Thoughts on the Craft of being an Artist

Kirk Tuck of wrote two very interesting blog posts. The first is about art and digital photography. One sentence really stuck with me:

I hear a lot of people talk about how much better their work is with digital cameras and workflows but I personally don't see this trend reflected in art.  The images that art culture still talks about are mostly done on film. 

The second post is about the changing/changed paradigm of camera use and the fact that most of us churn through our equipment instead of using it for many years.

We’re moving from a craft mentality which demanded a long and detailed mastery of all areas of a discipline into a post-craft world where the latest apps and styles take cultural precedence over perfectionism.

Alain Briot in "Marketing Fine Art Photography" writes at length about the fact that being an artist means constantly pushing toward the 100% perfection mark. In other words, being an artist (or a certain type of artist) is about the "craft mentality".


It takes a lot of time and effort to get from "good enough" to "perfect". If you switch equipment before you get there, you start over again. Because digital encourages switching equipment, far fewer practitioners reach perfection with their equipment than with film.

So maybe the fact that the "images that art culture still talks about are mostly done on film" is not a coincidence?

Afterthought: I am not claiming that it is necessary (or even desirable) to reach perfection to take good photographs. Striving for perfection may, however, be necessary to make Art.

Image Clarity 101: Depth-of-Field

In the last post, we looked at how a sharp image is created optically. In this post, we will look at how the physics render non-flat objects.

If all the points of the subject are in the same plane, they will all render with the same size circle of confusion in the image plane. This is the case if the subject is perfectly flat.

For non-flat subjects, the points of the subject are located at different distances from the image plane. So the projected points will have a minimal circle of confusion in different image planes. Since there is only one image plane, the projected points will all have different size circles of confusion - which means they will all be of different sharpness.

Each circle of confusion that is small enough will appear to be sharp. The distance from the nearest to the furthest point which are just rendered sharply is the depth of field.

The depth of field is determined by the distance of the subject from the camera, the focal length of the lens, and the aperture.

Some simple rules of thumb are:

1.  The further the subject from the lens, the greater the depth of field for a given focal length.

The greater the absolute distance between subject and lens, the smaller the relative difference in distances for different points of the subject. Because of this, the size of the circles of confusion are very similar in size.

If you look at the distance scale on a lens, you will notice that the distance between markings decreases the closer you get to infinity. And, speaking of infinity, there is a point from which on everything is in focus if you focus the lens to infinity.

2. The shorter the focal length, the greater the apparent depth of field at a given distance.

The hyperfocal distance, or the distance from the image plane past which every subject point is acceptably sharp if the lens is focused on infinity, decreases the shorter the focal length of the lens. This is because the magnification decreases, so the circle of confusion for a given subject point is also magnified less.

Remember though, that this is true only for a fixed distance!

3. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field.

The smaller the aperture, the smaller the cone of light rays that passes to the image plane. Because the cone is smaller, the circle of confusion is also smaller.

In the illustration below, the aperture blocks the blue cone of light rays, only the red cone gets through. The circle of confusion on the image plane is smaller, so the image is sharper.

Illustration 3: A smaller aperture reduces the circle of confusion

Note that in practice, diffraction becomes a problem at small apertures. Diffraction will be discussed later in this series.

Bigger is not better

One important thing to keep in mind is that bigger is not necessarily better with depth of field. An image may actually be improved if (unimportant) parts are kept out of focus because the eye tends to focus (pun intended) on the part of the image which are sharp and tends to give the unsharp parts only cursory attention.

That said, if you are trying to render your image as clearly (sharp) as possible, you want to select your depth of field in such a way that the closest and furthest subject point which you want sharp are in focus.

For example, have a look at this image:

Image 1: The forget-me-not in the foreground is sharp, the background blurred.

The forget-me-not flower in the foreground is rendered in focus. The (rather cluttered) background is rendered out of focus.  The eye of the beholder will pass over the out of focus parts, thereby de-emphasizing the non-essential parts and concentrate on the subject in the foreground.

Image Clarity 101: What makes an image sharp?

A common problem with photos is lack of sharpness. The image is either soft, or out of focus, or the wrong part of the image is in focus, or ... the list of possible issues is a long one.

Just like exposure, focus is one of the parameters that the photographer must learn to control in order to create images that show what he or she visualized before pressing the shutter release.

