G Dan Mitchell Photography

I just received an email from “R,” who is a regular reader and commenter at this site. He told me that he has ordered the new Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II lens… and that he did so through the B&H Photo/Video link at the top of the left sidebar on this page.

I’m very grateful when readers do this since – at no additional cost to you – this returns a small percentage to this site and helps fund the costs of the blog. While I mostly post photographs here, I also post equipment write-ups about gear I’m familiar with, and I know that a number of site visitors come here for that reason. (By the way, when I order online I also go straight to B&H for my purchases.)

So, to “R,” thanks! I hope you enjoy that new lens – and I’m looking forward to your report on this new Canon lens.

G Dan Mitchell :: Mar.15.2010 :: Commentary, Site News :: No Comments »

Seems like the word for using Photoshop to “fake” an image might be “fauxtoshopping.” Just thinking outloud…

G Dan Mitchell :: Mar.09.2010 :: Commentary :: No Comments »

A reader asks:

I’m curious if you know the answer.  I don’t print very often so I’m not experienced with it.  I keep reading about noise in digital of course.  I also have read many remarks about noise not being visible in print under some conditions.  So I’m curious if there is a threshold.  For example, on the 5D2, what is the print size where noise becomes visible at a given ISO?  The 7D?  I realize that where it becomes objectionable may be subjective, but I thought it may be interesting to know when it is visible or invisible in print.

Let’s assume other technical details are handled well… good exposure, good focus, sharp lens, and no camera shake.

Thanks for writing. This is a great question and a subject that lots of people worry about. I’m not sure I know the answer, but I have an answer based on my own experience. The situation turns out to be a bit fuzzy in the end – in other words, if there is a threshold a number of factors could change your notions of where it might be. (I welcome comments from others who have experience to share.)

From reading photography discussions one could get the idea that image noise in digital photography is a terrible and limiting problem. Discussions often focus on questions like “which camera produces less noise?” and “how do I fix this noise problem.” We see 100% magnification crops of images in which noise is, indeed, quite visible. There are most certainly noise issues that we have to concern ourselves with, but all too often people get worked up over noise issues that are insignificant or even imperceptible – and which are often easy to resolve. Continue Reading »

G Dan Mitchell :: Mar.03.2010 :: Commentary :: 3 Comments »

I came across a couple of interesting videos of photographers on the web today.

The first is a wonderful video of Michael Kenna photographing in the snow in Hokkaido, Japan. The video is partly an interview, partly a visual narrative of Kenna at work, and partly a collection of interesting scenes and images associated with some of his photographs. There is a lot to think about and consider in the video, and it struck several chords for me. Among many was his use of the word “hunt” to describe the act of looking for and finding photographic images, and not perhaps just in the sense of tracking and capturing an image, but also, I think, related to the need to be patient and to understand the “quarry.” I often have thought about the “hunt” aspect of looking for subject. (Link originally seen at George Barr’s Behind the Lens blog.)

The second video is rather different but also features a very talented landscape photographer, Charlie Cramer. Unlike the slow moving and rather poetic video of Kenna with its long silent shots and occasional sparse music, this video interview (on the Marc Silber show)  is pretty “straight ahead” – basically a record of Charlie talking about his ubiquitous framing guide, a sheet of mat board with a 4 x 5 cutout that he uses to help him visual photographs while he is in the field. This is interesting and Charlie makes a compelling case for using this “tool.” (I’ve thought about it, but never “gone there.” Perhaps I will now…) More interesting to me were a few side comments that Charlie makes in the course of the interview. For one, he refers to the frame as a “blood pressure meter,” and suggests that he more or less “just knows” when a scene is going to work because when he views it in the frame he feels his blood pressure rises. (In another context he has spoken of hearing the scene whisper, “Take me!”) The point, I think (and forgive me if I have this wrong, Charlie!) is that all of the rules of composition in the world won’t help you that much in the end – essentially you need to be able to look at the subject and “just know” that it will work and how.

