heidelberg in Germany. Another opportunity to flood myself with photos to stack onto the other incomplete work. Looks like a busy few evenings in the next couple of weeks.

One reason I know I'll have quite a bit to do is that I enjoy photographing historic towns. I like the way grand buildings sit alongside alleyways of odd-shaped houses, the hap-hazard nature of the street layouts and the way in which centuries of development and progress is laid out for all to see. This means I egt all kinds of interesting shots & interpretations to look at, often in difficult lighting. If it is sunny then there is always great contrast in every scene: bright skies, sunlit stonework, dark shadows. A real chalenge for handheld photography.

This will also be the first time I'll get to use my new 17-55IS lens in earnest for the purpose I bought it - available light photography of building interiors. I'll report back on my impressions of the lens for that purpose on my return.

An interesting exercise

Blogs have been intermittent recently as I've got my parents visiting, which inevitably means I can't spend as much time with the photo work as normal. One spin-off, however, has been the small assignment they've asked me to do.

Next month my parents celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary (we should all last so long) and wanted some of their wedding photos on display for the big day. As a result, I've been scanning some of their wedding album, retouching and reprinting. Everything is in black and white, which makes it a little easier - there were only a few colour shots taken that day 40 years ago: "colour was only just coming in" was my Mum's observation.

Several things have been interesting about it. Firstly are the high resolution reflective scans. The V750 does a nice job - easily able to out-resolve the prints -, the dust & scratch tool works as advertised and the overall quality is very high. I settled on 1200dpi scans as offering the limit of detail and grain suppression. The textured matt surfaces throw up quite a lot of grain/luminance noise in scanning.
This leads to the second observation - how much film & print have moved on in 40 years. These are good quality prints. Having been stored in an archival album, in the loft, in a box, there is no fading, curling etc. However, every bit of grain in the film is apparent and the level of resolution returned is nothing compared to modern materials. In a couple it is hard to tell whether it is a lack of critical focus or lack of film capability that is limiting.
Final observation is that even with all these limitations, the photos touch up very nice in digital. Scan, dust removal (PS dust & scratch tool), contrast, levels are all that's needed to bring the scans up. I'm only making 12" prints which means de-ressing the scans followed by final sharpening. I only ran 1 print last night but the result was a finer print than the original; of course no more detail but a generally more pleasing result (I think).

One of the prints I'm working on is one of the original proofs, which is made on much lower quality materials. It's curled, yellowed and has PROOF stamped across it. Despite that, I'm able to produce a good result and even remove the stamp mark with some careful

I wonder how photographers of the future will look back on our efforts today? Will things move on such that they will make similar observations to me?

Stitching and cropping

War memorial, Serbia, March 2007

I read the recent tutorial/essay on framing and cropping from George Barr over at D.O.P. this week and figured he might have missed something.

George does a lot of multi-image stitches, as I do. It's an effective way of getting higher resolution or wider angles with digital. There are a couple of problems, however, with framing related to stitching in this way.

Firstly, there is the problem of visualising the scene, as mentioned in the article. If you are doing tight zooms on a small area then that may not be a problem. Effectively you are replacing a wide angle lens with several narrow angle images. Handheld framing devices would work quite well (given a caveat about point 2, below). For large panoramas, though, this is going to have a limit: if you are photographing beyond human visual field then a framing device isn't much use.

Secondly there is the problem of wastage from the stitching process. Good stitching takes into account lens distortion and perspective distortion, warping the images to produce the final view. This inevitably causes some wastage around the edges of the image due to curved components: cropping is necessary.

To over come thee issues I follow a different process of framing and composition when I'm looking to stitch several images together. This method is stems from a few failures and quite a lot of trial and error. There are 2 steps, in line with the 2 problems.

Step 1 is to determine the elements I want in the final framing. It is about pre-defining a set of edge points. This is much as one would do with a framing device but can be done for very wide angles of view.

Step 2 is to ensure that I add some extra to each frame I shoot to cover the stitching distortions. That often means surveying the whole scene to be photographed to ensure that I define an outer boundary around the whole scene. Typically 10-15% extra needs to be added top and bottom for a left-right pan (and vice versa). I don't take into account view-finder margin in this either, that gives a little more fat. This means shooting slightly wider for each shot than ultimately desired. If this means going wider than you would like for the resolution sought, then multiple rows are in order.