This is the first of a series of posts that I will call "Image Clarity 101". The name is a tip of the hat to John B. Williams who wrote the excellent "Image Clarity: High-Resolution Photography", which - alas - seems to be out of print.

I am going to look at what causes an image to be "sharp". In later postings, I will explain what equipment and techniques to use to actually get an image to be "sharp".

Focus

If we imagine that a subject is made up of an infinite number of minuscule points, each of these points emits an infinite number of light rays that hit the entire area of the camera lens. As the light rays pass through the lens, they are focussed on some point (the focal point) behind the lens, creating a cone of light.

Parallel to the lens plane is the focal plane, which holds an infinite number of focal points for all the visible points of the subject.

All of this is shown in the illustration below.

Illustration 1: Focus Explained (simplified)

The image plane is the surface the image is projected onto. This is where the film or image sensor is located. For an image to be in focus, the image plane must be the focal plane.

When you twist the focus ring on a lens, you are effectively moving the focal plane. When the image is sharp, the focal plane is located on the image plane.

Are you with me so far? Good!

Circle of Confusion

Now it gets a bit messier: since we are dealing with the real world, the light rays do not actually all converge on a single point, but form a small area, the circle of confusion. 

In the illustration above, you can see that in the focal plane most of the light originating from a single point of the subject hits the small circle. As the image plane moves away from the focal plane, the light is spread over a larger area.

If this is too circle of confusion business to too confusing, have a look at the following, simplified illustration:

Illustration 2: Cone of Light

The subject is projected by the lens as a cone of light rays which strike the image plane. The tighter the cone is at the image plane, the close the image plane is to the focal plane.

If the circle of confusion is small enough, the human eye will register it as a single point. How small the circle needs to be is perhaps a topic for another post. For the time being, we can assume that if the circle of confusion is somewhat smaller than a single photo site on the sensor, it will not be a limiting factor for the overall sharpness of the image.

Illustration 3: As the circle of confusion increases, the image becomes less sharp.

So we reach a simple conclusion:

If a single point of the subject is rendered as a small enough circle of confusion, it will appear sharp in the image.


There is one important point to consider: all of what has been discussed above is only true for flat subjects and ideal lenses. In the next installment, we will look at sharpness for a non-flat subject.

You may find a used copy of the excellent Image Clarity here:
Amazon USA Amazon UK Amazon DE

If you don't feel like getting an old book, you might try perusing the good old Wikipedia which contains much more on the subject.

[Book Review] Within the Frame - The Journey of Photographic Vision

[amazon ASIN=0321605020]Within the Frame - The Journey of Photographic Vision[/amazon] by David duChemin may easily be the most unusual - and best - book on photography that I have read this year. It is unusual in that it manages to bridge the gap between books about photography as art and photography as technique, delivering both. In my opinion, that is what photography is about.

The first chapter is devoted to vision - what it is that you see and want to communicate. The second chapter focuses on what feeling, idea, or impression you may want to capture and what subjects may show this to the viewer. The third chapter on gear and technique required to get the image you want. I think that the focus not on creating technically perfect pictures but on how to turn something you want to communicate into a picture is spot-on. The author really nails it here!

The fourth chapter is about storytelling in pictures - how to tell a story in a single frame or in a photo essay, how to create interest in the viewer. This chapter is a must if you want to go from mere visual candy to a four-course meal.

The next chapters are about photographing people, places, and culture. I really enjoyed the chapter about people (I love photographing people and got a number of useful tips and ideas from the chapter), but found that my attention flagged halfway through the places chapter, and did not pick up to the end of the book. It seems to me that the essential message of the previous chapters are repeated a bit too often.

The pictures in the book are compelling and beautiful, the printing is of high quality. You can find a number of them on his website at www.pixelatedimages.com if you are interested. Despite all of the pictures having been taken in what amounts to "exotic" locations for most people from Europe or North America, I would not say that it is about travel photography. Everything in the book applies to taking pictures of your home town. Maybe even more so than when you are abroad ...

I feel great respect for the way David duChemin approaches his subjects as human beings, not just props in his pictures. I feel the same way and I became aware of a lot of things that I have done without ever thinking about them. I have also learned a few very useful things about how to approach people.

The same applied for his treatment of technical aspects: he makes things that I have been doing intuitively become conscious decisions, giving me much more control. For example, I wish that I had read what he has to say about lens choices much earlier, it has taught me the value of wide-angle lenses, which I rarely use. This will definitely improve my ability to show my vision to the world. (Interestingly, he apparently went through a similar development, starting with telephoto lenses and only gradually learning to use wide lenses.)

