Replying to the Same Old Argument

I find myself drawn in to arguments on-line from time to time. Recently I posted to a You Tube video that was trying to dismiss micro four-thirds as largely irrelevant and doomed to the dustbin of history. In arguing against my support of m43rds, the video’s author talked about how Sony was shrinking its full frame cameras and also about the perceived quality differences of different formats. Here is my reply with a few minor tweaks…

In terms of Sony's size progress, I assume that you are referring to the camera bodies almost exclusively. With modern electronics and high efficiency batteries, making a body almost as small as the sensor shouldn't really be a huge issue. In fact, the main limiting factor there will probably be heat dissipation, something that Sony has indeed struggled with. Lenses seem to be another matter altogether. One can say that a certain manufacturer has managed to shrink full-frame to almost the size of m43, for example, but that is only true of the body.

My photography is largely centered now on landscape and animal imagery, and I acquire my shots by hiking to the locations that interest me. When I was using Canon gear, a "professional body" and 400mm lens was about all I wanted to carry over a four hour hike, and even then the size of the lens made the setup unwieldy. Since switching to Olympus, I can carry my OM-D E-M1 and three professional zoom lenses with greater ease and comfort than that single Canon lens and body combination. Have I sacrificed anything in results? Not a thing. As stated earlier, I am actually getting better quality results from the Olympus, although also as noted the Olympus body is slightly newer than the Canon.

Now, all other factors being equal, a larger sensor camera will tend to produce cleaner (read as less noisy) images, however, this isn't always the case and isn't always ideal either. Street photographers, for instance, have always often preferred the gritty look that a little grain (noise) introduces into their imagery, especially when leveraging shadowed scenes and monochrome results in low light. The same could be said for styles such as that cinema-noir look that we occasionally see from fashion photographers.

In fact, there are advantages and disadvantages to every format and technology out there. I think it does photographers a disservice to dismiss one option over another as it reduces choice. While I agree that tiny film formats like 110 produced snapshot quality images at best, this was just fine for families that needed to save some money, and carry something that mum could fit in her purse. There were also art photographers who leveraged the specific characteristics of that format to obtain the "look" they wanted. We should remember that photography, like painting or drawing, is an art form. This should recommend that we embrace any tool that gives us creative options rather than dismissing one format or another because the marketers out there want their product to succeed and a competing product to disappear from the shops.

Medium format absolutely has its place and is brilliant in the right circumstances, such as the studio where its weight and size is not an encumbrance but its pixel quantity and light gathering capabilities can excel. 24x36, or so-called "full-frame," is ideal for manufacturers who have learned to exploit the market very well indeed based on its perceived advantages. It also seems to work well for many landscape photographers/wedding photographers who are able to handle the transport issues its lenses create. APS-C and m43 offer almost identical performance parameters, frankly; although, APS-C is marketed as a kind of gateway to full-frame, which means that its adherents often wind up owning big heavy "full-frame" lenses so they loose the weight and size advantage that the format should provide, while only occasionally "moving up" to full-frame anyway.

If you really want to make an argument for what to keep, which I think would be a mistake, then you could say keep the cell phone, keep micro four thirds and keep medium format. Each offers a comprehensive ecosystem that isn't just tied to another format the way that APS-C and "Full-Frame" are. Also, given that medium format can now be made as small in weight and size as full-frame, the arguments most try to apply against m43 could also be applied against full-frame.

Honestly, one should just find what they like and use it.

Creativity and the Image Quality Myth

I guess I take issue with all of the conversations regarding Image Quality (IQ) that one reads on the Net, in part because they are ultimately arguments about gear, and more specifically about sensor size and camera make. Bantering back and forth about which camera is best, based on a subjective list of qualifiers is nothing less than short sighted nonsense.

Photography, like painting, drawing, printmaking or sculpture, to name a few related pursuits, is a creative endeavour. We don’t all go out and shoot the same brick wall, the same way, with the same light, and then compare results to see which camera captured the most detail with the least noise in order to decide who took the best photo! What we do is make images designed to capture the imagination, tell a story, or inspire the observer in some other way.

