tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50849150600921286472024-03-16T03:09:38.408+02:00Photo Writing - Exploring Photography.Photography technique, writing and workshops by professional photographer Emil von MaltitzEmil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.comBlogger379125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-50041288084137249392024-03-11T14:49:00.001+02:002024-03-11T14:49:32.529+02:00 Nikon bought RED. Say what? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDiODru3I3ZpMNXUJrkmz7G50205j8sY_5A5E2k5eF2ms7gsByoEWcuUxMyIGN-YRjF5v12gbuyf8dM9Qq1P0hs8Qte5hDUycHI4MLK-VLReLH9JAan_fTh8FaRgucijijy8CgtfM5OudX6Q7W-3ShF6xKe4wQbQspjLr36ZvSsf3vSD6wfEkErKcddgPE/s738/Nikon%20buys%20RED.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="738" height="416" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDiODru3I3ZpMNXUJrkmz7G50205j8sY_5A5E2k5eF2ms7gsByoEWcuUxMyIGN-YRjF5v12gbuyf8dM9Qq1P0hs8Qte5hDUycHI4MLK-VLReLH9JAan_fTh8FaRgucijijy8CgtfM5OudX6Q7W-3ShF6xKe4wQbQspjLr36ZvSsf3vSD6wfEkErKcddgPE/w640-h416/Nikon%20buys%20RED.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: left;">Yup, as of the the 7th March 2024 Nikon and RED have signed an agreement that RED will be 100% purchased by Nikon corporation. Of course this means that the internet world of photography has exploded, both with memes and opinions. There’s a fair amount to unpack here. Naturally the inclination by the overreactive internet is that this is the death of RED as we know it (well, yes, actually that is true, but not in the sense that the camera is going to disappear and the world come crashing down in flames), and that we are all bereft of an awesome cinema camera line. It’s also true that Arri are probably popping champagne bottles and crowing that they are now peerless and firmly on the top of the heap…or not. This is where I think Nikon have actually been quite astute.<br /></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p style="text-align: left;"><br />In case you have been living under a stills photography rock for the last 19 years, RED - started by Jim Jannard in 2005 (who was also the founder of Oakley sunglasses) - has been a seismic upheaval for camera tech in the film industry. I remember writing in the Photo Writing newsletter years ago (2008) about RED’s bold claims with their RED One modular camera (which interestingly enough had a marketing image at the time with a Nikon Ais lens up front). At the time time they were touting the stills possibilities of the then nascent camera system. This obviously was sidelined almost immediately, but the camera has come to be an incredible, and comparatively affordable tool in the high-end cinematography world. In fact the rise of RED is claimed to be a large part of why Panavision and Arri decided to stop making analog cine cameras. As some commentators now point out, the big three in Hollywood are currently, Arri, RED and nipping at their heels is Sony. <br /><br />So in theory you’d assume that RED is doing pretty well. Why on earth would they want to sell to Nikon then? Naturally some readers would be befuddled by the fact that this follows pretty close on the lawsuit that RED instigated against Nikon for supposedly infringing RED’s video compression patents. This was eventually settled out of court, but this took place literally less than a year ago. What on earth happened behind those closed doors?<br /><br />I am going to look at it from Nikon’s point of view. Jim Jannard is first and foremost a marketing guru. He founded Oakley and then sold it. He founded RED…but didn’t sell it. He handed over the curatorship in 2013 to Jarred Land who is the current CEO. Jannard is an entrepreneur (his first product was actually a motorcycle grip that wicked sweat from the rider’s hand while in use). So it seems almost natural that he would sell the company that he founded. Jannard and Land were the main shareholders in RED prior to the sale to Nikon. <br /><br />A few years ago Nikon made a statement about how they wanted to become a relevant feature in the film industry again. A lot of photographers might not realise, but Nikon was a player in Hollywood in the 80’s and 90’s, but in the lenses that were in front of the Arri’s and Bolex’s. Year’s ago. When I was teaching photography at a volunteer outfit in Northern KZN, I had a camera operator from Los Angeles attend the course, and she a had a full set of geared Nikon manual focus lenses. She explained how these old lenses were still sought after, particularly by independent film-makers. Big blockbusters tended to be shot on Cooke, Zeiss or Angenieux (and remains the case for the most part). Until a few years ago at least Nikon lenses continued to be widely used by a number of camera operators ad directors in the film industry. Part of the reason was they were excellent manual focus lenses with long focus throws, so fitted very nicely onto the small camera systems coming into vogue, like RED’s. <br /><br />Apart from independent usage of lenses, Nikon sort of drifted away from the film industry. Canon aggressively entered the film-making space in the late 90’s and the result is that a whole host of cine cameras and high end camcorders ended up coming out in two mounts: PL and Canon EF. PL, which stands for Positive Lock, is an extremely durable mount that can hold very heavy lenses. Most true cine cameras come with PL mount as their native mount. PL mount does not support autofocus incidentally - manual focus still being predominant in just about all serious film-making. The EF mount has in some ways become synonymous with smaller independent films thanks to the more run-and-gun style of high-end video camera (or camcorder) that Canon introduced from the 90’s onwards. Just about every local film-maker I know from my student days trained on cameras like the Canon Canon L-1 (a Hi-8 system) and then later the XL-1 MiniDV camera which was a three chip digital version of the 8mm L-1 (the horror film ’28 Days’ had a number of scenes - particularly the street scenes of London - shot on an XL-1). <br /><br />The company that interestingly gives us some idea of where Nikon is going with this is Sony. Sony bought out Minolta in everything but name in 2006. At the time Minolta was sort of tied with Pentax as the defacto #3 in camera manufacturers (behind the big two; Canon and Nikon). Sony made some very bold claims that a lot of people scoffed at, saying they planned to be the dominant camera manufacturer within a few years. Depending on which metric you use to calculate Sony have very much begun to dominate the photographic industry now. At any rate Sony dismantled Minolta almost in its entirety. It gutted the knowledge and technology that it needed (autofocus, exposure controls, camera design, industry leads and contacts, patents and lenses) and sold the rest off as detritus (including the name which is now associated with copy/scanners). Sony’s aggressive stance towards high-end filmmaking has also not gone unnoticed by the likes of Nikon. Currently Sony is pretty much in the top three when it comes to cameras used on set, with Arri and RED ahead of it. From my own anecdotal evidence (ie filmmakers I know in South Africa), it would be Sony, then RED, simply because the Sony is more accessible and a whole lot cheaper. Following that would be Canon (maybe BlackMagic) and Nikon doesn’t even feature. Which is a shame for Nikon as the Z9 and now Z8 are truly impressive hybrid cameras. <br /><br />So how do you leverage your way into an industry where there are already some serious heavyweights playing? You do exactly as Sony did with Minolta…you buy one of those heavyweights. As evidenced by RED’s litigation against Nikon last year, Nikon was already testing the waters and trying hard to get into the video and film industries as more than just an amateur hour camcorder manufacturer. Now, with serious glass kudos coming out of the new Z lenses, a large manufacturing and distribution machine, as well as excellent sensor design, it kinda makes sense that Nikon would want to make life easier for themselves by absorbing a smaller company and essentially ingesting said company’s patents and knowledge. If Nikon does this right, it could be quite an exciting period for filmmakers (so long as they can swallow their bias). <b><br /></b></p>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-89483021283989458142022-09-20T08:33:00.000+02:002022-09-20T08:33:49.513+02:00The Price of Photography<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjZtE9dUUza0O3_gvW_KVyCacU4xlakQl5uNugJ9em4TVb01mCiJxeG7IaNSxDDoUr6kiF_naEM-ckEVYPNW90nA-B0m2bDQLndWnUegGxOgWdc0gpeqwi_X6zSqenXgqbIZBAhWuN1hDQA74LHEUW46ldJyGhrethC7UCoDEGqjCtDchuiVb-oTbGDg/s900/The%20Price%20of%20Photography.