Finally, I learned ever so much from his approach of treating photography as storytelling. If this is - as to me - a closed book (pun intended), you will benefit greatly from [amazon ASIN=0321605020]Within the Frame[/amazon].

As I mentioned before, my attention and interest flagged towards the last two chapters. Maybe it was just too much to absorb? Maybe the chapters are simply weaker than the previous ones? I do not know. But I do know that even without the last two chapters the book is definitely required reading for anyone interested in photographing people, so it gets five stars!

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="111" caption="5 stars (out of 5)"] [/caption]

Marmelade Fly on Yellow Flower Reprise

In the last post I showed a picture of a marmelade fly on a yellow flower. I would like to revisit that picture to show how much an image can change depending on how - and with which tools - it is processed.

The original image was captured in RAW format. I then processed it in Adobe Lightroom 2. The result is this:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="600" caption="Marmelade Flies on a Yellow Flower processed in Adobe Lightroom 2"] [/caption]

While I was reasonably happy with the image, I had to do some testing in Capture One Pro and decided to see if I could do better. I have long thought that Capture Ones color rendition is much better than Lightrooms. But judge for yourself:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="600" caption="Marmelade Flies on a Yellow Flower processed in Capture One Pro and Photoshop"] [/caption]

Quite a difference, don't you think? The first rendition looks almost like a painting while the second is so real you can almost touch it.

So how was it done?

I first opened the file in Capture One and set the exposure so that none of the color channels would clip. This part is identical to what I did in Lightroom. Note that the yellows are a bit darker in the C1 rendition than in LR. I then exported a 16-bit TIFF file to Photoshop from C1.

In Photoshop I created a mask to darken the green part to the left of the flower using a curve. A second mark darkened the bright leaf to the left and below the marmelade fly. Then I removed some spots from the yellow petals which were really there (i.e. not dust on the lens or sensor) but which I did not like. All of these steps are identical to what I did in Lightroom except that I did not darken the single bright leaf in LR.

I then added a watermark copyright note and reduced the size of the file. Finally, I used Pixel Genius PhotoKit Sharpener for output sharpening. All of this is fully automatic during the Lightroom export.

In total I spent about five minutes in Lightroom to get a decent image. I spent about half an hour in Capture One and Photoshop to get an excellent image. There is clearly a trade-off time for quality here.

That is why I usually perform all my culling, keywording, and rough editing in LR. When I have identified the handful of images with real potential I spend more time on them in C1 and PS. Now if only I could take the LR settings and use them in C1 so that, for example, I do not have to re-crop ...

Book Review: The Hot Shoe Diaries

Joe McNally's [amazon ASIN=0321580141]The Hot Shoe Diaries: Creative Applications of Small Flashes[/amazon] is about lighting using small flashes (strobes). If what you find on Strobist is not enough, this is the book to get.

Joe starts by describing his gear. He's a Nikon guy, clearly in love with his gear, and he clearly knows his stuff very well. I use Canon, so was there a problem? No. Most of what the Nikon strobes can do Canon can do too (and vice versa) so if you understand what he explains, it is quite simple to translate into the Canon world. Effectively you loose less than a dozen pages to "Nikonese".

Joe then presents a large number of his images, explaining how he lit each one of them. There is a lot of anecdotal background describing how he came to make each shot, which I found quite entertaining.

Speaking of which, Joe is very funny. I laughed out loud a number of times reading the book which is something that can not be said of many photography books. If photography and comedy turns you on, this may be the book for you ...

I found the description of how each image was created easy to understand and visualize (sketches are provided for the mor elaborate setups). Joe clearly is an experienced educator, I had no trouble following him and creating some of the effects.

The selection of images is quite useful as a number of concepts or different ways of lighting are explained which can then be combined for good effect in your own photos. While some pictures are way beyond my ambitions (I do not see myself rigging a dozen strobes to an airplane ... I do not have a dozen strobes :-)) most are directly applicable to situations and subjects that anyone might encounter. I learned a huge amount of practical knowledge.