Sometimes, the photographer can achieve a successful image through incredible colour, carefully balanced composition, finely rendered detail, a uniquely positioned point of view, compelling subject matter, striking juxtapositions, timing of the moment, an eye for structure, incorporating tantalising textures, or through combinations of some, or all, of these elements, and more besides...

Knowing what to photograph, when, where, and how, then processing it as, or if, needed to realise your vision is far more important than whether a particular camera can shoot at 5, 10, or 20 frames a second. It is more important than whether Camera A is likely to produce less noise at some specific ISO setting than Camera B.

Or is it?

Given that artists are seeking to fulfil a specific and unique vision, it just may be useful that Camera A produces less noise than Camera B, or perhaps, it will work out the other way around. The thing is, photography, as I said above, is a creative pursuit. With that in mind, it may prove advantageous to understand the differences in colour, contrast, noise, etc. that distinguishes one camera, or one lens, from another. but not necessarily for the common IQ reasons argued about on the photo forums. The creative photographer might need the so-called poor noise performance, of Camera B to help get the look he really wants.

Instead of paying homage to hype, and eventually paying more money in pursuit of a common standard of image quality, you might find it far more profitable to do things a little differently, and in so doing, find something much more uncommon. In this day and age of mass everything, where every new look is instantly duplicated a million times over, it is easy to produce technically excellent images day after day without anyone ever really taking notice. It is more likely that you will be noticed, not for doing what everyone else is doing, but for doing something special - the ability to consistently produce the compelling AND the unique is probably far more valuable. In photography, as in life, it is probably better to lead than to follow, to be a trend setter than to be a trend adopter.

If there is one thing worth remembering, it is that image quality is really about producing photos that successfully reflect your vision. Attempting to achieve what others covet will likely result, if you are successful, in producing the same old, same old. Ask yourself, is the same old same old really likely to attract anyone for more than a moment, no matter how technologically proficient you and your camera may be? If it’s same old, it’s really just same old, no matter the cost of admission.

Enough About Sensor Size Already!

You can't directly compare digital sensors and film. It's apples and oranges really. I worked with film in my own darkroom many years ago, and as an analog process, the negative image on the film is "enlarged" by projecting light through it onto the photosensitive paper. Both film and paper have a grain, and the image had to be recorded to film through a camera lens with all its imperfections and then projected though the film, with its grain, via an enlarger lens with all of its imperfections. The smaller the image on film, the greater the imperfections and grain appeared once enlarged.

Digital is a little different. We aren't talking about "grain" but about detail. A digital value can be recorded on a tiny pixel or a big pixel, it can then be translated by a printer onto paper or displayed on a computer screen. The pixel's value is numeric and will remain the same no matter how big or small it was. Also, sensor performance is such that we are getting to the point, at least at "normal ISOs," where frankly, you would be hard pressed, if not entirely stymied, in any attempt to tell the difference in image quality between a 1" sensor and a full frame sensor. This bigger versus smaller sensor argument is getting really old to the point where it is more of a marketing tool for purveyors of so-called "full-frame" formats than an indication of any sort of noticeable quality differential.

For the vast majority of photographers, a more practical consideration might be system weight, cost, and/or size. At some point people will probably begin to look at photographers with full-frame dslrs the same way we would now look at someone carrying a VHS video camera instead of an digital 8 type of device. Remember all those giant video cameras people would take on their cross country trips? Who would do that now?

I put my Canon gear on the shelf a year ago and switched to Olympus M43s. The only differences in output quality worth mentioning are related to the age of the equipment rather than the size of the sensors. The slightly newer Olympus gear gives me better dynamic range and better low light performance. Otherwise, both systems offer great image quality. The real benefit, for me, to the m43s gear is its much smaller footprint and much lighter weight. The Canon body was big and heavy, and its lenses offered an even more substantial size and weight penalty. As for prices, well, take a look at “L” glass and decide for yourself.

