The Issue of Equivalence

The Preamble

Long ago, the size of the film was large. So large that you did not need an enlarger - you just placed the negative film in contact with paper (hence the process called Contact Printing) and you produced a paper positive that was ready for display. Later on, Oscar Barnack invented the 35mm film - a dimension of 24mm x 36mm and it became the most commonly used and known film size by the general public.

When digital was born, the manufacture of sensors was difficult and expensive, so the common digital cameras for consumer used sensors smaller than this 35mm film (now given the name "Full Frame" - even though there are now digital sensors with sizes larger than this 24 x 36mm).  Any digital sensor size that is smaller than this Full Frame is called a Crop Sensor.

Usually, the minimum diameter / size of a lens is related to the Coverage Circle that the lens throws onto the sensor. That being the case, comparing two sensors, the bigger sensor requires a bigger lens diameter.

To bring some real cases into this discussion go look at a 70-200mm f/2.8 Canon L lens and a Full Frame Canon 5D DSLR body. And then go look at at 35-100mm f/2.8 Panasonic X lens and a Panasonic GH-3 MIrrorless body. There is quite a difference in size and weight isn't there? And if you chose carefully, there might be a big price difference in favour of the smaller camera as well.

Now, let's look at points and questions that plague the enthusiast community - whether they be serious nerds or casual shooters.

The Q & A

Q: Is the Canon 70-200mm lens the same as the Panasonic 35-100 lens?
A: No, of course not. They are not the same, one is so much larger and heavier.

Q: Is the Canon 70-200mm lens equivalent to the Panasonic 35-100 lens?

A: Yes and No. Used with their respective camera bodies, they cover the same angle of view. That is, you can stand at the same distance to your subject and get the same framing of your scene. They are also both f/2.8 lenses if you used an external light meter, setting the same f/no and the same ISO, you would get the same image brightness.  In other aspects, they are completely different. 

1. They don't have the same background blur. They don't have the same Depth of Field.
2. They don't deliver the same amount of light to the sensors. (Think of different size buckets collecting rain)
3. They don't cover the same sensor dimensions in their Circle of Coverage. 
4. Depending on the specific autofocus mechanisms in the lenses and the bodies, they don't focus the same way or with the same speed or track moving objects the same.

So, if these two lenses are not 100% the same, why would retailers market them as equivalent? 

Focal Length Equivalence

To give the consumer a reference point, a "handle" to understand the distance where they stand and how bright a lens was in regard setting f/no and shooting in dim light, manufacturers relied on focal length equivalence and f/no equivalence. It's a classic and traditional reference point when switching between different film size cameras.  In fact, the 2x Crop Factor yields understandable focal lengths - like 12mm (equivalent to 24mm). When we discuss the phone camera or the little pocketable digital cameras, the lenses are down to 3mm or 6mm - it just boggles the mind. So manufacturers refrain from even mentioning the real optical focal lengths.

One proposal is that instead of using focal length as a reference point (because it doesn't embody what some people want to infer), that manufacturers use the Angle of View. That's might seem to be worthwhile. But we have two handicaps with that idea:

1. Do you know the Angle of View of a Full Frame 50mm lens on a Full Frame Body? Some do, most people don't have a clue.
2. What happens when you take a Full Frame 50mm lens and fit it on a Crop Sensor camera like an APS-C body or a Micro Four Thirds body? The Angle of View changes

For these reasons, the manufacturers decline to use Angle of View. So they keep using the Equivalent Focal Length.

f/no Equivalence

The smaller lens, the 35-100mm Panasonic lens,  is f/2.8 - that's the correct, physical optical ratio. The 70-200mm Canon lens, is f/2.8 - that's the correct, physical optical ratio. 

The whole aim of designing both lenses as  f/2.8 is to create an image of the same tone on their relevant bodies, 

But the two lenses produce different visual images at f/2.8. Yes they do. But those are implications that we weave - the background blur amount, the impact on image noise and so on. We don't even have to think that hard to baffle brains. One lens is huge and heavy. The other is not. They can't be the same. But isn't that the reason why people want a smaller camera and body? And others want a bigger lens and body?

What is it?

We sometimes come across beginners to photography who don’t “get it” as often as we come across newbies who take to photography like ducks to water.

1. What makes a person not get it?
2. What does not getting it mean? How does one tell? Obviously, the person who doesn’t get it is the one who can’t tell….
3. How does one help someone see the light?
4. Can you not get it and still enjoy photography?