To summarize: if you are interested in lighting using strobes, this is simply the book to get.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="111" caption="5 stars (out of 5)"] [/caption]

Panasonic DRMs Camera Batteries

Panasonic have warned customers of certain (unspecified) non-Panasonic batteries because

"Some of these aftermarket batteries are not equipped with internal protective devices to guard against overcharging, internal heating and short circuit. If these aftermarket battery packs were used, it could lead to an accident causing damage to your camera or personal injury."

So they issued a firmware update to "detect these aftermarket 3rd party batteries so such serious safety issues can be avoided." Panasonic then warn the user

"After this firmware update your Panasonic Digital Camera cannot be operated by 3rd party batteries (non genuine Panasonic batteries)."

This smells like Panasonic are locking their customers into (expensive) original Panasonic batteries using DRM techniques. Or is it really a safety issue?

HDR using Photoshop vs. Photomatix

Processing multiple exposures into a single HDR (high dynamic range) image turns out to be more of a subjective process than I initially thought.

Have a look at the following image, which was processed using Photoshop CS4 and the "Merge to HDR" feature:

[caption id="attachment_366" align="alignleft" width="534" caption="Image processed from 3 exposures by Photoshop CS4 "Merge to HDR"."][/caption]

Not bad, really, at first glance. But notice at the right edge, about halfway down the image, how the arch coming in from the wall is completely blown out?

Now look at the same source exposures converted by Photomatix:

[caption id="attachment_367" align="alignleft" width="533" caption="Image processed from 3 Exposures by Photomatix Pro."][/caption]

The highlights are not blown out, the tonality of the image is smoother, the reddish cast is reduced. All in all, the image is much closer to the intended look than what Photoshop allows.

Given that Photomatix allows me a lot more control to tweak the result than Photoshop, I think the money is well spent on Photomatix ...

Book Review: Lighting and the Dramatic Portrait

Michael Grecco's Lighting and the Dramatic Portrait starts of by discussing various camera systems (35 mm, medium format, and large format) and their particular characteristics.

Then a number of pictures are presented with diagrams and text describing exactly how the lighting was set up to achieve the desired result. This is extremely useful to help understand how the picture was made. Why on earth the client contact for the picture (usually art director so-and-so) is important in this context is beyond me, however ...

The remaining pictures are described without a diagram, but I had no trouble understanding the light after the previous chapter with diagrams.

I really like that Grecco not only explains the technical detail of the shot but also why he made it the way he did. Sometimes the reason is his creative vision, at other times it is a restraint that came up during the shoot (the subject objected, for  example) or the image evolved in the process of shooting, often in collaboration with the subject.

Grecco's method seems to involve a truckload of equipment and a horde of assistants and specialist. This should not intimidate the reader. Most of what Grecco describes can be achieved on a much lower budget using inexpensive speedlights and some tinkering (and gaffer tape ;-) - the same principles apply as with super-expensive studio lights.

The book is strongly recommended to anyone looking to improve their lighting skills, especially when photographing people.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="111" caption="5 stars (out of 5)"] [/caption]

Book Review: Take Your Photography to the Next Level

George Barr Take Your Photography to the Next Level, From Inspiration to Image is a book about improving yourself as a photographer to create better images. Like Alain Briot's Mastering Landscape Photography is puts the photographer, the artist ahead of the equipment and the technique.

Book Review: Mastering Landscape Photography

There are a few contemporary photographers who's work I find truly inspiring. Alain Briot is one of them. I know many of the places he photographs and his pictures capture their essence. I wish that I could transform what I see into a picture like he does.

So I was quite excited when I saw that Alain Briot has authored a book on his way of photographing landscapes.

Book Review: face to face

Rick Sammon's Complete Guide to Photographing People is just that: a comprehensive, in-depth look at how Rick Sammon takes pictures of human beings on his travels.

Rick starts by explaining that the camera looks both ways, which means that there is always an emotional connection (or lack thereof) between the photographer and his or her subject. This connection is at least as important as the technical aspects of taking the photo, since it determines the content. I believe that it is far too common for photographers to become far too focused on the technical aspects of photography instead of the content, so I like being reminded of this simple fact.

Book Review: Mastering Digital Black and White

In general, I dislike books that try to cover everything to do with digital photography because they are usually good on some subjects and poor on others. I feel that these books would benefit from a tighter focus on what the author is really good at.

Mastering Digital Black and White by Amadou Diallo covers a lot of ground, but it focusses completely on digital black and white photography. In fact, it is the most comprehensive book on the subject that I have found to date. What a pleasant surprise!