Frankly, beyond all of the hype, buying the most expensive camera in the world won't make you a better photographer. If you want to take good pictures, stop looking at gear and practice taking photos with whatever you happen to have at hand. Also, consider this, beyond the attributes that people identify tin their efforts to define image quality, different cameras, formats, brands, and etc., will create files with different looks. Consider this a good thing as it will offer you a way to make something a little different from what the next guy is making – not necessarily better, or worse, but uniquely your own.

Hot Day on the Trail_IMG_0432-HDR

Hot Day on the Trail_IMG_0432-HDR, a photo by yukonchris on Flickr.

Sometimes, dragging a very heavy tripod over five kilometres of hillside trails is absolutely necessary. I've done this more times than I can say, sometimes never to use it. Today, however, it proved a good decision as I was able to produce at least two very nice HDR images, the first of which is shared above. To see the other one, please visit my Flickr pages here.

HDRs require that you merge multiple exposures covering several f-stops in order to get the dynamic range that a single shot just can't record. This photo is an example of how that process can result in an image that really feels as if it is approaching the reality you saw when you set up for the shots.

While I always recommend hiking as lightly as possible, especially on a very hot day, adding a few pounds of photographic gear isn't always a bad idea. Besides, it all serves to help keep one fit.

The Intentional Image and Learning to See

For me, the intentional image really begins with the composition. While some may shoot from the hip or rely on processing to create impact, I feel that the heart of beauty in photography is defined by what is essential in the composition. There is little doubt in my mind that the world around us is absolutely loaded with beauty. Some of it is obvious and we can't help but notice, for example, a classical face or a striking mountain vista, but much, is less so. A great deal of the world's beauty tends to go completely unrecognised, sometimes because it isn't part of the common picture, sometimes because it is ubiquitous, sometimes because no one else has pointed it out, but most often because we really don't know how to see.

One of the greatest lessons any artist , or more specifically, any photographer can learn is how to see the world around them. It seems like a crazy thing to say, because the obvious answer is that unless one is blind, how can one not see? In truth, though, what most of us do see is the everyday; we notice what we need to as part of our routine and as part of our survival. Advertisers know this, which is why signs are big and bold. It is why corporations spend millions trying to get your attention by tailoring advertisements to appeal to your core survival instincts. They are flashy, quick and loud; they relate product ownership to your vitality, family, success and reproductive needs. It's actually amazing to think that so much time effort and money is spent making messages that are so base in their content. If you want to grow beyond the obvious, and if you want to make great art, you need to learn to see!

Really seeing, as an inspired artist does, means learning to see what isn't everyday. It is about seeing on a whole new level. When you walk down the street that takes you to work, instead of just noticing the traffic, or the buildings, or the people, you will begin to see other things that are not part of your need to move from A to B safely. You will begin to see things that aren't so obvious. You will see things that will register on the retinas of everyone walking down that same street at that same moment, but that no one else will notice. In a sense, seeing, in the visual sense that I am alluding to, is analogous to developing strong critical thinking skills...

Despite the best efforts of thousands of school teachers, most people, once they've grown up, have failed to nurture the kind of inquiring mind that will question beyond the surface of things. How many people do you know who will attempt to "read between the lines," or "dig just a little bit deeper" to synthesize prior learning and experience with each new "given?" How many people do you know who will attempt to find "a deeper truth," question "an accepted fact," or perceive "a bigger picture?" It is much the same way with the visual world. Learning to see requires effort. The intentional image is a considered image. It is the result of work.

When I was young, like a lot of young people, I figured that I knew most of what I needed to and it hadn't occurred to me that I was blind to much of the real beauty of the world. Fortunately, my first foray into higher education took me to Art School where I completed a three-year diploma in Fine Arts. We did all the usual things one would expect of art students - lots of drawing practice, painting, working with a variety of media, English, Art History. We had some very talented instructors and it was a time of life, and an experience, that I wouldn't trade for any other.