In summary: determine the key elements to be included in the final image, shoot wider to allow for stitching loss, shoot multiple rows if necessary.

The accompanying shot is an example: made from 6 images, handheld, the full size picture is 4200x7800 pixels.


In a side note, George Barr has posted a reply to a comment I made about knowing when to keep working on a picture. A very good post that helps consolidate my thinking.

That wasn't so good

On looking at the pictures I added to the last post, I realised that the web just isn't very good for pushing that kind of idea. The top image has a lot of detail in the final incarnation that just doesn't show here. Here is a crop to illustrate:


The rivets on the door are clearly visible (I hope) and there is more detail in the far landscape than the little picture can show. Oddly, though, the shot straight out of the camera is just as bad in reality as shown in the small view.

The web really is a frustrating place for photography - maybe that is why everyone is pushing for the wow-factor shots, anything remotely subtle just doesn't show up clearly enough.

What is a camera for?

Alley View, Perouges, France, June 2007

After reading the post over at the Landscapist on the differences between analogue (film) and digital workflows I got to thinking about the true nature of a camera, especially digital. I read the original post he refers to (by Colin Jago) and somewhat agreed, but reading Mark Hobson's comments I'm not so sure any more.

It seems to me that the point Colin makes regarding the need for software, monitor etc to really view a digital image suggests "truth" in film. that might be the case for slide/positive film but a negative needs a print (and by implication, chemical interpretation) to get to the image. Even then, the slide needs development.

For me, the digital camera is nothing more than a means to capture data: both the spatial data (framing the image) and the colour data (in the RGB storage). the aim is to capture as much as possible without losing anything. My ideal is a low-contrast capture fully exposed to the right: all the data contained in the high value bits. That gives me the greatest opportunity to develop the image as I saw it. The shots illustrating the post demonstrate an example: at the top the edited version; below, straight from the camera.

For film, I'm slightly more limited. There is a certain degree of colour interpretation built-in through the emulsion and the development. don't (and am not going to) do my own development so I'm at the mercy of the lab. Fortunately, scanning allows me to make adjustments and if I've used an appropriate film type there should be minimal effort needed to get from the developed film to the final image.

I just don't buy into the idea that the camera is the be-all and end-all of the picture making process. It doesn't capture truth in any sense that I could define it. If you shoot black and white, that's definitely not the case and everyone perceives colours slightly differently.

I like the "light tight box" definition of a camera: a means of transmitting light information to a capture medium. It is then up to the photographer to reveal the image, much as a painter does by applying oil to canvas. At the non-artistic end of photography (e.g. journalism) there is the added constraint of minimum adulteration but the photographer still interprets the scene both in composition and in colour rendering.

The day Le Tour came to town

Forget the Palace, London, July 2007

Limited posts over the past few days are due to the fact that I was in London for the weekend: the Tour de France was in town for the Grand Depart. Saturday was the prologue - a short time trial around the famous sites, followed by the first stage on Sunday.

What a great event London stages. There were people standing 6 or 7 deep at every point around the 8km of the prologue route. People everywhere and from all over - in front of me were 2 Norwegian couples over especially for the day. Far more people than when I watched the Prologue in Liege, Belgium a couple of years ago, and they're cycling mad over there.

It's also a sports photographers dream: each rider comes past at 1 minute intervals, good views, full day out. For once Buckingham Palace (above) wasn't the main attraction.

Now I've hundreds of shots to go through, on top of the other 2 shoots uncompleted.

The problems of being a part-timer

As you may have guessed, I'm very much the amateur (for the love) photographer - it is an addition to the rest of my life, albeit a very pleasantly enjoyable one.

this leads to a problem, which I am currently facing: there are too many new pictures to work on, too many images in waiting, too many projects to keep up with. Having got back from France on Sunday evening, I've just been 2 days away on business and busy in between times. I've only just finished cataloguing the France photos, still have half my project from the week before and this weekend I'm off again for the start of the Tour de France.

Too much to do, too little time. I don't have the patience to leave things for a long period - I want to get it done, clear out each job in order and make space for the next. Not that I rush the work, but I don't like it stacking up. Must persevere, though, or nothing will get done.