Ming Thein on PetaPixel wrote an insightful article on Common Photographic Mistakes. For beginners he cites:

• The missing subject
• Poor perspective use
• Being stuck in the wrong gear

But why do they do that? We know that’s what they do but why do some people do that? It is sometimes difficult for a veteran to time shift back to the days when the camera was new and experience was low.

The Missing Subject

If the subject is missing, the following could be the reasons:

• The mind might already have taken the subject as a “given” – i.e. the photographer has already sighted, understood the subject but is unaware that the guest viewers have no pre-bonding and association with the subject. For example the subject could be so small in the scene and indistinguishable from the background that everyone else can see this issue except the photographer.
• The photographer is not comfortable with camera settings and thus there is so much focus on settings and the camera, that the subject becomes completely secondary.
• The photographer is trying to juxtapose elements of the scene – that tree, that road, that leading line or pattern that the subject is visually forgotten.

Bottom line: Understand what the subject is, understand that often (guidelines are made to be broken) there is really only one primary subject and everything else is story  telling and decoration (which are not unimportant, but they enhance the subject, they do not replace it).

Poor Perspective Use

Perspective with regard to the subject requires that the photographer first identify what the primary subject is and be aware that taking a photo of the subject means actually visualising what aspects of the subject – top, bottom, left side, right side, behind, overview, close-in the photographer needs to story tell.
Or rather, the difference between a photo that says “this is a picture of a man cleaning his glasses” and a photo that says “this is celebrity A cleaning his glasses in a thoughtful way as he muses on whether he should take the high road or low road” is based on story telling and perspective is part of the story telling.
You have to discover perspective. You have to move your feet with perspective and bend your knees and your waist and you neck up or down, side to side. Even if you have a zoom.
It’s way to easy for any photographer, beginner or veteran, to point the camera at the subject, optionally adjust the zoom and think “yup, that’s the shot, let’s do this”.
Way too often, we miss a much more awesome shot by just adjusting our position.
Cropping after the fact is sometimes the only technique we have to get the look that we want, but that’s an afterthought, and getting it right upstream often yields a technically higher quality image and potentially a visually more appealing angle.

Being stuck in the wrong gear

The camera not giving us the image when we click is the most common and annoying primary issue with all photographers – newbie or veteran. Why can’t all this high tech get into our head and just “make it so” like Jean Luc Picard would enunciate?
Actually, with the passing of each year, the tech is getting there. If you are not convinced, get your hands on a match needle film SLR of the yesteryear, shoot some shots in the city of people walking around pointing into the shadow in one shot, subsequently into the bright sun in another. Use a zoom lens with variable max aperture and it complicates it even more. Use transparency film with the classic lack of tolerance of exposure stuff ups, use manual focus lenses.
Then come up and use a modern DSLR camera with automatic smart scene detection, autofocus and do the same gig and see what happens to the number of relevantly exposed, correctly focussed shots.
It’s already there.
However, it isn’t what we expect still, because we raise our expectations every year. And we expect to shoot the human form against the sun and expect the camera to know whether we want a black silhouette or commendable flesh tones. – like as-if.
And if you came in from an auto everything camera phone or point and shoot compact, you expect the more expensive, purpose built camera to be whatever you were using, just more better.
Really to be successful in re-creating a dish you bought take away from an excellent food outlet, you can’t say to your food replicator “make it so"  - even in the notionally Utopian Star Trek, the food replicators need to be programmed to produce specific food. The same with setting up the camera to take a shot.

1. You must visualise the shot
2. You must de-construct the shot into the controllable elements
3. You must figure out what techniques and settings in camera, in the lens choice and potentially in post processing, to re-construct the shot.

Food for thought.

Ananda's 10 Point Photo Critique Rating System

Updated: 23rd April 2013

I participate in a Beginner's Forum and interact with other photographer's senior and junior, experienced and newbie - this aspect of social interaction and learning is unparalleled by anything pre-Internet. Not only have my technical skills evolved at a rapid pace but my understanding of what I like and my appreciation has too.

One perennial feature of understanding the human aspects of a photo is the seeking of justification, validation and vindication. This urge often detracts from and clouds the learning experience and waylays explorers away from the truth or their perception of the truth.

I had created a rating system for myself to assess photos I come across and also assess my reactions to these photos previously (see APR Edition 1.1).