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The Price of Photography" border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjZtE9dUUza0O3_gvW_KVyCacU4xlakQl5uNugJ9em4TVb01mCiJxeG7IaNSxDDoUr6kiF_naEM-ckEVYPNW90nA-B0m2bDQLndWnUegGxOgWdc0gpeqwi_X6zSqenXgqbIZBAhWuN1hDQA74LHEUW46ldJyGhrethC7UCoDEGqjCtDchuiVb-oTbGDg/s16000/The%20Price%20of%20Photography.png" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of late I’ve found that I’m simply not as interested in equipment as I used to be. GAS seems to be less of a thing. It’s not that I have transcended to some higher plain of photography where the image is more important that the gear that is being used. That would be a good thing of course. No, the reason GAS escapes more and more, comes down to the fact that everything is just so darn expensive these days. <br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><p style="text-align: justify;">The commonly received wisdom tends toward the idea that consumer goods (and cameras have been consumer goods for a very long time) come down in value over the years and become more accessible to more people. When a new technology first emerges the entry price to that tech is exorbitantly high. As the the R & D costs are recovered, that same technology filters down into more mass accessible products. The tumble in price of CD and then DVD sound and video devices twenty years ago is a good example, as is the cost of personal computing devices in the early 2000s. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not anymore though. I stumbled across a thread in another photography related sight where someone was complaining of the apparent increase in prices across the board of what were once consumer items, but are increasingly becoming niche or luxury items. Cameras, particularly the cameras that are currently being announced and pushed on the internet seem to fall into this sphere. Interestingly so too do a number of laptops and computers as well. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Again, the usual received wisdom is that the ‘dollar’ value of an item will increase in time based on currency and inflation, but that the intrinsic value should stay constant. So, in theory, something purchased in 1995 costing X amount, should cost X+inflation if bought new today. In theory. So I took a look at some of the camera categories that I have followed over the years and their apparent dollar value (I’ll stick to dollars as the South African Rand, where I live, is such a Mickey Mouse currency that it is difficult to track pricing over the decades as it gets pounded by investor sentiment continuously, throwing any concept of inflation on a more than micro scale completely out of whack). <br /><br />It’s very difficult to make apples to apples comparisons as technology does indeed change over time. However we can look at basic categories. I entered the Digital world with the Nikon D200 camera. At the time the US list price of the camera was $1700. In 2005 this was quite a lot of money. The D200 was also considered as something of a mini D2x, much like the D300 was to the D3, and the D500 was to the D5. If we were just to add inflation to the D200 you could assume that it would cost around $2300 in 2022 (I actually got figures between $2346 and $2316 using online inflation calculators). The D500 was launched in 2016 for a list price of $1999. This actually tracks really well with inflation as the D200 with inflation would have cost around $2080. So far so good actually. <br /><br />The introductory price of the D700 in 2008 was $2999. With inflation that would come to roughly $3700 today (rounded down a bit). Good news here is that the Z6, the then entry level mirrorless camera from Nikon sold for $1999. That’s great! That means things are getting cheaper right? Except the D700 was not considered entry-level by any stretch of the imagination. The D700 begat the D800, which begat the D810, which begat the D850…whose not quite equivalent mirrorless sibling is the Z7, which was introduced at $3999! Ah, not quite the same then after all. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The thing is, if you are a photographer working with a particular kind of camera, and you are wanting to upgrade to the newer model, you are unlikely to want to downgrade to a model that has fewer features than the one you are using. You essentially want to keep up with some of the advances in technology/imaging/optics. I am hearing more and more from amateur photographers (along with a number of professionals) that this is becoming more and more difficult. Yes there are the outliers such as the Nikon Z9 which have been very aggressively priced. The more typical movement though is upward in price. <br /><br />Canon are interesting because their pricing seems to yoyo all over the place. The venerable 5D line of cameras is a good case in point: <br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmJm3IEgLxLe2n_3bBfLST4gOw6TBqSbBgMAAnYQORSbUq7_kekq_kztX68N2_oPOPgVQskFOKt69KocU4tD2FkrNMr8S7xCounQmOspfpkJEOqSYfsb8cqgD-0etrbr_052AJyLtw88Va44qYzDnnCK1lV_y56zo_yMPN5msHX2rUJeyTfS6Mxfktiw/s1244/Screenshot%202022-09-19%20at%2017.51.45.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Canon Pricing over the years" border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="1244" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmJm3IEgLxLe2n_3bBfLST4gOw6TBqSbBgMAAnYQORSbUq7_kekq_kztX68N2_oPOPgVQskFOKt69KocU4tD2FkrNMr8S7xCounQmOspfpkJEOqSYfsb8cqgD-0etrbr_052AJyLtw88Va44qYzDnnCK1lV_y56zo_yMPN5msHX2rUJeyTfS6Mxfktiw/w640-h222/Screenshot%202022-09-19%20at%2017.51.45.png" width="640" /></a><br /><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The R6 is not the 5D. In essence the R6 is to the R5 much like the 6D was to the 6D. Most 5D users tend to gravitate towards the R5 despite the fact that the two R cameras are very similar. So here it seems, despite the steep increase of price, that the Canon R5 tracks almost identically with inflation. If anything, the Canon small body pro-level cameras have actually come down in price since the introductory price of what was a new category of camera with the original 5D was actually really high. The introductory price of the 5Dmkii was extraordinary because it was so much lower than that of the original 5D. The jump 4 years later to the mkiii was way above inflation, but then Canon locked the same introductory price in for the mkiv. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the most part then it would seem that the cameras have actually held to inflation. Is this the case across the board? If you look at the Leica M8, something of an aspirational product, it hasn’t tracked with inflation at all. The M8 was launchd in 2006 as the first Digital M camera. It had an introductory list price of $5000. Today, that would be $6598 if we just added inflation. Except the newly launched M11 costs a whopping $8995. That’s over $2000 higher than the inflationary price of the model. Look, Leica was never an affordable brand to start with, but it’s getting ludicrous. As another example of Leica excess, the Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH cost $3195 in 2014 (not a small amount of money by any stretch of the imagination). The new APO version of the lens was launched last year (2021) for a staggering $8195! I had to check that it wasn’t an April fool’s joke. If inflation were the only accumulative, the lens should be in the region of $3600. The argument of course is that there is now an included Apochromatic element in the lens design (which apparently justifies the $5000 increase). <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Here’s the rub…the manufactures often feature pump the product to make an elevated price tag appear justified. The feature creep takes an already expensive product and makes it that much pricier….at a time when incomes are not matching their historical equivalents (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/). It isn’t just perception. Things are actually more expensive based on earning power today. The camera manufacturers are also slowly scaling back from the entry-level cameras in order to pursue more expensive premium products. However the R&D for these premium products used to be subsidised by the sales of the cheaper entry level kit. Basically the cow that is the premium product is going to be milked that much more…expect even higher prices for the kit that you want. <br /><br />The above is all based on available information on the internet, but has a bias towards Europe and America, where most camera sites and equipment tend to be sold and marketed (the Asian market is a special place unto itself to a point that camera trends can be completely different and some equipment never even crosses the Pacific to the ‘West’). I’m not American, nor European. I’m that strange animal called a South African, or Saffer, which means that living on the southern tip of the African continent produces an economic double whammy towards the price of photography. Not only is the measly Rand currency battered by the Dollar and the Euro, we usually pay insanely high importation fees and taxes. On average , when currency exchange is taken into account, South African photographic and tech equipment is about 20 percent to a third more expensive than the same equipment in the US (as an example the Nikon Z7ii which is currently $2996 at B&H Photo in New York, the same camera is marketed at $3943 in South Africa, although we are currently seeing ‘specials’ for $3310 - Similarly the Canon R5 is sold for $3899 in the US, but $4325 in South Africa) . On top of all this the median income is significantly lower than our European and American counterparts (the argument against this is that the cost of living is so much lower in South Africa - an argument that is rapidly falling apart as our genie co-efficient becomes even steeper as costs rise and income diminishes…people reading this are the lucky ones as an increasingly discouraged workforce literally exits the job market for lack of opportunities, or as a respondent to a newspaper put it, it is more expensive to travel to work than the money that is earned at work). <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So is enthusiast photography getting more expensive? The answer, as noted above isn’t exactly clear-cut and obvious. In some respects photographic equipment is staying at the same price level based on inflation (outliers like Leica excluded). Camera manufacturers try to introduce new features in order to justify price increases, but arguably it is getting cheaper to produce the same ‘image quality’ images than before (it just costs more if you want to stay current or even moderately current with technology). <br /><br />Finally there is the value of the image itself. If equipment is tracking steadily with inflation, the value of imagery is most certainly not keeping pace. Professionals have been looking at steadily declining incomes for their photography for the last 20 years. The maxim ‘adapt’ or die has always been applicable to photography because of its tenuous connection to technology which moves inexorably onward. Yet now it seems to be that much more precarious for photographers. New AI technology moves the bar once again, meaning that obtaining well paid work as a photographer is becoming increasingly difficult, with an image consuming public that expects more and more for less and less. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7VXlZMYB32GJltry5pxhQYuDRT-teTGz1mXkJBW-YC4Z9rnhdy2UpfjCBh7gT5ENozawDvqXeNPN1oXC66Q4JnCxJc2EHa89KOyJDTabyKVTatPf3DwpK8G6A0E8g3UPVGLAwC4PLyRW68hLEliiXpa9MsoO01vTWilW1IIS9wOa_oNxw8SvT5dkIoQ/s1349/2207-31-063-Kubu%20Island-EvM-Star%20stack%201%20copy%202.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1349" data-original-width="900" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7VXlZMYB32GJltry5pxhQYuDRT-teTGz1mXkJBW-YC4Z9rnhdy2UpfjCBh7gT5ENozawDvqXeNPN1oXC66Q4JnCxJc2EHa89KOyJDTabyKVTatPf3DwpK8G6A0E8g3UPVGLAwC4PLyRW68hLEliiXpa9MsoO01vTWilW1IIS9wOa_oNxw8SvT5dkIoQ/w426-h640/2207-31-063-Kubu%20Island-EvM-Star%20stack%201%20copy%202.png" width="426" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It all seems so very depressing. Then I look at a recent photograph I created while leading a workshop to Kubu Island in Botswana. 20 Years ago, hell 10 years ago, this image simply wouldn’t have been possible. I photographed it with a camera and lens that is are nearing 5 years in age. Yes, technology has moved rapidly forward and everyone is going gaga over new camera’s and glass, BUT any equipment of the last decade is capable of images that we could only dream of at the turn of the century. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time there is such an enormous uptake in photography as art, and appreciation of photography within a burgeoning international community of creators, that one can’t help but feel inspired for the medium. So yes, things are expensive. They are likely to get even more so. My loss of GAS doesn’t exactly help the camera manufacturers, but I am happy to say that it’s nice to get to know what I already have, and learn to use it to its best abilities. <br /></p><br />Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-89175321815943401132022-04-11T07:53:00.000+02:002022-04-11T07:53:37.909+02:00The Catharsis of Photography<span style="font-size: medium;">
<br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkTUh0KLmPw8eGhPFc3MTQHigBTOHHrGWqWxeFMXqQsRF6EMH4NXy8YkwrBwoSt3NVcBKsIFfTr-QOIjyHWCboVZ1lavFGDT2CfXtAnVxyqyw3Uac9XjZkBP-ZTOKROs0S9mPVEPPweU-Z41rzbLF17Wtvx8PPZs8tNXbOD0EhVEtG1t09kwn1ZBRKtQ/s900/2203-28-0155-Maletsunyane%20Gorge-EvM-Pano-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Maletsunyane Falls in Lesotho" border="0" data-original-height="430" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkTUh0KLmPw8eGhPFc3MTQHigBTOHHrGWqWxeFMXqQsRF6EMH4NXy8YkwrBwoSt3NVcBKsIFfTr-QOIjyHWCboVZ1lavFGDT2CfXtAnVxyqyw3Uac9XjZkBP-ZTOKROs0S9mPVEPPweU-Z41rzbLF17Wtvx8PPZs8tNXbOD0EhVEtG1t09kwn1ZBRKtQ/s16000/2203-28-0155-Maletsunyane%20Gorge-EvM-Pano-1.jpg" title="Maletsunyane Falls in Lesotho" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br /><br />
</span><div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;">Certain types of photography offer the practitioner something more than the act of creating an aesthetic image. Reading Susan Sontag’s “On Photography”, it is interesting to note that she sees the act of photography as something possessive, sometimes distancing, the result aesthetic or instrumental. The view is particularly cynical at times where she paints a dystopia-like world where the camera is a controlling force on people. Apart from the alarming levels of surveillance that she considers and which have become very much a fact of life post 9/11, there is the mind numbing mundanity that the all pervasive camera-phone has created. There isn’t a single thing or object that is not photographed now. It tends to be done without thought apart from the simple purpose to record and disseminate. But the photography created by this snap-shot culture is all about the product or result of the camera, and very little critical thought goes into the action.