Finally, a use for cameraphones

TGV, by Dave Routledge

During the trip, Dave was posting "bloggable events" direct to his blog portableeye. It was a fun way to get pictures of the goings-on to the web quickly from remote locations and the link quickly became a hit with friends around the world. Turns into a sort of daily photoblog of the trip in a kind of Holga-view way. Good fun while we were at it.

If you want to check it out, anything from 22/6 to 2/7 is our jaunt across France.

I'll be doing the more serious photo end of the trip but this was kind of fun. Almost makes me want to get a device that can do something similar. For once, 2MP isn't really a limitation.

Ken Russell once was a photographer

Reading through some news stuff on the web, came across this interview with Ken Russell (well known film director) about the photography work he did some while back. The interview ties in with an exhibition of the work relating to that period of his life. Interesting stuff, in my opinion, and certainly the sort of instinctive feel for "street photography" that I think we all wish we had.

Now I'm back from vacation, there's a pile of photos to go through. More on that later.

Away on vacation

Living the dream, Morzine, July 2006

I'm off on a week's vacation in a couple of hours. 7 days cycling across France with a group of friends heading for Alpe d'Huez. Another cycling challenge and hopefully some interesting photographic opportunities as we cross the Burgundy and Cote d'Or regions. Might even be a couple of glasses of wine along the way.

As a result, no blogs for nearly 10 days.

Blencathra part 5: final image and monochrome

Now that I've worked through the individual steps, time to bring it all together, check that there aren't any harsh transitions (generally best to check as one goes along) and prepare file for printing.

When I look to produced black and white images, I always look to start from a good (or finished) colour interpretation. Personally I find it much easier to think especially of contrast and relative balance in colour. The black and white conversion is then about tuning the shadows & highlights (dodge, burn, USM contrast adjustment) and final sharpening. For this last step, I will have turned off sharpening from the colour image if it was used, and redo for black and white. In this case I used a few zones for conversion but less than the colour adjustments. In this case 3 areas: sky, foreground, the rest.
Sky is converted with an orange filter, foreground with a magenta and the rest with a yellow filter. Each picked for its positive effect on contrast and brightness.
Here's the result:

So there you have it, the anatomy of an image. It has also been useful for me to write it all down as that helps cement in my mind the reasons why I am doing certain things and keep it focussed (instead of wandering off trying all the buttons).

Blencathra part 4: the rest of the image

Having got all the key elements decided, the rest of the work is about supplying supporting cast to balance the final look. Not too much work, but not so little that it stands out by the lack of detail/sharpness/saturation or whatever.

As ever for this picture, increasing the contrast to bring out the subtle shading is a prime goal, then some light sharpening and a slight reduction in saturation.

There are also a few dark areas that need lightening slightly, again to bring balance to the overall view. Each spur & hill has been treated separately but the modifications are generally very similar.

Here is a crop of the results.

If you look carefully the effect of reducing the saturation slightly on the right versus increasing slightly on the valley can be see, making the valley stand out. This is much more effective in a large image.

Good art, bad art, fine art

"Stones, Tree", Avebury, January 2007

I've been reading quite a lot recently about views on art, critics, reviews, the nature of fine art photography etc. this got me thinking about the way I view these various ideas about art & photography (not mutually exclusive as that statement might imply). Here, then, my thoughts:

Good art: art has some sort of purpose to it, a reaction invoked in the viewer. The reaction invoked may, or may not, be what the artist intended but it is there. Good art, for me, is that which invokes the desired reaction in a positive manner - the "I get that, I know what the artist was about" sort of reaction. that doesn't mean that your reaction has to be positive ("I feel all warm and fuzzy"). Succeeding in invoking feelings of anger or disgust may be just as much good in this context. "I like it art" is only a sub-set of Good Art.

Bad art: by it's very nature, not good art. If the artist fails in intentions or the viewer is switched off on viewing, then the work, for that viewer, is bad. I highlight the viewer aspect because art really is in the eye of the beholder. George Barr gets to the nub of this issue talking about not liking art forms. I'll get back to this idea later.

Fine art: sometimes, good or bad, art is well executed and there is inherent quality merely in the presentation and execution of the work. this is Fine Art as I see it. Generally for photography we are talking about great prints with depth of tone, fine detail, broad contrast range. It's the mater of details, the individual brush strokes, seeing the chisel marks, whatever. Such works can be appreciated purely for the craftsmanship, independent of the Goodness demonstrated.