In addition to all of the formal instruction, projects and papers that helped define my art school experience, I remember one of the instructors talking to us on many occasions about learning to see. If I remember correctly, I think it was Eric Atkinson, an Englishman and a classically trained painter who had achieved some limited fame for his work. Naturally, I thought that I understood those lessons and was as observant as any other, but eventually, all the inspired instruction, exercises dealing with texture, colour, shades, composition, tension, and more, actually had the desired effect. To this day, I remember standing outside a gallery in downtown London presumably after a hard day of schooling, and ,suddenly noticing everything in an entirely new way. If there ever was a definitive moment, for me on the road to becoming who I am, it was that one instant in time when I suddenly became aware that the world was so much more than just what was plainly in front of me. Obviously, it isn't the only field stone or road sign I've encountered in life, but it was a profoundly important one. To use the parlance of that school, it was an epiphany.

Since then, I have been unable to look around and not notice things that are not obvious, or in my way, or crucial to my survival. I have become an active observer.

On the simplest level, a photographer needs to, as I once heard someone say, "look up, look down, look all around." In truth, one needs to do much more than this. Begin by looking at the best work of other photographers and artists. Take a look at your town's most impressive architecture. Read books on composition, light, and design. Take notice of simple textures, patterns and rhythms around your own home. Consider that even the simple weave of the fabric on an inexpensive chair was designed by someone somewhere, not just to achieve decently durable cloth, but also cloth attractive enough to recommend the finished product above its competition.

While it has been said that the devil is in the details, it is probably just as true that within the details can be found unseen beauty. While the flower is striking, a close inspection will reveal that the petal and even the aphid crawling on the petal are just as remarkable. Notice, too, that each petal may be attached the the centre of the flower by the slimmest of devices and that they radiate from the centre in perfect, or perhaps imperfect unity. Notice the relationship of the flower in space to other objects in the vicinity. Notice too how light falls with subtle difference of angle and intensity on each part of the bloom. Consider the texture of the petals against the texture of the stamens. Look for subtleties of tone and colour - it's all there!

Of course, just as one can find world within worlds if one looks closely enough, the same can be true from a distance. Our world is so alive and rich in its complexity, that, to paraphrase, it may be impossible to see the forest for the trees. Sometimes, there is so much happening in front of us that we fail to see the simplest and most elegant composition in the middle of it all. Learn to clear away the visual clutter competing for your attention and find that quiet gem - it may be a questioning look in a crowd, or a lone brick of particular character on a wall of red. - again, it's all there!

Practice looking and seeing. In time, it will become second nature; perfectly balanced and unified compositions will jump out at you from every corner. You will suddenly find balance, beauty and a mysterious wonder in a section of broken steel by a puddle and it will remind you of the way a mountain cast its shadow on a small lake beside the forest. It is all there. If you want it. Begin looking and you'll eventually start seeing...

Evening HDR_IMG_0284-HDR

Evening HDR_IMG_0284-HDR, a photo by yukonchris on Flickr.

Sometimes less is more.

Notice that I composed this image to provide a sense that below the sky is an expansive forest without showing it all. This places the photo in context but allows the viewer to see what is important: the mountains, moon and sky.

The Processed Image

I have long held the opinion that photography, like any other kind of creative art, tends to take its lead from nature and the world around us. If you ask a thoughtful or formally educated artist about the purpose of art, you might get an answer along the lines that art allows us to interpret our experience and make sense of our place in the world. Many years ago, I remember reading a book that described art as a way of taking possession of the world - in that sense, art allows us to understand our world and thus give the artist and those who view the art, some ownership in a word that can otherwise seem quite overwhelming at times.

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in that long ago read, and that is probably why it has stuck with me. Having said that, I think the creative process is also much more complex than any single thought can express. I think we also create art because we are esthetic creatures who have been given concepts such as beauty and ugliness. I think we create art because we are natural engineers who like to modify our environment. I think we create art because we are created in the image of God and are therefore creative ourselves.

The thing about art that one needs to understand right off, though, is that it is the result, or in some cases the process, of being creative. Art in whatever form it takes is as much a new thing as it is a facsimile of something that already exists. I think this is an understanding that painters and sculptors, and those who appreciate those forms, would understand almost intuitively - it can't be exclusively new or accurately representational. Strangely, when we move from such traditional forms to photography, we find that many practitioners and viewers hold to a different understanding. While no one would say that a painting is reality, it is remarkable how many people feel that a photograph is. Of course, no matter how an image is made, it can never be more than an interpretation of what it seeks to represent.

