G Dan Mitchell Photography

As if on cue, right after I posted my “Photographer versus Photoshopper” piece yesterday, in which I mentioned Adam’s “Moonrise…” photograph, I saw this wonderful video interview with Ansel Adams’ son Michael in which he offers a basic description of the extensive post-processing that Adams applied to the original negative to produce the print we know so well.

The interview also reminded me of another topic for the “Photographic Myths and Platitudes” series that I am thinking about, namely the claim that great photographers always carefully compose and consider their subjects before they trip the shutter. Sometimes they do, but quite often it is more a matter of “tripping” over the tripod as one scrambles to capture a moment of beauty that appeared unexpectedly and which may disappear any second if you don’t work quickly. Of course, well-developed technical and aesthetic instincts help when it comes to turning such a moment into a photograph.

G Dan Mitchell :: Jan.18.2010 :: Commentary, Ideas, Photographers, Technique :: 3 Comments »

Read enough online stuff about photography and you eventually begin to recognize certain “common knowledge” assumptions about photography that are frequently repeated, quoted, and stated as truths. Unfortunately, quite a few of them are, at best, personal opinions rather than facts, and a good number are just plain wrong. I have a couple of ideas for serial posts on this blog, and I’ve felt that occasionally dealing with some of these myths and platitudes might be one such thread. So, here goes.

On several occasions I’ve seen writers attempt to draw distinctions between “photographers” and “photoshoppers” – in fact I just saw another today. The underlying assumption seems to be that if you are really a “photographer” you’ll be able to do everything perfectly in-camera and won’t have to do anything in the “post-processing” stage, and that “photoshopping” is a form of non-photographic cheating or tweaking that only has the purpose of making a poor photograph less poor. Further, quite a few who hold this view attempt to build their case on photographic history, often suggesting that “Great Photographer X” fully and accurately “pre-visualized” the image in its finished form, carefully calculated composition and exposure in such a way that the final print would be inevitable, pressed the shutter release, and captured a perfect image that could not be improved in any way by further work.

Of course, with the exception of a few genres of and approaches to photography, this is generally nonsense both as history and as a practical description of how photography is done. Continue Reading »

G Dan Mitchell :: Jan.17.2010 :: Commentary, Technique :: 11 Comments »

Here is the answer to the questions I asked in the little experiment that I posted earlier today. (see “Experiment #1: What do you see?“)

Examples A and C are completely identical – two copies of the very same file. To be clear, there is literally no difference between them. One is a simple copy of the other file with a different name. Here is a 100% magnification crop from the source file used for A & C:

Example B came from a different source file. The blur was added to the original file in post, so it is uniform across the entire image both in the source file and in example B posted here. This source file was then converted to jpg in exactly the same way that the other file (e.g. – the other two examples) was converted. Here is a 100% magnification crop of the source image used for example B:

So, A and C are literally identical. B came from a source file that was so blurry that it looks like it was shot with a defective lens.

Thank you to all of you who took the challenge and looked long and hard at the  sample images. I have three more little tests planned for sometime in the near future.

Dan

G Dan Mitchell :: Dec.06.2009 :: Commentary, Equipment, Ideas, Technique :: 7 Comments »

Yesterday I posted a series of three images in a couple forums I frequent along with a request that a few people try a little experiment with them. Here it is for anyone else who would like to participate.

Below on this page are three images presented at a typical web viewing size. The question has to do with what you see when you look at them in your browser. (Please read some additional material further down that explains why you must only look at the photos in your browser for the purposes of this exercise.) Considering all aspects of the presentation of the images, in the end there are three possibilities:

1. all three images seem identical – e.g. there are no perceptible differences among them.
2. all three images seem different from one another – e.g. each is visibly unique.
3. two images seem identical but one seems unique – e.g. one is visibly different from the other two, and those two seem visibly identical

Before you give it a try, there are a few “conditions and warnings.”

• You could easily cheat by opening the files and looking at EXIF or other data. But don’t. Or if you cannot resist, please keep your observations to yourself. I’ll stipulate that you could find differences in file parameters by looking there – but that isn’t the point in this case.
• You should not assume that I am incapable of modifying EXIF and file size and so forth in ways designed to trick those who “cheat” and inspect the files directly. Nor should you assume that I have. Or that I have not. Or whatever… :-)
• The question is not “are they three separate exposures or one exposure,” so if, for example, you think that the water looks exactly the same in all three images that, in and of itself, isn’t relevant to the question – and your assumptions may or may not necessarily be correct.
• The question is not whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent photograph – I make no claims beyond the fact that it is used here as a test image.
• The question is not “what would they look like at 100% magnification?” Interesting question, but here the question is just about what you see in the images as presented.
• If you think that you see differences among them, the followup question concerns the nature of the visible differences. Note that the follow-up question is not “how might the differences have been produced?” Just describe what you think you see.
• There is no “point” inherent in the exercise, though when I explain more after getting some responses you might or might not draw some of your own conclusions. For now, just compare what you see.