Critical appreciation is all about defining Good Art in ones own mind. I had initially thought that Good Art can stand by itself as an independent work but there is no such thing. all of our views on art are coloured by our experiences, culture, previous exposure to art. the same is true of reviewers: their judgements flow from the works that went before, internal comparisons with their own frame of reference. No one can truly say they are judging a work on its own merits. this is why Good Art and Bad Art must be personal judgements - while the success of a show or gallery may be dependent on the opinion of reviewers, they do not have exclusive insight into the nature of Good and Bad. One must decide for oneself.

Blencathra part 3: focal points

Once I've got the sky to my satisfaction I work up the key focal areas for the final image. In this case it is the foreground grassy area, leading along the river (River Caldew) through the valley to the distant peak (Carrock Fell) lit by the sun. I worked in the order foreground, distant peak, valley (rough: where I am, where I'm going, how I get there: a sort of visual journey plan).

Overall aim is to draw the viewer through the valley along the river, past the house and to the far distance, taking in the sights as one goes.

In this case, I've focussed on contrast enhancement, some added brightness and then sharpening. Minimum colour adjustment: I like the way the colours are coming off the film. One thing that I do, though, is to increase the saturation slightly for the main focal point, here the Fell in the distance. I shall probably also reduce the saturation of the secondary areas. Our eyes are much more sensitive to colour in the centre of our vision, and so this fools the brain, drawing the eye where I want it to go. I think it is more effective and less obtrusive than substantial differences in sharpness that is often used for the same effect. Not that I don't use the latter trick, of course.

Last word here: there are 2 more installments to come - the secondary parts of the image and the final result (together with black and white conversion).

Naming the image

True colours, Morzine, July 2006

Doug Stockdale has recently been posting (here and here) about various ways of naming some of his images in the ongoing Bad Trip - Sad Trip project.

It occurred to me that his very carefully studied manner of determining a suitable final title is very much in opposition to mine. I tend to work instinctively for titles. Unless it is a straight proper noun, the name I apply is usually a direct reflection of the initial attraction for me to take the picture in the first place.

Maybe this stems from my general aversion to project based photography. The titles then flow from the instinct that draws me to raise the camera to my eye in the first place. From a personal point of view, I feel that then gives me a closer connection to my photographs because they reflect the mood I was in at the time.

Then again, I might just be good at coming up with names.

Blencathra part 2: the sky for perspective

The first area I usually tackle in a shot like this is the sky. For me it sets the tone of the whole shot and is the best way to give a great sense of depth to the final print. When looking at similar images from others I often think that the total impact is lost from a wishy-washy (technical term) sky.

I find cloudy skies quite easy to get good results. There are smooth tonal transitions built in which makes noise reduction, spotting etc quite easy. Soft edges abound so sharpening isn't critical. Most of the colour information is at the high end of the dynamic range and so, as long as I've not blown the highlights (not really an issue when the source is film) there is plenty of scope for opening the contrast with curves or equivalent.

Here are the steps I took with this particular image (mostly working in Lightzone, my preferred editor):

Slight colour & white balance adjustment - there as quite a blue cast to the whole sky, which didn't quite work for me
Increase the contrast in 2 steps: first with a Zonemapper to pull the darker regions down (as with S-curves in PS) and then a small amount, large radius USM (for micro contrast) - here I used A.R.T. 20:100:0.
Finally, a slight lightening of the 2 dark areas on either side of the sky, to stop the dark over-powering the whole thing.

The tops of the hills visible here have had no adjustments yet.

Once done, I also took a single pass B&W filter, to see in monchrome will work. In general, I pick lack and white for images that are largely about tonal variation rather than strong colours. this is a candidate. Here's the result before dodging and burning:


Finally, a tip for large images in Lightzone. Those who use LZ regularly will probably know that it's not too great with large images (100MB+) so a 300MB 16-bit LF file is going to make it struggle. To help it cope I use the crop tool to isolate the part I'm working on (hence the crops in these samples), or even a section of that part (say just the right hand side of the sky). that cuts down the size of the working file. Once I'm happy, I disable all the aadjustments, reset the crop and then crop the next section. The last step will be to activate all the adjustmetns together. I just need to take care that I do occassional checks between adjacent regions for compatibility (to avoid harsh transitions). this way, LZ works well, and handles the final adjustment well. What seems to slow it down is all the intermediate work on the entire image while editting.

