Category Archives: Technique

Equipment, Ideas, Technique, Tests

Experiment #1: What do you see?

37 Comments

(Update July 30, 2011: Since the original test was published quite a while ago, I have added this link to the outcome of this test. Of course, if you want to give the test a try yourself, you should read the whole article, try answering the questions, and only after that come back here to follow the link to find out how your response compares.)

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… ;-)

(Note on 9/10/11: Especially on flat-panel monitors, the position of the image on the screen may create visible differences that are not in the source images. Try to view the samples in the same location on your screen to avoid being misled by this. Once you make your observations and read comments here and in the follow-up post, you may see that others noticed and commented on this.)

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

Commentary, Technique

If ‘Photoshopping’ is Cheating

13 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.

Technique

How I Sharpen – An Overview

7 Comments

(I originally wrote this article way back in 2009. Some portions were revised in February 2019 to reflect changes to sharpening tools and some different ideas I have developed regarding sharpening settings. It was updated and modified again in 2023.)

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. First, few disclaimers…

  • The title of this article originally referred to a “quick overview.” Clearly, it is too long for that! 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 articles, 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 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 How I Sharpen – An Overview →

Commentary, Ideas, Locations, Technique

‘Aspens Close Up’ at California Nature Photographers Blog

Leave a comment

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!)