This is Edition 2: I'll call this "Ananda's 10"

Without further ado, here it is:

Ananda's 10

I	Is the subject interesting by itself ?	Max 1 point
SC	Is the photo delivering subject/scene context?	Max 1 point
GC	Is the photo context part of a general historical / family / celebrity / time in personal life context?	Max 1 point
A	Is the subject well abstracted from the mundane-ness of the scene or other photos of the subject (Visually Interesting) ?	Max 1 point
T	Do technical aspects of the photo convey / obscure what the photo is all about?	Max 2 points
ChOShO / ESP	Does the assessor have a Chip On Shoulder Obsession about the photo? (see example list of ChOShO points) or conversely Emotional Subconscious Positives (see example list of ESP)	Max 4 points

Example list of ChOShO

1. That photo wasn't taken by a Leica / Nikon / Canon / put_your_brand_here.
2. That photo wasn't taken by Me.
3. I just came from a small sensor Point and Shoot cam. Ooooh, this photo has NOISE!
4. I just came from a Four Thirds / Micro Four Thirds beatup.  Ooooh, this photo has NOISE!
5. I just came from a Four Thirds / Micro Four Thirds beatup. Where's the Bokeh in this?
6. I just came from a small sensor Point and Shoot cam. I just hate the "everything is sharp" look
7. I don't like photos of dogs / cats / squirrels / birds / landscapes / graffiti / urban decay / tattooes / guns
8. I just don't like HDR / faded shot through a nylon stocking David Bailey looking waifs
9. That's sooo digital, I shoot film
10. That's sooo film, I shoot digital
11. It's not sharp. Really. Look at this 100% crop. It doesn't look like this (show ace shot from the Internet)
12. It's Noise Reduced Smear Messed / JPG artifacted.
13. So, you didn't post process? Can't be that good.
14. So, you shot RAW and post processed. Dude, you oversaturated and messed up.
15. Heck, where's the Rule of Four Thirds? Sorry, Rule of Thirds.
16. The Horizon's Not Level Mate
17. Umm, you're makiing me woozy, can't stand that crazy wide angle distortion
18. Seen one panorama / fisheye / sunset / sunrise / tropical beach / underwater shot / flower closeup / bug close up / flowing silky water 30 second shot? Seen them all.
19. Where's The People In This Scene Mate?
20. Street Photo of a Person - nah, I think it's a affront to privacy and aggression
21. Why is the sky white? Huh?
22. Why is the sky so uneven in blue? Your polariser's just ruining your shot
23. That's not my idea of art
24. That's not my idea of photography
25. That's my idea of graphic arts not photography

And the ultimate:

26. "Like that also want to take a photo"

Example list of Emotional Subconscious Positives

1. Wow! That's a Great Shot
2. Awesome!
3. Well composed
4. Well presented
5. I like the light
6. I like the pose
7. You captured the moment
8. The moment captured you
9. Bloody Good, Mate
10. You're my idol photographer - you could shoot a picture of a _____ with a Kodak Brownie and it would still come out awesome
11. Adventurous and explorative technique.
12. I love photos of HDR / flowing water / blurs of people moving past / Art Effects from ____ cameras - that's cool!
13. How come you saw that when I didn't and I was next to you at that time?
14. How come you made that shot of _______ when my shots look like throwaways?
15. You shot that with ______ brand camera, you can't go wrong, hey, I use one too.
16. We of the _______ gender got to stick together
17. We went on the same Photowalk together, we've got to bromance.
18. That's a photo of my fetish for shoes / tatooes / roadside kerbs, it's Sheldon time.

So, that's it. Now, let's see whether "Ananda's 10" works out. Tell me how you go.

Making up your mind on a new camera

Choosing the Brand (from the DSLR / Interchangeable Lens category)

Revised and updated: December 2011

The individual camera brands have personalities - bear that in mind when you are befuddled by tables and comparison matrices of blow by blow feature lists.

Canon

Canon produces the most cameras worldwide. Pros shooting Olympics, Getty Images, in war zones, in sports, use them. They have a full range of product from small compact point and shoots to the big DSLRs with honking big, white, expensive "L" lenses. If you are a pro or wanna be a pro or want people to think you are a pro, it seems like one of two brands to embrace. If you want the safety and conservatism of being part of a large tribe, this is the brand for you. Regardless of whether you bought a hundred dollar Canon camera, you can say - "I use this brand, hey!"