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><a name='more'></a></span>
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Obviously, as a photographer, the end result - a finished print- is pretty much the goal of any picture-taking exercise. There is something more to nature photography in particular than simply creating art though. Alfred Stieglitz, arguably one of the most influential photographers in having photography recognized as art, commented that the [final] image should reflect what the photographer saw and felt’. It’s the aesthetic emotional experience that ultimately influences the photographer and is the basis for creative inspiration. Interpreting this into an image is possibly the most difficult task that the photographer can undertake. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Landscape and nature photography lend themselves towards an idyllic view of he world. Much like the romanticist painters many, if not most, nature photographers wish to portray a world unsullied by humankind. When there is interaction it is either shown as mutually beneficial or as the opposite extreme to indicate how we should strive for the unsullied world once more. Since nature photographers tend towards the aesthetically beautiful more often than not, they ultimately are emotionally influenced by that beauty.</span></div><div class="p3"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div class="p3"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu-S4Uv4ZgGoTjtj4kAiZQzemRVHaKhWL8UzQLk-GAXU2w4wwnfEbidGyjdhNtYqUpt49Nt0Fd2ogdkfMbb6qD-mTDpW-svl52he_F8RMMjCQgUx0aubXlO2pVBxqeAIVprcnaMzPjowOuhBNoz8AjTjVUc4ZqGWNezg8TjAVq6ZsYiOWB-CyKGMdtEQ/s900/2203-26-064-Ramatsilisos-EvM.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu-S4Uv4ZgGoTjtj4kAiZQzemRVHaKhWL8UzQLk-GAXU2w4wwnfEbidGyjdhNtYqUpt49Nt0Fd2ogdkfMbb6qD-mTDpW-svl52he_F8RMMjCQgUx0aubXlO2pVBxqeAIVprcnaMzPjowOuhBNoz8AjTjVUc4ZqGWNezg8TjAVq6ZsYiOWB-CyKGMdtEQ/s16000/2203-26-064-Ramatsilisos-EvM.jpg" /></a> <br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Early on in my photographic career while still at university, a friend of mine was fairly adept at reading my yo-yoing moods, so commonly found amongst the youth. He hit on the simple solution of dragging me away from town to the nearest location where we could set up tripods and shoot. The experience always left me with a profound sense of catharsis. The very act of going out into nature to create imagery was an act of meditation in itself. A colleague of mine, Nick van de Wiel (who prompted me to write this article), calls it the “Zen of photography”. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
It’s not just that spending time in nature forces the photographer to become relaxed. I’ve seen plenty of students and novice photographers (even some ‘professionals’ get agitated and stressed during a shoot, particularly when things aren’t going their way. Once we get past the technical and start concentrating on the aesthetic, it is possible to be influenced by the subject matter itself. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
As a nature photographer, becoming absorbed by the details, is almost commonplace. Walking around a waterfall, the photographer notices more than the average tourist would. They become absorbed in the scene. Heaven forbid that the master photographer would photograph said waterfall, “because it’s pretty”. Rather, they attempt to convey their emotions regarding the scene into a two-dimensional pictorial interpretation that is the photograph. Back to what Stieglitz preached on the photographer reflecting through the image what they see and feel in the real world. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
There is a dark side to the double edged sword that is the subject influencing the photographer though. Consider the work of Don McCullin, Larry Burrows and the South African photographers Greg Marinovich and Kevin Carter (of <i>Bang Bang</i> <i>Club</i> fame). Don McCullin’s contemporary landscape work is dark and brooding. Possibly he doesn’t know how to photograph otherwise, but equally possibly his years photographing human conflict have altered his perception on the world. Marinovich introspectively comments on the negative effect that photographing violence has on him in his book, <i>‘The Bang Bang Club’</i>. Both the book and subsequent movie also lend the view that the nature of the photographic subject contributed to Kevin Carter’s drug abuse, mental breakdown and subsequent suicide. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div class="p2">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="p2"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAh6sislNIeTTLBDXtOdfKQmHf1UOdx-AxTXe5PB6_H0Qb6xpXEaSykAqCqWgDNGBtfshu3-odNOZwc-T0ipptZfvkG0kRtmRJU8gSF20DBd3rslO_jpCh3RnjI1hJ91IkVq23p8w5JLETcEj-l78-rIiLK8nqbND4oOhTiMtS8T8ODjovLBhDGuwa4A/s900/2203-28-0006-Maletsunyane%20Gorge-EvM-Pano.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="434" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAh6sislNIeTTLBDXtOdfKQmHf1UOdx-AxTXe5PB6_H0Qb6xpXEaSykAqCqWgDNGBtfshu3-odNOZwc-T0ipptZfvkG0kRtmRJU8gSF20DBd3rslO_jpCh3RnjI1hJ91IkVq23p8w5JLETcEj-l78-rIiLK8nqbND4oOhTiMtS8T8ODjovLBhDGuwa4A/s16000/2203-28-0006-Maletsunyane%20Gorge-EvM-Pano.jpg" title="Maletsunyane gorge" /></a></span>
</div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">A good photographer is able to portray an emotive feeling in a photograph. If what we shoot conveys successfully some or other emotion to the viewer, then surely that emotion was felt in some way by the photographer. If the image of the landscape is calming, there is a fair chance that the landscape itself was calming on the photographer. If the image is harrowing, then it’s fair to assume that at some stage that harrowing image is going to have an effect on the psyche of the photographer. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
That effect could potentially be translated in their later work (<i>ala</i> McCullin). Alternatively the emotional state that the photographer is in when they approach the subject can also end up influencing their photographic interpretation. Photography shares this trait with poetry. If the photographer is feeling sombre, the imagery she creates will be susceptible to reflect that mood. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Does all of this translate into meaningful pictures? A commercial photographer might struggle if they put too much of themselves into the imagery they create. This is certainly the case if they are relatively unknown as a photographic artist. After all, if a car manufacturer asks a photographer to create an image of their latest automotive finery, they don’t want the fact that the photographer has had too little coffee that morning, or had an argument with their partner, to reflect in the image. But, and this is a big but, if that photographer can convey an emotion to the potential viewer of that image, one that is positive in it’s emotive intention, then they have succeeded in creating a meaningful image. Which brings us full circle to the difficulty of photographing something so that it conveys what is ‘seen and felt’. </span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW7bV5igCM5RLBRp25fle-RX2x27-3A5a7rswe7x5idN18QupJgZdf1cNfYweKluknb88pxeo9tAAKCrjNactqszeM1Tsd1lYvpsXrJ6_F2lllt_Z5UxUmjm-Gqc9OJtj0Gu9Y744CbOIlUnYuEWd75KiDp1lF4lFjmzvGOVIvpgH5_1QyluYk99zIwg/s900/2112-15-748-Subaru%20Forester-EvM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="521" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW7bV5igCM5RLBRp25fle-RX2x27-3A5a7rswe7x5idN18QupJgZdf1cNfYweKluknb88pxeo9tAAKCrjNactqszeM1Tsd1lYvpsXrJ6_F2lllt_Z5UxUmjm-Gqc9OJtj0Gu9Y744CbOIlUnYuEWd75KiDp1lF4lFjmzvGOVIvpgH5_1QyluYk99zIwg/s16000/2112-15-748-Subaru%20Forester-EvM.jpg" title="Subaru Forester for Subaru south Africa" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My background as a landscape photographer coming through in an image shot for the Subaru Forester launch campaign in south Africa in 2021<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span></div><div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
If you are moved by what you see and feel, Chances are your images will move those who see them. The cynic in me (the commercial photographer part) says that if you don’t feel it, fake it. For artists unencumbered by the requirements of the client, or who are lucky enough to be hired because of their [possibly emotive] style, creating images that are representative of the aesthetic emotional experience is a goal that gives more back to the photographer than they pull from the subject in the first place. Hence, the potential catharsis of photography. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-8803250517923812192022-02-16T15:31:00.000+02:002022-02-16T15:31:23.156+02:00A Question of Ownership - copyrighting of ideas in photography<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhGl46lOc5PO_XMEy9quZwcuLACvlK8zq2v4TKR6d-oazUuIDnRrXxNiMHfJ4vm1n2pwoLJZON7LNoky3OKFQ4Bs4NVT5RiEGk6sCSeiGanrshMiCTQ9MF3kcySLW4m-f07ldDiIb9LJYl4DrQvGf0030R4gESO_scOWJ7tex8W1C6AeV6AxaxNW2QkkQ=s900" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="644" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhGl46lOc5PO_XMEy9quZwcuLACvlK8zq2v4TKR6d-oazUuIDnRrXxNiMHfJ4vm1n2pwoLJZON7LNoky3OKFQ4Bs4NVT5RiEGk6sCSeiGanrshMiCTQ9MF3kcySLW4m-f07ldDiIb9LJYl4DrQvGf0030R4gESO_scOWJ7tex8W1C6AeV6AxaxNW2QkkQ=s16000" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My version of the controversial 'red bus'...hopefully I won't be sued over it ;)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