Blencathra part 1: preparing the scan

Blencathra - prepared scan ready for working on.

When I returned to review the original scan I'd made of the photo, I found that it was out of focus in large parts. probably due to me making the final scan at the end of a long scanning session. Over time te scanner heats up, thus warming and warping the original - only a temporary effect.

So I went back to re-scan it, retesting the focus height on the holder. I also tweaked the brightness, curve and black & white points. First scan was rubish - i'd forgotten to brush it for dust and so it was very dirty. rebrush, rescan, tweak the USM settings (I found my final scan frame and test section had different settings) and I was away.

this, to me, is the equivalent of RAW development in digital. I try and do as many things as I can at the first set to capture as much information to the working file as possible. that said, I am also only using a fairly light touch in each of the settings - if I overcook the settings, then the working file is much harder to work with.

The final steps in preparing the working file are dust removal (using Dust & Scratches in Photoshop on the affected areas), some noise removal (Neat Image) and a little USM (similar to the settings I use on RAW files). In this case I also aded a small amout (5%) of shadow lightening and similar level of mid-tone contrast.

Now the file is ready for the real work on the individual areas of the picture. In this cae I think about 5-6 in total: clouds/sky, foreground grassy area, one for each of the individual hills & spurs and finally the valley floor.

Next installment - the sky.

Pushing the noise envelope

Steve Gillette, in a comment, provided a link about Kodak's new sensor filter array. dpreview are also carrying the story. Is this really true, or is something missing?


I did some thinking on this, and I'm not convinced they've got it nailed. The claim is that by using the luminance pixels noise is reduced. I'm sure it is - these pixels effectively capture 3 times the light of filtered ones. Then again, why didn't they go with an LAB type array, why use RGB as well as luminance?

Then there is the resolution thing. Without colour resolution, the luminance "resolution" is either good for B&W or is just noise in itself. (If one wanted B&W, then one would not need the filter array anyway.) With colour pixels now spaced at 4 sites, compared to 2 sites for a Bayer array, the resolution that can be offered is only going to be that of a sensor with a quarter the pixels. Any interpolation is just guessing, it doesn't provide true resolution. If there were only a quarter of the pixels, noise would be inherently lower as the sensors would be that much larger. I'm sure that the extra interpolation will lead to colour fringe effects. Physics getting in the way again.


Of course, Kodak also have some fancy software algorithms to go with the new array which I'm sure helps with noise reduction but that could well be the crux of this working. then again, Canon are doing a really good job with high ISO performance (in large sensors at least) and there must a lot of algorithms involved there. I'm sure I read somewhere that Canon are also increasing the sensor site size by reducing the size of all the other stuff on the chip: less gaps, bigger sites.

How much resolution is enough?

Blencathra, Cumbria, May 2007 - a work in progress

All the harping on about resolution of film, scans and sensor sizes...but what is the correct amount?

I'm sure it is something that dogged a few photographers in the "film age" but now we're all (figuratively) digital, every pixel can be seen by enlarging the view on the computer. There is an endless obsession with resolution and catching every detail: if I can't see a fly on a blade of grass a mile away I'm not getting enough.

For me, I'm trying to capture enough of what I see to express in print what I felt & saw in reality. Sometimes that means a lot of detail, sometimes not.

River Tsetserleg, Mongolia, September 2006

Of course, when wants little detail or blurred effects (as with River Tsetserleg above) it's easy. The crunch comes when the detail one wishes to convey is beyond what was captured, in either medium. Then there is the issue of how to develop the image to best use that detail to create the right expression. Sometimes that goes beyond the mere circle of confusion definition for observer to image distance.

The top shot is one I'm currently ruminating over in this regard. Not quite struggling yet. As I showed from a crop here, there is plenty of detail being captured but there are still subtleties in the wide open areas that I wish to bring out. One of the things that draws me to this view and caused me to want to photograph it are the subtle changes in shading & tone caused by the grasses and upland flora laid out across the valley and surrounding hills. It's a question of resolution and micro-contrast (I think). Developing the image to show off that effect is the difficult part. Largely the scan captures the raw data, the film picks up the subtleties quite nicely but how to bring it out. The final image, even at 24" or so will need to have more detail than strictly necessary from human resolving power to ensure this is conveyed properly, in my opinion.