But, as in all well run and structured religions, let it be known that Canon has circles - the pros, the wannabes, the want-to-be-known-as, the nerd shooter and the family shooter. And so, you will be offered competent cameras and lenses. Doesn't mean that your $200 lens is the equivalent of an "L" lens worth ten times more. It isn't.

Canon DSLR bodies have bulk and volume. At the low priced end, they can feel hollow (less dense). At the lower end too, I find the right hand grip a little odd, my hands don’t curl around the grip comfortably. But that’s me. The menus seem to use more icons and less words.

Canon changed their lens mount some time back, the old one was called FD and the current one is called EF / EF-S. Of course FD lens owners were not happy but that was some time ago. Canon bodies don’t have an internal AF focus assist lamp – so in dim light, the built-in flash blinks in a beserk manner to light up the near subject.

Canon does put attention to their non DSLR compacts and bridge cameras. They have some individuality and features. There are firmware hacks (CHDK) to enable features that are not normally available in these cameras.

Nikon

Nikon has the next largest market share. I confess to having a soft spot for them but I was let down by the first Nikon I ever owned, a Nikon 775 compact 3x digital zoom camera. Nikon does have a range of non DSLR compacts and bridge cameras but mostly the passion to make them stand out isn’t the same as Canon.

Now, the Nikon DSLRs go head to head against the Canon DSLRs and are used by pro photographers. Their lenses are good too, however, Nikon stove pipe lenses are black not white. Lowest range Nikon DSLR bodies do not have an AF motor in the body (for old lenses) and cheaper bodies are said not to meter the scene with old lenses in a convenient way – a sign of product differentiation.  This is at odds with the pride that the Nikon physical mount has changed little and old, old lenses fit new, new bodies.

I like the Nikon DSLR grip, even the cheapest ones, and the cheap bodies feel dense and compact. The feel of solidity and denseness is a Nikon design ownership aesthetic.

Either brand will do if you are into the "I belong to heap big tribe" attitude.

And now, the other small tribes

Firstly why bother with a brand that is not in the top two in market share?

1. You like to root for the underdog.
   
2. You want new features, earlier. They try harder – they introduce more innovative features, earlier. Flip Twist LCDs. Auto HDR. Sweep Panorama. Smaller and lighter gear, More attractive out-of-the-camera JPEGs. Mirrorless or non swinging mirrors. The list goes on.
   
3. You eschew conservatism, financial and asset safety and are willing to take risks

Sony

Sony is the next DSLR brand to discuss. Originally, the DSLR factory was Minolta but Minolta got sued heavily by Honeywell over a bun fight about who invented Auto Focussing and amongst other things, Minolta merged with Konica and then the merged entity lost interest in high risk, low returns camera market, so sold to Sony.

Sony DSLRs of course have very strong innovative features - Sweep Pano, Automatic HDR, Translucent Mirrors and so on. Mirrorless. And with Sony's money bags, they can afford to launch several similar models at the same time and multiple lines of cameras - Full Frame, classic APS-C with mirrors, translucent mirrored SLTs and mirrorless NEX. They can afford to overlap market segments – compete with themselves. And ally with Carl Zeiss (lenses).

Pentax

Pentax has been a reliable, middle performer brand. They have moments of brilliance. They make good, respectable bodies. Their range of single focal length lenses / pancakes are famous. They’re cost effective. Competent. And now they come in scores of shades and colours. They have a long history of being “there”. Unfortunately, it’s hard being a small company. Hoya bought Pentax and then sold Pentax to Ricoh.

Olympus

Olympus is a maverick. Has been, Will be. Somehow Y. Maitani has retired but the legacy of his boldness is still in the company’s culture. They are the essence of the Japanese bento box – delicately made, well presented. Small. Because they don’t have a large tribe in tow, they have to be and are agile. Risk takers – again, if you are that size, you take the risk or become lost in the herd of tribesmen from other tribes. Who else would come out with a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera first? Who would take the decision to voluntarily retire the bulk of their DSLR line ahead of time? Their last and remaining DSLR model is the E-5. They are fully focussed on designing and making their PEN series of interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras.

However, the management has been in disgrace – they have carried out all kinds of financial and management misdeeds. We hope the company makes it.