Owning property is a relatively simple thing. If I buy a camera it belongs to me. Proof of my ownership is exhibited in the form of a receipt from the company or person that I bought it from. Admittedly as the ‘thing’ becomes older the receipt as proof becomes less and less important and it’s simply taken as a given that this property belongs to me. If someone takes that camera from me without my consent, the law in just about every part of the world is fairly clear in that the person is a thief and has stolen the camera from me. For some types of property we continuously pay dues that confirm our ownership of that property (think of rates and taxes on our homes). Either way, the physical object has a definite owner. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
</div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />The thing about material property though is that it is an object that can be easily transferred to a different owner. I cannot cut a vehicle in half and share it. I have to outright pass it on. In other words, only one person at a time can ‘own’ that property (yes there are corporations and such, but for now let’s consider the simple idea of ownership). The idea behind the car and it’s various bits of equipment though, is a different matter entirely. Who is said to ‘own’ those? Can Ford turn around and say that the idea of mass producing vehicles is theirs and anybody else who uses a production line for automotive manufacture is stealing the idea from them?<br />
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />There is a brilliant article on plagiarism by Malcolm Gladwell entitled ‘<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130114152902/http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_11_25_a_borrowed.html">Something Borrowed- Should a Charge of Plagiarism Ruin Your Life</a>?’ (Republished in ‘What The Dog Saw’). The piece concentrates on the theoretical ownership of phrases and words (and the near impossibility of claiming ownership), but uses patent laws and the concept of intellectual property rights as a starting point. Being an author and creator he almost naturally begins the argument as the aggrieved, the person who has had work ‘stolen’ from him. However, he ultimately looks how one person’s original work can be transcended by the second person’s interpretation of that work. I’d urge any photographer who is interested in copyright to read this article (of which the full article is <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130114152902/http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_11_25_a_borrowed.html">linked</a> above) as it presents a compelling argument for leniency in certain types of copyright. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />A recent copyright case, sometimes referred to as the ‘Red Bus Case’ in the UK has highlighted the concern around the ownership of an idea. In this case a company, Temple Island Collections Limited, sued another company, New England Teas, for copying an image that Temple Island Collections used on souvenirs. The images in question were of a red double decker bus, iconic to London, crossing Westminster Bridge with Big Ben in the background. Strikingly, the image is black and white except for the red double decker bus. <a href="http://www.swanturton.com/multimedia/docs/Temple%20Island%20v%20New%20English%20photographs.pdf">The images</a> are certainly similar, but the problem presented; is the second image used by New England Teas a direct copy of the original image, or is it just a copy of the idea? (See this article in the <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/534352/photographers-face-copyright-threat-after-shock-ruling">Amateur Photographer</a> for more details). </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Personally, I think the judge in the Red Bus Case, Justin Birss, went a step too far, and this is where I come back to Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell’s article revolves around a play, Frozen, which draws a large portion of its inspiration from a previous article that he had written about a criminal psychologist and her professional relationship with a serial killer. The playwright bases the story’s lead character on the psychologist that Gladwell interviews and writes about. After initial anger at the theft of some of the words and phrases that Gladwell himself had coined, he begins to look deeper into the sharing of ideas through intertextuality. Writers grab ideas from each other. They don’t just get inspired. They outright copy and steal. I distinctly remember my English Professor, Prof Paul Walters, during a philosophy of literature lecture banging his fist into the flat of his other hand and crying, “there is no such thing as originality!” As Gladwell argues, can he truly claim ownership of words?</span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
</div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBrnO1kTf_BouDqraF4n9FQzyJxBDHPfFnNBTef70ftmBCXnK8QqDIdE7t8Oq8a2iWoc68MhHQLzwzHv7O4hA9M2QU8CWH5RknFLF5pTNEREMMO-bTGkv2iMLMWYCygc2XEfyrwkqRScFhqjByhqi4V-vmfu6CjrSpvnEP1Zez-8FL40dE8DXI_6eOqQ=s900" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Allee de Baobab" border="0" data-original-height="374" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBrnO1kTf_BouDqraF4n9FQzyJxBDHPfFnNBTef70ftmBCXnK8QqDIdE7t8Oq8a2iWoc68MhHQLzwzHv7O4hA9M2QU8CWH5RknFLF5pTNEREMMO-bTGkv2iMLMWYCygc2XEfyrwkqRScFhqjByhqi4V-vmfu6CjrSpvnEP1Zez-8FL40dE8DXI_6eOqQ=s16000" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Just because I create an image that I think is new does not make it new. As far as I know this view of the Allee de Baobab was relatively unknown when I shot it. It was selected several years ago in an international competition. since then I have seen variations of the same view. This isn't to say that I was first (I'm fairly certain I wasn't), but I certainly have no rights to claiming authorship of a particular view...or stylistic choice for that matter.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
</div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />The idea of intertextuality is that one artistic work can refer to another, deepening the meaning of the one work through the knowledge of the first. Some artists use intertextuality playfully, while others build on the work of those that came before them. Sticking with the former, the novelist <a href="http://www.jasperfforde.com/">Jasper Fforde</a> explicitly constructs his science-fiction stories based on intertextuality. Many of the characters come from other stories, only, he builds upon the character, creating a fictional world peopled by characters written by other authors. With similar playfulness Disney feature length animated films regularly tip a nod to famous literary works and even other films through intertextuality. Take the animated film Tarzan where a young gorilla upon seeing the finery of Victorian England laid out in a campsite exclaims, “The horror!” - neatly tying in to Joseph Conrad’s character Kurtz in Conrad’s novella ‘The Heart of Darkness’, when Kurtz weakly utters the same word’s to Conrad’s protagonist, Marlowe, before dying. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Ideas feed upon ideas. Discussing this concept with a student recently, she pointed out that an image she created on a workshop of mine was an attempt to ‘copy’, even recreate to an extent, an image of mine that she had seen a year ago. The images are different, the only similarity apart from subject matter (a small waterfall) is the technique employed to create the image. Do I feel aggrieved, especially as I now know that she was openly trying to recreate the image. Not at all, not in the slightest. Working in groups with photographers I have often been struck by the way that each individual photographer will feed off those around them. Why is it then, that we expect people to not copy ideas when we openly flout those ideas in mainstream social media? </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Gladwell teases open the greyish world of ownership of ideas. It’s one that photographers are increasingly being drawn into. Most semi-serious photographers are already aware of copyright of individual image/s. Of the actual created work in other words. Internet sites like <a href="http://stopstealingphotos.com/">Photo Stealers</a> are designed to shame companies and photographers that steal images from their creators. It’s actually quite sobering to realise how often it happens, and by other photographers to boot! Then there is also the <a href="http://fstoppers.com/facebook-software-engineer-teaches-you-how-to-steal-copyrighted-images">recent furore</a> over an engineer at Facebook, Jesse Chen, who blogged back in 2012 how to remove the copyright symbol from images so that one wouldn’t have to pay for them. This is a fairly pertinent point considering this is from the mouth of an individual who now has a say, at least in the technical engineering sense, of how the ownership of images plays out in the sphere of social media. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />But what about the ideas themselves? In several instances there have been law suites against photographers by other artists (including music artists) and vice versa for the use of ideas. Enter the fray with <a href="http://petapixel.com/2014/05/05/amazon-files-patent-showing-seamless-background-studio-lighting-technique/">Amazon’s recent patenting</a> of a particular lighting style for product photography. Does this mean that if I use a similar lighting setup for a product shot Amazon can sue me? Fantastic, anybody wanting to get rich quick can head out and start patenting as many lighting setups as possible so they can litigate the pants off photographers everywhere. What the hey, if you’re quick you could patent clam-shell lighting and sue Scott Kelby (admittedly this is bordering on the ridiculous - no wait, it’s crossed over). It is actually more complicated patenting or attaching copyright to an idea or setup, but Amazon have blithely and dangerously created a precedent in my mind. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />When tackling the issue of copyright you will find that there seems to be quite polarized opinions on the issue. Some people feel that copyright should be absolute, protecting the rights of the producer of the image, or in some cases (professional music industry) the rights of the subject (there has been a raft of cases where musicians have sued photographers for copyright infringement, but in the same vein use images by photographers claiming they need not be concerned about copyright since they are depicted in the image). Others, including <a href="http://whattheduck.com/">Aaron Johnson</a> (whose wonderful cartoons are used in this newsletter) take a much more relaxed approach to copyright. </span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />To put this into perspective: take the hypothetical brief to copy the style of an image created years ago, so that the new image, although different to the original, is immediately related to the original. In other words, the intention is for intertextuality to come into play. Traditional copyright law doesn’t really object to this so long as there is substantial enough difference in the second work so as not to be an absolute copy. The problem is that the Birss verdict in the Temple Island Collections vs. New England Teas case opens up the interpretation of how substantial the difference should be. Photographers need to be extremely wary of deliberately copying work. It gets even thornier though when you are wanting to continue a style so as to pay homage to the original artist. The Red Bus Case is a problem for photographers as the ultimate judgement was on an image that is easily stylistically reproduced because it is a common photographic technique (Spielberg even uses it in the film ‘Schindlers List’).</span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />As a final addendum to the Case of the Red Bus. Temple Island Collections were specifically claiming ownership of the idea of a black and white image with a coloured red double decker bus crossing Westminster Bridge against a plain white featureless sky. The thing is, I swear I’ve seen that image somewhere before. Maybe it’s false memory, but when I first read the story last year my mind cast back to an image that I saw in a Practical Photography magazine in the early 1990’s. Maybe the source is wrong, but I’m willing to bet that Temple Island Collection, or whoever created the image for them, copied the idea from elsewhere. So, will the real Red Bus photographer please stand up.</span></div><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-74383253395028321842022-02-14T14:15:00.001+02:002022-02-14T14:16:21.234+02:00 Stretching Essential…Apparently<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgbjDwJhcbgJLUQDXnW_LawHuDm-lCDXExwJRrAJKQ5xMO-lAV0qbNQl2CHcBnHZmv0EVsYqogbQ3iXRTTO-3bWuHhzyxzdWiSedjjZ5I4374hKgSgiGsQfuFjx8mTq7BYjun4_Cx9kLqZyzmHWx-P6xeWAMvbygpIwcIquJm2sOo5MKQoGD5b2EjMOWA=s900" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Dead Vlei atv Dawn" border="0" data-original-height="545" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgbjDwJhcbgJLUQDXnW_LawHuDm-lCDXExwJRrAJKQ5xMO-lAV0qbNQl2CHcBnHZmv0EVsYqogbQ3iXRTTO-3bWuHhzyxzdWiSedjjZ5I4374hKgSgiGsQfuFjx8mTq7BYjun4_Cx9kLqZyzmHWx-P6xeWAMvbygpIwcIquJm2sOo5MKQoGD5b2EjMOWA=s16000" title="Silence" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Photographic salons and competitions are not new to controversy. The World Press Awards, Veolia Wildlife, The British Landscape Photographer of the Year and now the International Landscape Photographer of the Year have drawn public, or at least photographers’ ire over the selected winning images and photographers. Less serious than the issues plaguing the World Press Awards over journalistic authenticity, the ILPOTY Awards this year did raise consternation in various quarters over the amount of digital manipulation inherent in a large number of the selected 101 top images, as well as the winning portfolios. The result is that we once again find ourselves with the that old question regarding PhotoShop; at what point is it no longer a photograph? </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><a name='more'></a></span></span><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This isn’t the first year that the ILPOTY awards have received criticism over the winning images and their rather loose attachment to reality. The creation of the Natural Landscape Photographer of the Year competition was partly in response to the perceived rise of heavily manipulated images making it into and winning what were in the past conceived as traditional photographic awards. Not many people can remember the hoo-ha over David Byrne’s disqualification from the 2012 Landscape Photographer of the Year for an image that was discovered to have been had too much digital manipulation in regards to the competition rules. The irony is that were the image entered today, no doubt it would have passed muster (there were also issues over plagiarism at the time, but it was for the digital manipulation that he was disqualified)</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Art for Art’s Sake</span></h4><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></h4><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It’s important to quote from the <a href="https://www.internationallandscapephotographer.com/index.php" target="_blank">ILPOTY website</a> in regarding how the competition views ‘landscape photography’:<br /><br /></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>"Our philosophy is that all approaches to landscape photography are valid. It is not up to us to say whether an image is a landscape or not. As a result, in the 2021 International Landscape Photographer of the Year awards, you will see exponents of many different styles presenting their rare and carefully considered compositions. Some of the landscapes are straight out of camera, others are from the photographer's imagination.<br />I find it quite compelling that what drives one landscape photographer can be so different to another. For some, the capture of nature at its most wonderful is reward enough. In fact, these are the moments photographers live for and being out in the landscape is often as enjoyable as shooting it with a camera.<br />However, the history of landscape art is much broader than merely creating a record of nature. It is interpretive, imaginative and inspirational. Other photographers take their captures and re-map the tonality; some take several captures to produce a landscape of the mind."