Book Review: Digital Macro Photography by Ross Hoddinott

Digital Macro Photography by Ross Hoddinott starts by describing digital photography in general and the technology found in digital cameras. Various categories of digital cameras are discussed regarding their usefulness for closeup work.

The second chapter introduces various lenses, tripods, flash units, and other accessories useful for macro photography.

Nikon Coolpix P6000

Nikon have released a new "serious" compact camera, the Coolpix P6000. This camera - at least on paper - competes directly with the Canon G9. This seems like excellent news.

But then I read this:

COOLPIX Picture Control NRW (RAW) files can only be processed in-camera. NRW (RAW) files are compatible for use in-camera, with ViewNX (Windows version only) or with WIC based applications. Capture NX, Capture NX2 and NEF files are not compatible with NRW (RAW) images.

WIC is Windows Imaging Component, a Microsoft API for Microsoft Windows. In other words: converting RAW files to something else can happen only in camera or on MS Windows.

So what does that mean? Not only does Nikon introduce yet another completely useless RAW format (how hard is it to realize that DNG is the present wave and certainly the future?) they clearly think that Mac users are not to be customers of their fine camera.

It strikes me that Nikon seem to be unable to understand a fundamental fact: as a photographer I want full control over my image files. That is one reason I shoot RAW. I do not want encrypted data in the file. I do not want strange and proprietary formats that reduce my software choices and leave me high and dry in a few years when the special software no longer runs on whatever computer I will have.

I do want an open, fully documented format - such as DNG. Simple as that.

So Nikon, you are quite welcome to spend lots of money on advertising this wonderful new camera, but I will not buy it. Too bad, it seems like a really nice camera that would be very tempting otherwise.

Update: At least Adobe know their stuff and Adobe Camera Raw can now read the raw files from the P6000. Nikon still don't seem to get it ... read the review by Thom Hogan for the entire depressing story.

Measuring Konica-Minolta DiMAGE A2 Sensor Noise

My sensor measurement series (G9 and 5D) continues. This time, I measured a Konica-Minolta DiMAGE A2, a 8MP camera which was introduced in 2004. How does it compare to a modern 12MP Canon G9?

	Konica-Minolta DiMAGE A2	Canon G9
ISO 64 / 80
ISO 100
ISO 200
ISO 400
ISO 800
ISO 1600	N/A

Up to ISO 100 there is little difference between the cameras. At ISO 200 and above the 12MP sensor of the G9 shows more noise than the 3 year older 8MP sensor of the A2.

According to dpreview.com the DiMAGE A2 has a 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60 mm) sensor. The G9 sensor is a 1/1.7" (7.60 x 5.60 mm) unit. In other words: the pixel pitch is much smaller on the G9. Noise seems to be inversely proportional to the pixel pitch, so it is not surprising that the G9 does worse than the A2.

What happens when the images are run through Noise Ninja?

	Konica-Minolta DiMAGE A2 (Noise Ninja)	Canon G9 (Noise Ninja)
ISO 64 / 80
ISO 100
ISO 200
ISO 400
ISO 800
ISO 1600	N/A

Up to ISO 200, there is little difference between the cleaned up images. At ISO 400 there is slightly more noise in the G9 image, but the difference is very slight. At ISO 800 the A2 image seems definitely cleaner than the G9 image.

I am surprised that in three years there is no improvement in sensor noise. Well, there might have been if you where to create a 2/3" 8MP sensor with todays technology, but unfortunately there is no such product.

Measuring Canon G9 Sensor Noise

I recently decided that a new tool would be nice and that I needed a fairly compact camera that performs well under low light conditions. Both the Canon G9 and the Panasonic DMC-FZ18 seemed interesting from their specs. [I also looked at FujiFilms offering because in the past they performed very well at high ISO. Unfortunately, a camera with the SuperCCD and image stabilization is currently missing from their model lineup.]
Trawling the net for hard information on sensor noise for these fairly new cameras proved to be a frustrating experience. There seems to be very little information available that allows a good comparison of various cameras. Yes, I know there are many snapshots available, but the conditions under which they are taken varies greatly.
The big review sites (I personally prefer dpreview.com) are somewhat better, but none had a review of both cameras online. In fact, dpreview had published a review on neither camera.
So I decided to create my own test setup to determine how the cameras that I have access to perform and to allow a comparison. Because I just got it, I started with the Canon G9.