Panasonic

Panasonic and Sony are rivals in the TV and appliance space. In the photography space, Sony has the lead but Panasonic is not weak. Panasonic have established credibility in the compact and bridge categories. They have allied with Leitz (Leica) as Sony has allied with Carl Zeiss.

In the DSLR space, Panasonic allied with Olympus but were quickly dissatisfied with progress in that category in terms of sales achievement. Panasonic are more comfortable in a category where there is more electronics than mechanicals so they jumped into the Micro Four Thirds mirrorless category with Olympus as collaborators.

How about the different Types of Cameras?

I’m not a camera taxonomist and I now look more at Interchangeable Lens Cameras (both Mirrored i.e. DSLR and Mirrorless)
Let’s start from the top.

The Pro DSLR

Firstly we have the big bodied 24x36mm sized sensor “full frame” DSLRs. Expensive. Big. Heavy. Robust. Professional. Chatter faster than a machine gun. Takes equally expensive, big, heavy lenses. Why?

1. Because you need professional quality equipment. I didn’t say anything about the often misused phrase, image quality. I said high quality equipment. Weather sealed.
   
2. You have more cash than you know what to do with.
   
3. You like carrying something weighty.
   
4. You take out insurance and are not worried about getting mugged or robbed. Heck, you could even bash out the mugger’s brains with that D3s.

The Enthusiast / Premium DSLR

1. You wish you had the cash for a Pro DSLR but don’t.
   
2. You want a second body for your Pro DSLR.
   
3. You want a really good high ISO performance.
   
4. You want a sizeable, dense body
   
5. You want dual dials and big viewfinders, big, detailed LCD screens and lots and lots of mod cons. You want gear that performs.
   
6. You want to be one up on the guy next door.

The Entry Level DSLRs (or any DSLR for that matter)

1. You want to “take your photography to the next level” and you see so many people with those black DSLRS.
   
2. You want to shoot “manual” whatever that means.
   
3. But you’re “happy to use iAuto or SCENE modes for the time being”
   
4. You’re dissatisfied with your previous “point and shoots”
   
5. You think a DSLR will make you a better photographer – after all, if you are the constant factor, surely throwing money at a better camera will make you take better pictures, right?
   
6. You want “bokeh” whatever that is.
   
7. You want to take shots of kids in motion in dark, dim rooms without flash. Or heck, just kids in motion, they never stay still and your “point and shoot” just shows the back of the leg in a blur.
   
8. You are willing to step down from having a big zoom range to a paltry 3x or less zoom in a camera and lens package that costs more.  Oh, by the way, how do you measure a DSLR lens when you want to compare it with your current insane 36x zoom?
   
9. You think these entry level DSLRs are soooo good, why on earth would you fork our more dough? After all, the sensor is the same, right?

The Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera

1. You want a DSLR but you don’t want a DSLR in bulk and weight and clumsiness.
   
2. You don’t mind paying more in the long run for this smaller camera than you would for an entry level DSLR – such new MILCs and Lenses are new, risk taking product – the companies need / want to make a good buck before the big tribes spoil the profits.
   
3. You are willing to let go a little of that bokeh or use a manual-everything lens to get it.
   
4. You’re ok with one, maybe two settings worse graininess or lower ISO ceiling.
   
5. You’re ok with less choice of lenses because the lenses you want to use now or eventually are already in the catalogue.
   
6. You’re ok with a slight hesitancy before the shutter clicks.
   
7. You’re gonna try harder for shooting birds and sports.
   
8. You don’t mind not having an optical viewfinder or even no viewfinder sometimes. And you enjoy Transformer type gadgets.

The Ultrazoom / Bridgecam

1. You don’t think all this interchangeable lens business is worth the money or the trouble.
   
2. You want a real zoom. I mean 40x, is that too little?
   
3. You want maximum bang for buck.
   
4. You’re sure that your sensor isn’t small and besides, most of your shots are in bright sunny seaside towns of Devonshire
   
5. You are a  “point and shoot”. Really,
   
6. You like Kodakcolor, Fujicolor or Panasonic Color (thought I was gonna say Panacolor, didn’t you)
   
7. You know how to fake bokeh with software. The real thing is over-rated.
   
8. You haven’t got the time to futz around on a tourist trip. Wife and family aren’t gonna wait for you to set up a shot.