I wanted to talk about this today, because one of the potential problems I see with photography are people who insist on "reality".

"You shouldn't change that colour, or process that image, because it isn't real," is something many photographers have heard at one time or another. Of course, when one sits down and takes the time to understand that a photograph of a valley isn't a valley, then the senselessness of that statement becomes somewhat more clear.

An out of camera jpeg and a version processed through ACDSee Pro 5 from RAW. Which one better evokes the scene as viewed by the photographer? Shot with an Olympus E-30 and 9-18mm Zuiko Lens. Photos Copyright Christopher Wheeler. Do not use without the permission of the photographer.

"But, a photograph is supposed to represent the real world," may be the subsequent comment. Well, yes, a photograph is representational art, but so is a book that describes the lives of its characters. I am no philosopher, but it seems to me that much of what we create in art and science is in fact representational even if that relationship is not immediately obvious. Religions seek to uncover the mysteries of the universe through a search for God, and science despite its supposed logical detachment is in fact doing much the same.

Religious art seeks to represent something of the divine without blundering into the area of idolatry, while science, through math and an understanding of the laws that govern the universe, finds its own way of expressing the same. For a scientist or mathematician, an elegant and concise algorithm or formula may conjure a remarkable picture of the universe or represent a physical manifestation of the natural world more concisely and accurately than any image. Likewise an inspired piece of biblical text may evoke in the reader a profound image of life encompassing far more than any momentary experience.

Producing an image when the goal is realism cannot be accomplished simply by what the camera records. The camera is a product of science and engineering. It is a cold hard tool that responds only to light. The light passes through glass elements that redirect it and focus it onto a sensor. The sensor has more microscopic lenses that focus the photons into silicon wells where they create an electrical charge. The electrical charge is then quantified through the magic of electronics and reinterpreted on a small screen as a recorded visual image that emits light. This light then enters our eyes where it strikes nerves that send signals to the brain which then reinterprets the image. It is quite a process and one that emphasized how far removed the recorded image is from the scene it represents.

When one explores the world, what we see is not just informed by the photons that enter the eye, as the cameras image is by the light that contacts the sensor. Our prior experiences, our state of mind, and our other senses, to name a few contributory elements, all impact on how our minds interpret the scene. I for one, often find that no matter how good the camera, its results seldom describe with any real impact, the profound beauty of the view that propelled me to take the photo in the first place. The colours are hardly ever as saturated, the vista never feels as immense, the range never as dramatic, and the detail is never revealed to the same extent. If I were to leave such a photo as the camera "saw" it, then I would have a poor representation of reality to share with others.

An out of camera jpeg and a version processed through ACDSee Pro 5 from RAW. Which one better evokes the scene as viewed by the photographer? Shot with a Canon 7D and 15-85mm Canon Lens. Photos Copyright Christopher Wheeler. Do not use without the permission of the photographer.

Post processing is one way that the modern photographer seeks to recreate something of the mystery and magic of their own vision in the final work. You start with a RAW file from the camera and then you tweak it in a effort to reveal the beauty that was there. Then there are photographers who push photos beyond the threshold of mere visual reproduction. They want to evoke the emotion of their experience, which is no less real for them than a cold image uninformed by human experience or feeling.

The truth is that we all see the same scene quite differently. There is no one reality! If you don't believe this, ask a crime investigator. He will tell you that three honest witnesses, all of whom saw the same crime take place, will each tell a different story. None is lying, but all saw something that was interpreted differently by their minds because each was, in fact, a different person.

Photography, as an arm of art, records the visual world. Sometimes this is the visual world that we are familiar with as in street, landscape, or portrait photography, and sometimes it records the less familiar as in macro-photography or astrophotography. Whatever the subject matter, what one sees is unique to that person, and how one represents it, to be honest and accurate, must also be unique.

So, in conclusion, my message today is don't get hung up on whether or not the photograph looks "real enough" to you but consider it as a representation of the artist's vision, as something unique and special in its own right. If then you can say, "I love this!" So much the better. If not, well, that's honesty and there's no fault in that.