(Follow-up observation. Having access to server logs, it is interesting for me to note the percentage of people who share a response versus the number of page views… ;-)

I have set this up so that clicking on each image will open it in a new window or tab – though it is a bit awkward in that you’ll need to manually return to this window after doing so. Once they are open in three tabs (best) or windows you can click between them to compare more carefully if you wish – but do stick to viewing them in your web browser since that is part of “the question.”

After viewing, leave a comment stating which option (1, 2, or 3) best describes what you see. In addition, if you select option 2 you might offer a brief explanation of differences you see. (Again, not analysis of downloaded files please! That isn’t the question and it spoils the “game” for other participants. ) If you select option 3 tell us which one is different from the other two and perhaps what you observe about the visual difference.

Here are the images (Click to open each in new windows if you would like – you’ll have to manually return to this window each time – or feel free to view them here “in line.”):

A.

B.

C.

Thanks for participating!

Dan

G Dan Mitchell :: Dec.06.2009 :: Equipment, Ideas, Technique, Tests :: 30 Comments »

I recently read (another) article suggesting that work done in the post-processing phase using digital tools lessens the value of the photograph and suggests that the photographer is less than competent or perhaps “cheating” – and that real photographers get it right “straight out of the camera.”

There is much more to say about this bizarre notion, but for now here is a little “thought experiment.”

In order to believe that image modification in digital post-processing is cheating or otherwise lessens the value of a photographer’s work as art, it seems to me that you would have to accept that a whole list of analogous traditional film photography techniques  must be equally wrong, including:

• use of filters
• use of swing, tilt, shift
• choosing a film based on its “personality” (One word: “Velvia”)
• dodging and burning
• selecting and/or altering film development methods in order to alter the image
• selecting different grades of paper for different prints
• using any focal length other than “normal” – whatever that means
• cropping
• spotting prints
• any use of artificial lighting or reflectors
• pre-exposing negatives
• the original USM technique done with negatives
• any corrections to the color balance of the original capture
• all black and white photography – as the world is never black and white

Of course, every one of these and more are standard stock in trade for photographers working with film and traditional darkroom techniques.

G Dan Mitchell :: Nov.07.2009 :: Commentary, Technique :: 14 Comments »

I just posted something elsewhere about how I sharpen for prints and I figured I’d get some extra mileage out of it by posting it here as well. A few disclaimers first, though:

• “Quick?” OK, the post is long. But there are whole books on sharpening, so by contrast I think this qualifies as a quick description. In fact, I’ve left a lot out of the description!
• There are people with far more expertise on this topic than I have and I have no illusions that this description represents the “right” way to do this, much less the “best” way!
  

The subject of how to sharpen photographs in post for print or electronic output is one that confuses many people… and a subject to which many books, online article, and forums posts have been devoted. There are any number of ways to get the desired results via sharpening, and different techniques are called for depending upon taste, the nature of the image, and the final form of presentation – size? print? jpg? etc…

Here is a very general description of what I do when I print. I’ve left some variations out of this description. The description also covers software that I use in my workflow – you might prefer something different, but you might still be able to adapt these ideas. You’ll note at least one controversial method later in the list, but try it before you dismiss it. The approach I use could well be “over-kill” if you just want to pump out a bunch of jpgs to share with friends and family or if you want to make some small prints – my end goal is good sized prints, and I work on each one rather carefully rather than mass-processing them and printing a bunch at one time.

And please understand that I’m most certainly not implying that my way is the right way. It works for me, and that people who view my prints often remark on their sharpness and detail. (And a few other things, too, I hope! :-)

Continue Reading »

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.15.2009 :: Technique :: 7 Comments »

I just posted a short piece at the California Nature Photographers blog concerning one approach to photographing fall aspen color: Aspens Close Up. (That blog is a group effort that includes contributions from a number of us who photograph the natural world in California – take a look and consider subscribing to the feed!)

G Dan Mitchell :: Oct.14.2009 :: Commentary, Ideas, Locations, Technique :: No Comments »