The LX-5, ZX-1, S95 class of compact cams, with good image quality

1. You want a real compact cam. I mean, have you seen one of those huge MILCs?
   
2. You reckon the image quality is good enough.
   
3. You don’t mind a 3x or 5x maximum zoom. Really.
   
4. You like deep Depth of Field. Bokeh is for the birds.

Your Sense of Self in the Photos You Take

It’s father’s day 2011, “Happy Father’s Day” to all those Dads. I’m pausing for reflection on the times and memories I had with my Dad and those I have myself with Number One. I’ve also been thinking about the photos I take and incidentally, Robin Wong has just posted on his blog - Robin Wong- Snapshots vs Photographs.

To add context to my searching for self, I’ve been exposed to a barrage of Photogs on Google+, with lists of lists of lists of Photogs. Some with an immense sense of self, some with a sense of sharing, some that make images that you can tune in, some that are nowhere like it. On the other hand, I participate in the Beginner’s Forum at DP Review and that brings insight as well into how digital beginners view their efforts and their search for instantiation and validation by their peers.

Really, it’s this. Photography is a journey for me. A search for my ability to create artistically – when my other pursuits are more logical and analytical. A liberation and a breathing of soul and life.Not every one approaches photography like this.

Some people just want a quick snapshot of life, of the moment, of the people, of the circumstance. We speak of snapshots in a somewhat second class way, as something we don’t bring to the table in intellectual company. And yet, without this fervour for snapshots through the years, those intellectuals and collectors who now treasure sepia toned or faded colour photos for their vintage effect, won’t have much to treasure or collect.

Some others treat Photography as an income source, with a workman like approach to the skill, to the photos and whatever perfectionism they place in competently and repeatedly taking a reliable, technically valid shot for a client brief. No, these are not snapshots, they’re sometimes very “set up”, staged and planned but I propose, they are not automatically satisfying to every individual viewer.

And there’s a whole rainbow and plethora of reasons and rationale between the two cases.

So, where does that leave you?

• You’ve got to shoot what you like, in the way that you like.
• The issue is that on the start of the journey through photography, one seeks validation and one seeks out a critic, a judge or failing that a peer. I guess that is part of the learning process – what do people think about your efforts. Is it too dark? Is it too light? Can you see what I see? Is my bum too fat in this?
  
  In some ways, this is inevitable – the search for truth in aesthetic appreciation. In other ways, it can be quite painful, tortuous as different viewers give varying opinions. Do you trust this opinion or the other opinion? At the end of the day, it comes back to you making your own opinion – it’s like the oft repeated saying of hiring a consultant to affirm what you already know.
• A new aspect to me, is establishing what I like to see. Yes, before Google+, you had to venture out to see another artist’s work. Now, you just have to Circle everyone and your Stream is full of some gems and a lot of photos that you would not shoot yourself. And that’s the second big point – you take the time to sieve out what you don’t like and you absorb osmotically, visually, what makes you happy.
• Finally, the pursuit and the journey – to produce the images that make you, and make what you like.
• Don’t be in a hurry to achieve that final goal. Remember, it’s a journey of self discovery. You’re supposed to enjoy the journey. You’re supposed to discover yourself and your skills. If you could produce what you want yesterday, what would you do next?

A wet Sunday and reflecting on technical RAW image quality

Here's a response I posted on at a DPR forum:

Question

I was looking at the reviews on dpr and wanted to know about RAW image quality.  All other things being equal is RAW image quality the most important?  I mean isn't that the "real" picture?

Response

The most important, in no real rank sequence are:

• The shooter - at least 80% of the picture. I have repeatedly seen Grumpy Old Conservatives (sometimes I am one of them) proclaim that gear A is so bad that it could not be used for activity X and then wait a few months, look around and voila, some unknown person on the other side of the internet produces an image which is spectacular.
• The ability of the shooter and camera to get exposure "right". Some people rely on the camera a lot, others rely on themselves a lot. Those who rely on the camera need the exposure to be "just right"
• The ability of the shooter and the camera to get the focus "right". Again some people rely a lot on the camera, others are more tolerant
• For their needs, some shooters rely on the in-camera JPEG engine to get it right. They have no patience or persistence to sit at the computer and process data, their skill is in the field - composing, choosing the "decisive moment" - you can get gear that is technically perfect (i.e. 99% better digital quality vs 80% digital quality) but the image sucks because the shooter is a dud and gets composition, focus, exposure, depth of field or the moment, wrong.
• RAW quality is technical quality - in order to render on the screen, a human or a program has to initially preset the choice of gamma transformation curve, colour saturation, sharpening, aberration correction, perspective correction. Any image you see on the screen that is recognisable to a human, has been rendered with these rendering parameters - the rendering is not about technical perfection it is about visual choice - the two do not have to be equal.
• The RAW quality is the sensor and image processing pipeline quality - if you pick a camera which does not have the lens you want to use or the lens quality that you want, then the image could suck.