I might post some more entries on this image as I try to resolve these issues across the various parts of the image.

The definition of artistic terms

I read, via link over at Chantal Stone's blog, about various dos & don'ts of photography. One that came up was on the use of the word image for photography (a definite don't). I disagree - part of my internal editorial style. That got me thinking about how I use and define certain terms relating to visual arts. Here's my take on a few:

Picture - Covers pretty much anything in the rest of the terms. Not necessarily art, though. Really any form of "flat art": be it paint, collage, photo etc. would be a picture. A simple holiday snap would also.

Art - I'm an "art as noun" type at heart, so art is the product of a creative process. It's non-judgemental, art can be as much bad as it is good. Fine art definitely has to be good.

Painting - picture produced with paint, obvious really. Generally picture painted could be called art.

Photograph - the product of capturing light through a lens on a capture medium. Before digital, I'd have said "on film" and I'm not sure of a collective for sensors & film as media. Not necessarily art, not necessarily and image.

Image - to me, this is art as a representation of something real. A carefully worked photograph transforms into art, usually this means an image is the end result. The raw picture from the camera (the photograph) isn't really an image by this definition.

Whilst not necessarily strictly by the book (dictionary), I'm thus attempting to use a degree of categorization to be able to talk about various issues in specific ways. Maybe it's time I dug out Roget's to come up with some extras. This is certainly a tricky area to land precise terms for specific meanings as there is a continuum of representation from the simple holiday snap right through to the most creative works of photographic art.

Part of the reason I try and mix up the terms I use stems from the way I was taught English language at school: variety was always the benchmark - the ruthless avoidance of repetitive words and phrases (except in maybe a rhetorical style). As a result I like to try to use language in precise ways. In some ways that is also the scientist in me coming to the fore.

Further thoughts on scanning resolution

I mentioned in the previous post that I ran a series of resolution tests at 1200dpi multiples. This was based on the received wisdom that I had on sticking to multiples of the scanners native resolution. I then discovered that the scan settings can be used to set an output size and resolution, the software doing the rest. I gave it a go.
I picked a given output size (55cm, IIRC for a 60cm print) at 300dpi. That led to an odd enlargement factor. tested the results - I couldn't really pick up any difference pixel peeping. maybe a slight degradation at 100%, certainly nothing that'll show up on print. This will simplify my workflow: get a general crop from the pre-scan, set the desired output & away I go.


The other thing I've been pondering comes from Paul Butzi's post on digital versus medium format. I responded that I reckoned MF could do better. This is based on the resolution testing I outlined below. If I can scan a 645 (56mm wide) film at 3600dpi, that would yield 670mm (26") image at 300dpi print. Larger at 4800dpi. I might imagine that this sort of enlargement would push optical enlargement (darkroom) but seems well within the bounds for scanning to digital today. I've seen some 5D and M8 files up close and they are very good, but not as much detail as I might get at those scan resolutions. Of course, if the film isn't up to it in terms of grain etc the point is moot (at ISo400 I'd reckon on digital winning, no problem). If I'm still getting extra detail at 3600dpi then that really opens the window of opportunity for enlarging film.

There are, of course, other factors relating to colour & contrast etc but for out and out resolution I think current scanner technology is keeping film in the hunt (if you've got the patience for the lengthened time required for film).

Getting the most from a scan

crop from shot over Blencathra, Cumbria, May 2007

This past week I've been working on scanning the LF work from my trip to the Lake District. It's been a voyage of discovery. As part of the initial work, I've been experimenting with getting the best from my scanner (an Epson V750 Pro flatbed), working through the vast array of variables on offer with the SilverFast scanning software it came with.

This is what I've found (so far):

Resolution - the scanner has 2 lenses - 4800dpi and 6400dpi, with output up to 9600dpi. Obviously for a 4x5 sheet I'm not going to go that high but the question is how high and is there some sort of optimum? I ran tests at 1200, 2400, 3600, 4800 dpi (on small sections - the last would be a monster file if I tried the whole image). I was looking for maximum amount of detail. At 1200 it's useless at any size - a lot of pixelation, limited detail, only good for document scans. 2400 renders good detail, smooth at 100% on screen. 3600 yields more detail than 2400, again smooth results. 4800 shows no more detail that 3600 - it's effectively a native enlargement. I think at 3600dpi it could be getting to the limit of the film.