G Dan Mitchell :: Feb.10.2010 :: Commentary, Ideas, Photographers :: 3 Comments »

Earlier this winter I had evolved a plan to visit Death Valley earlier in the year than I usually do – I was planning on going later this week. However, as the season as unfolded it has turned out to be a very wet one in DEVA NP. According to reports (including this one) many roads are closed or washed out, including those to some of the places I was planning to visit. While the wet conditions also bring some special and unusual opportunities (including landscapes with reflections in ponds), at this point I’m going to hold off and reschedule my visit for the end of March.

By that time there is a good chance that more of the closed areas will have reopened. I have a hunch that this might also end up being a special year for wildflowers – and if I’m lucky I might manage to be there at right about the best time.

G Dan Mitchell :: Feb.09.2010 :: Commentary :: 4 Comments »

Michael Frye just posted the second in his weekly series of photograph critiques. It is no surprise that he offers insightful and relevant commentary of the photos, but I want to especially note the nature of his critiques.

A lot of what passes for photo criticism on web forums and elsewhere is less than wonderful stuff. I see all too many that fall into a couple of predictable and not very helpful categories. On one hand I see the shallow and quite meaningless one-liner comments: “Great work!” and “Stunning photo!” and “It sings” and the like are, of course, positive – but they provide very little to the photographer than a momentary warm feeling… which quickly when one realizes that the lack of depth in the responses suggests that the photograph didn’t really engage the viewer. On the other hand we see plenty of examples of the “let me tell you why you suck” school of criticism: these often inform the photographer than he/she ignorantly violated some “rule” of photography and can sometimes degenerate into little more than lists of “everything I can find to dislike in your work.” A lot of this stuff comes from people who honestly think that this is what “criticism” is supposed to be, but some of it comes from folks who should know better.

Given the prevalence of poor public critiquing, I’m especially grateful to Michael for demonstrating the features of good criticism. Some things you’ll note in his series: He begins by finding and acknowledging the admirable and interesting in the work being critiqued; he avoids the “this is wrong” or “you shouldn’t do that” commentary; he shares his reaction to the image, letting the photographer know how and why he responded to it; when he has a different idea he offers the alternative to the original artist rather than insisting; he illustrates what he might do differently; and he concludes by looping back to the positive aspects of his observations.

I’ve never had the opportunity to observe Michael lead a workshop, but if the approach he uses in the online critiques is any indication, I’ll bet that there is a lot to be learned from him at his workshops.

G Dan Mitchell :: Feb.05.2010 :: Commentary :: 2 Comments »

Shelter From the Rain, Getty Center

Shelter From the Rain, Getty Center. Los Angeles, California. December 30, 2009. © Copyright G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

Black and white photograph of four people sheltering from winter rain at the edge of a covered overlook at the Getty Center, Los Angeles, California.

I’ll confess to being a complete sucker for photographing at the Getty – I really love the place. The art is, of course, wonderful, and I especially enjoy the really fine photographic exhibits found there. In the recent past I saw both the Irving Penn and Edward Weston shows. But I’ve admitted more than once that the place itself is what intrigues me the most. The light is amazing and quite variable – I’ve been there on winter days when the ocean was visible and almost too bright to look at, and on rainy days when fog drifted among the buildings and through the gardens. The architecture is a great subject, but so are the people.

I was there most recently at the end of December, when we stopped on our way back from Southern California for an afternoon. My photographic interests are such that I was almost overjoyed when I saw that it would be rainy at the Getty and even happier when I found fog along the ridge top location. I posted some photographs from this visit earlier this year, and this one begins another short sequence of Getty Center images.

This photograph is not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Twitter | Friendfeed | Facebook | Facebook Fan Page | Email

keywords: getty, center, los angeles, california, usa, museum, winter, travel, urban, art, black and white, monochrome, four, people, couple, man, woman, umbrella, fence, sidewalk, railing, opening, roof, columns, structure, silhouette, reflection, shadow, mist, rain, cloud, weather, pattern, architecture, structure, light, garden, street, urban, stock, travel

G Dan Mitchell :: Feb.04.2010 :: Commentary :: No Comments »