Advice to newbies asking “is this photo good”?

Some random thoughts that occur to me when I look at photos that newbies show:

• When anyone shows a photo, we look at the photo in its entirety. It's very difficult to look at a photo for "exposure" alone and not assess composition. It's like one bangs the keys on a piano and then one asks, was that a good piano? Without playing a recognisable tune, the banging of the piano overcomes any aesthetic appreciation of the quality of the piano.
  
• Aesthetic appreciation varies with the person and with his mood.
  
• Some people are more direct, some less. Sometimes you learn more from a direct remark, sometimes an ego gets hurt. That's life.
  
• Just because someone buys a camera does not mean that someone is an artist or wants to be an artist. Cameras are no longer expensive now and everyone can choose to get one. People buy cameras to fulfil a need and that need may not be artistic. They may simply want to record and event, a memory. They may indeed want to “show” or “show off” to family and friends where they were, what they saw and they did not plan or did not have the opportunity to take more than a second to point and shoot. Or they may want an artistic shot but decades of mind numbing mundanity has grimed its patina onto their consciousness.
  
• I've also noticed that cultural environment / economic environment / geographical environment / opportunity means that people point the camera at something quite different with quite different sense of aesthetic. Some of the photos look downright ugly to me but it may well be that I do not view them in the context that the shooter views them.

On the other hand, you want standard, good old fashioned classic advice and criteria, then have a look at this Kodak Tutorial.

del.icio.us Tags: photography

Telling A Story

Image by Ananda Sim 88 via Flickr

It’s been on my mind to write about the aspects that I appreciate in photos – both my own and other peoples’. At first pass, one would think that the Technical Image Quality Aspects of a photo dominate appreciation of photos, but no, not really. There are quite a few photos that I have seen, and maybe you have to, that are iconic, stand out keepers despite of the fact that they may rate poorly in the Image Quality aspects of exposure, sharpness, colour and so on.

So what is it that we subconsciously search for in a photo when we look at it? It’s that the photo needs to tell us a story. A story about the scene, about the subject, about the object, about the air and feeling, the mood, the time of day, that location on earth. The essence.

To convey some essence of the subject or scene then, the photographer needs to convey some adjective or adverb about the object or about the environs, about that time of life.

On the other hand, what makes a photo just discardable floatsam and debris, regardless of the technical superiority? It’s when we don’t connect to it. The photo could be beautifully posed, shot and post processed but if it says nothing to me, it’s a “next please”. Have you heard of the phrase “ill fitting clothes?” That doesn’t mean the clothes are cheap or dowdy – that just means that the clothes don’t fit the person – and when there have been times in the past (and will be times in the future) when we effect a look, just for sheer trying, that doesn’t match the topic that we are trying to convey. So there. In a nutshell.

del.icio.us Tags: composition,photography,postprocessing,imagequality,storytelling

Can a Llama outrun a car?

I'm munching on leftover re-heated pizza as I overhear Kim Possible. "Can a Llama outrun a car?" Well, rephrasing that, can a fixed focal length shoot better photos than a zoom? I'm not talking about the eternal quest for image quality. I'm talking about shooting satisfying photos.

And certainly, the answer is Yes. Certainly, a zoom is much faster to frame without moving your legs. And modern zooms are sharp enough - we take them so for granted that we don't even blink when standard walkabout lenses we pick for an Interchangeable Lens Camera are zooms.

So what do you lose with a zoom?

• a large enough aperture / small enough f/no. For light gathering goodness and subject isolation.
• the nudge to move your body and walk your legs - you're not discovering the alternative framing angles, perspectives in composition. Yes, you could use a zoom like a fixed focal length prime and refuse to zoom. If you can resist the temptation, you're a better person than I, Mbutu.

Now, that off my chest, one day, I'll gather enough motivation to write about what you lose when you have an Auto Focus lens.

Photography is a journey. Enjoy your journey