Focus - the film holders can bet set at different heights to get optimum focus. This is important. In focus 2400 is as good as out of focus 3600. It's not just in clarity and detail, colour saturation and contrast are better too. Interestingly, the height settings for the 6x9 and 4x5 holders work out different. Not sure why.

Sharpening settings - there is a huge array to pick from. In the end I've settled for a light USM setting as giving consistently good results across the whole image. As I'm using fine grain film (Fuji Astia & Provia 100) grain effects are limited and easily removed in processing.

Number of passes - this thing can do up to 16 passes. I tried up to 8. There was slight improvement from 1 to 2, nothing noticeable beyond that. I tested by scanning a dark area then expanding with curves until near posterization. No real difference in noise that I could tell beyond 2 passes. Downside of lots of passes is the film gets hot and starts to buckle, seriously degrading results.

Dust & scratch removal - Digital ICE is built in and there are a couple of other options. I'm not touching them for the large stuff. It's easily removed in processing if I clean the surfaces before scanning. I found ICE froze the computer when trying an entire 4x5. Cleaning up only takes 5 minutes - I'm using selective application of dust & scratches tool in PS.

Would I want a drum scan? Can't see why. I get fine resolution towards the limit of the film, scanning to easily produce 40" plus enlargements from a 4x5 with smooth tones, limited grain and good saturation and contrast. I'm finding I need very little processing to get excellent results.

Explanation of the crop with which I've illustrated this post: this is a detail from one of the shots I've been working on (straight from the scan with a little extra sharpening). it shows a building amongst the trees in the valley. What's the big deal? I've been to this spot many times and didn't know it was there. I'm pretty sure I can't see it with the naked eye yet I'm picking it up clearly with a 120mm lens on 4x5 (that's fairly wide) and easily picking it up on the scan. Does one need better results than that?

Anton Corbijn on Anton Corbijn

I've just watched a documentary on Dutch TV about Anton Corbijn, photographer to the rock music world. I'd not heard of him before (shame on me, really) but have seen many of his images. Pretty much anyone who's made popular music in the last 25 years, and many more besides, has had their photo taken by him.

I like the gritty, grainy style he has and the way it draws interesting character from his subjects.

He had some interesting things to say, too (I paraphrase in translation here):

On technique: my technique is quite sloppy and that results in a lot of out of focus ("unsharp" as it is in Dutch) areas. I don't think this detracts from the overall quality of the image, the composition, the subject.

On light: I like the light at the end of the day just before it gets dark. The contrast is even and the scene flat which leads to interesting and strong composition.

On celebrity: I like to photograph beauty but not in the traditional, glamorous sense of celebrity. I like to draw on the beauty of character, ideas, personality.

On fame: I used to think of myself as a sort of underground photographer, away from the mainstream. Now I have become the mainstream but I hope that doesn't mean I've lost the inherent qualities of the image that I had before.


Looking at the woks presented in the programme and a quick search on his images I must say it is one of the strongest styles of "people photography" I think I've ever seen. Well worth checking him out.

In search of a challenge

Fisherplace Gill Falls, Cumbria, May 2007 - a B&W intepretation with a twist

I realised this evening that the thing that keeps me enthused about any particular activity, and life in general, is the taking on of a challenge. Something that will push me to learn new things or improve myself in some way.

And so it is with photography. I'm never happy producing pictures of the same consistent quality time after time, or focusing on particular subjects. i like to push further, try harder, constantly get better quality images. that holds for both technical as well as artistic content. It might also explain some of my "shiny kit syndrome": never satisfied with the quality I'm getting, I'm after something more. hence the purchase this week of 2 new lenses (the canon EF17-55 f/2.8 & EF70-200 f/4 IS, both very nice) to improve areas of my work. Also explains why I bought an LF camera.

There will come a point when I'm happy technically and will truly focus on content. Hopefully with the next 12 months or so. Not that I'm not striving in that area. too.

A reason I came to this realization was reflecting on my cycling. Now I have a bike for every occasion, it is down to me to improve my fitness or take on different challenges (greater distances, touring, new countries) - I focus on turning the pedals and completely forget the equipment under me.