</i></span></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The ire towards the competition comes mostly from landscape photographers who follow more traditional concepts of what a landscape photograph entails. In full honesty I don’t like the winning images; they look a little too Sci-fi for my personal taste. I do recognise that they are very good digital works though. There are a number of images that were selected that go beyond what could possibly be ‘real’ and delve into full on image layering of individual images taken at different time periods and even location (sky replacement anyone?). Several images are of prominent landscape locations, so it isn’t difficult for photographers familiar with scenes (like those of Kirkjufellfoss in Iceland or iconic views of the Alps in Italy) to notice that something is not quite right. Perhaps it’s a view from a cave, where no cave exists, or a shot of a mountain peak, where the mountain itself is distended and elongated to something out of Tolkien’s imagination. Some of the photographers whose work was selected have gone on to use their selection in the competition as a marketing tool for their editing courses (as they should and have every right to do…it’s one of the perks of being selected in a prestigious award). What raises eyebrows amongst - call it the more conservative landscape photographers - is that these editing techniques fully embrace the layering of images that are not taken at the same time, or even of the same places. <br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipwu4QSYS1n9zcHYx5G4edlZ3D4jH97sizu5xBuVNndyacCAVdRqUlxMr2gsnq-P3j7qMWNAqUC4-ehKzlXLujH_VbXXH081n8PRXLOipSlCUldU3kqK4I8Evh9lAig5WREyimhEpjuq4w24qXSNhpk0zrEnUrRWN01gv_X28ZEhxlfV8n1di0dN65GQ=s900" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ILPOTY front page" border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipwu4QSYS1n9zcHYx5G4edlZ3D4jH97sizu5xBuVNndyacCAVdRqUlxMr2gsnq-P3j7qMWNAqUC4-ehKzlXLujH_VbXXH081n8PRXLOipSlCUldU3kqK4I8Evh9lAig5WREyimhEpjuq4w24qXSNhpk0zrEnUrRWN01gv_X28ZEhxlfV8n1di0dN65GQ=s16000" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The organisers of ILPOTY are correct when they state, “It is not up to us to say whether an image is a landscape or not”. Except that the very title of the competition is that it is a Landscape photographic salon. Surely there should be some sort of definition of what a landscape is then? I actually agree with the concept of art for art’s sake. However, if you are going to ostensibly judge one image against another (and let us not forget that there is money involved at the end of the day along with a plethora of kudos points that can generate potential income in future for winners), then there needs to be some grounds for comparison between the two. A very real result is that more ‘traditional’ landscape photographers will simply stop entering the ILPOTY, as it becomes increasingly difficult if not impossible to compete against stretched mountains and impossible skies. <br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">There is also of course something to be said for constructing an image of an idealised world. When I teach on workshops I am always insisting that photographers try to recreate what they ‘feel’ as well as ‘see’. This means that an artistic interpretation of the a scene isn’t necessarily a realistic interpretation. Even the most conservative of landscape photographers still photograph in a way that idealises, even glamourises, the landscape and scenes that they photograph. If you use a 10 stop neutral density filter to extent the shutter duration so that water and grass turn into milky tones of colour rather than textual detail, then you are also guilty of manipulating the scene in some way for artistic effect. The compositing of disparate elements is in some ways the logical conclusion of this type of landscape photography. Certainly practitioners of this would argue that this is the case. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Professional Jealousy</span></h4><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></h4><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">One of the first things non-photographers ask when they hear photographers discussing the issue is whether this is simply not a question of professional jealousy? That’s a fair point actually. Those most vitriolic tend to be the ones who were passed up in lieu of the extraordinary - and heavily manipulated - images that are selected as winning entrants. To be completely transparent, I have had several images selected by the ILPOTY awards in the past (as their Top 101 images) and also made it into the Top 202 in this particular competition. Looking at the scoring that was used, the image of mine in question would have made it into the Top 101 if heavy handed digital manipulation were not allowed, thereby clearing the field so to speak. ILPOTY, as evinced above, are pretty open about accepting any interpretation of a landscape though, so any person entering should be aware of the field that they are competing against. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Perhaps, rather than jealousy, there is more a concern of the direction that so-called landscape photography is heading. We already have the problem of a heightened expectation of the world thanks to Instagram and social media glamorizing locations. I suspect that throwing digital manipulation - passed off as real - thrown into the mix can only dilute the genre. It leads to a basic cynicism towards landscape imagery as whole, regardless of whether the image depicts reality, or an overactive imagination. I already find myself defending images that were photographed ‘as is’ against accusations of Photoshop use because the general belief now is that if it is a great photograph, it must be fake. Competitions like ILPOTY unfortunately contribute to this general cynicism. <br /><br />So what is too much, when it comes to editing anyway? If you want to fall down the rabbit hole of ethics in editing, just do some simple google searches on the ethics of digital manipulation. Thousands of hours have been spent discussing and debating what should be accepted and what shouldn’t. In the early days of digital photography simple exposure blends were not allowed, now they are. Focus stacks were considered manipulation, now it’s just one of many techniques to ‘faithfully’ reproduce a scene. Same with panoramic stitches. So the problem arises that what is considered valid, is a moving a target. <br /><br />Art photographers, who playfully manipulate images to create an artistic rendition of their understanding of a scene are obviously going to jump at the chance to showcase their work. ILPOTY is one of a growing number of international competitions that allows these forms of expression. It’s also unfortunate that photographers who lean towards to the more traditional practice of landscape photography have a habit of vilifying those who do manipulate their images. It gets ridiculous actually and you would be forgiven for thinking, based on the language used in some online forums, that the manipulation of images for artistic intent is a crime similar to child abuse. People get nasty! </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><h4><span style="font-size: medium;">A note on plagiarism</span></h4><h4><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></h4><span style="font-size: medium;">I mentioned at the beginning of this article David Byrne's image that was excluded from the Landscape Photographer of the Year in 2012. A secondary concern raised by his critics was that the image was a similar, if not direct copy, of another photographer's work. Herein lies a problem for judges the world over. Good photographs beget further renditions of similar scenes. Images and photographers influence each other. A few years ago a friend and colleague of mine, Hougaard Malan, won the Waterfall category in the ILPOTY awards. It’s an outstanding photograph and one of the best images he’s produced (and his work is extraordinary to start with). Then last year Anette Mossbacher won the landscape category in the Veolia Wildlife Awards with a very similar (it isn’t the same, just similar) image. A small amount of fuss came up on social media and several photographers pointed out the similarity. Here I have to part ways with the aggrieved voices. Taken in its own merit the later photograph is an exceptional image. It is not necessarily a direct copy of Hougaard’s earlier winning image. No photographer has the ‘right’ to a particular view. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It's useful to remind readers here of Cherry Alexander's winning image in the 2014 Veolia Wildlife Awards - A truly beautiful image of chinstrap penguins on a blue iceberg photographed in Antarctica. The only controversy here though is that it was shot mere feet from where the workshop leader, Frans Lanting, was also shooting. Lanting went on to have his image published in National Geographic, and it continues to come up as one of his favourite images on his website and print media. Does the fact that he is famous make his image more authentic? As usual it was the arm-chair critics who kicked up the fuss, and Frans Lanting probably wasn't fazed in the slightest. <br /></span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Should we consider all images taken from a particular point as copies of the photographer who first published a particular image? Surely not. Were this the case several iconic landscape views would be verboten in any future salons. So forget about entering any images from places such as Vestrahorn in Iceland, Dead Vlei in Namibia, or the classic view of Yosemite in The US. The problem is that the more noteworthy an image, the more likely that other photographers will flock to that location. The particular tree photographed by both Hougaard Malan and Anette Mossbacher has been there a long time. The water is released on the Kunene River during the flood season around the end of March, early April. There are a limited number of viewpoints that you can view the falls…it is not inconceivable that two independent photographers create similar images of a particular location. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PLyljVZqr0k/XjQh0t2B90I/AAAAAAAALnI/s7b30qt2keMeh_o-hc2HoaD5umE5cNZ1gCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1911-06-117-Kolmanskop-%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PLyljVZqr0k/XjQh0t2B90I/AAAAAAAALnI/s7b30qt2keMeh_o-hc2HoaD5umE5cNZ1gCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1911-06-117-Kolmanskop-%2B1.jpg" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />This particular point hit home for me recently on reading an article by Erez Marom (another photographer whose work I admire, but I am not familiar with the library of images that he has published). I was reading <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2714069821/erez-marom-on-originality-in-landscape-photography" target="_blank">the article</a> with interest when I suddenly came across an image that looked identical to one of mine, one that I am particularly proud of (I even used the image to illustrate an <a href="http://www.photowriting.co.za/2020/01/the-basics-of-perspective-distortion.html" target="_blank">article on perspective</a>). I came across this particular composition on a workshop and reached it with some difficulty as it not an easy access to this particular view. At the the time I was ecstatic as I thought (incorrectly) that I had stumbled across a ‘new’ composition. Here’s what Marom has to say about the composition: “An image I took in Kolmanskop, Namibia. It has been since copied many times over without any mention of my being the original creator.” Really? The original creator? This was the first time I had seen the image other than my own shot of it, so I thought the wording a touch misplaced by the author. It was with some chagrin that I noticed in comments to his article that the composition had been shot, some considerable time before by Freeman Patterson, one of the originators of the traditional photographic workshops in Namibia and author of numerous photography books. Neither Erez Marom nor I can call this an original composition, it just happens to have been ‘found’ multiple times by different photographers. <br /><br />There are a number of locations that lend themselves to a particular viewpoint. Published and respected photographers can feel aggrieved as much as they like on seeing similar compositions to their own, but there are certain views that will be ‘found’ based on fairly standard compositional tenets and preferences. You don’t need to have seen other images to have created a near identical composition; you just need to have a similar way of viewing the world. I just need to look at my images of the Drakensberg in particular, and see similar compositions from other photographers, even when I haven’t gone to find that particular view.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> <br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><h4><span style="font-size: medium;">Conclusion</span></h4><h4><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></h4><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The last point on plagiarism is perhaps why more and more photographers are leaning towards the unreal in landscape photography. It is becoming increasingly difficult to create original content. It’s worse when luminary photographers stake a claim as if they own a particular view. How then can one be original? The easy answer is to fake it; create a whole new image that has never been done because what it depicts does not actually exist as depicted. Literally the only thing holding the photographer back is their imagination. I can see why the jurors on some of these competitions select the unreal images. It’s because its a new shot. When you have seen dozens if not hundreds of images of the same iconic scene, something different jumps out at you (It’s why Andy Gibbs won the ILPOTY in 2021 with his extraordinary, but real, images of forest scenes - they were different to what had come before).</span></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">This isn't a problem that is going to disappear unfortunately. Competitions seem to emerge and diminish every few years; with their passing usually related to the images that bring the entire competition into disrepute (loosely speaking). Photoshop and the valley of the uncanny is going to continue apace, if anything become even more mainstream as a way of interpreting the world visually. It would also do well to remember that competitions are not philanthropic ventures. They are there to make the organisers (and by virtue of association - the sponsors) money. I for one will think twice about entering the ILPOTY next year. It's expensive to enter and if I am being judged primarily on editing prowess and imagination behind a computer, then I'm unlikely to fare well in the competition. I don't want to stretch my mountains or create fantastical skies that weren't there when I photographed the scene. Troublingly for the organisers of ILPOTY, I am not alone in thinking this. One voice is nothing in this, but if enough other photographers feel the same way, the income stream for the competition will slowly dwindle. <br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><p></p></div>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-84735609510776457252021-11-01T14:25:00.007+02:002021-11-02T15:02:33.831+02:00DSLR or Mirrorless<div class="separator"><p style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ALSmVG5gbbU/YX_Ytrq1WFI/AAAAAAAAL6Y/YRNeNmcdpeAfq2SL5ju77c7jxnokjf8MQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/DSLR-or-Mirrorless.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="DLSR or Mirrorless" border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ALSmVG5gbbU/YX_Ytrq1WFI/AAAAAAAAL6Y/YRNeNmcdpeAfq2SL5ju77c7jxnokjf8MQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/DSLR-or-Mirrorless.jpg" title="DLSR or Mirrorless" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Two conversations within two days of each other with two photographers on either side of the country made me realise the amount of angst dedicated photographers are feeling as to their equipment choices and the future of their gear. I am talking about mirrorless and the apparent death of the DSLR of course. It’s a trending topic on camera forums, clubs and amongst enthusiasts the world over. Should you move to mirrorless, or stick with your DSLR? <br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The conversation usually revolves around a concern for the longevity and value of the system that you have opted to use for your own personal photography. In reality though there are more complex emotions at play, often with unconscious brand bias, and a fear of being left out. Regardless of the motivations, photographers are questioning the equipment they have, and the brands they have chosen in the past. <br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><a name='more'></a><h4 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Perceived value of equipment</b></span></h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Up near the top of enthusiast photographers’ concerns is the apparent loss in value of conventional DSLR equipment. The thinking goes that as the new technology emerges, the financial value of the existing equipment diminishes (some would argue disappears). So you worry that the camera you buy for X will be 1/10 the value in a relatively brief period of time, meaning that if you sell at the reduced value, you simply do not recoup enough in order to ‘upgrade’.<br /><br /><br />Personally I think this is the wrong argument to be making. All equipment diminishes in value over time. I bought a secondhand D3x about a decade ago (so definitely not at the new price). When the D3x first appeared it sold for a princely R120,000 in South Africa (higher than the listed launch price of US$8000 in 2009). I sold the camera after a decade of use for R13,000 (less than US$1000). It was still producing perfectly useable images for the client work that I do (in fact it was sold to another professional photographer who continues to use it as a workhorse camera), but was simply not being used enough as the studio has several other newer cameras. Did I get my monies’ worth. Absolutely! The camera paid for itself multiple times over by the time I sold it on. The value of a camera isn’t in the physical camera itself (unless of course you are collecting Leica collectibles), it is in the images that it produces. <br /><br />Jumping across to mirrorless doesn’t mean that the financial value of that will hold either. The Nikon Z7 was launched in 2018 for US$3400. It is only 3 years old, and you can pick them up on special, brand new, for less than US$2500 (and it includes the FTZ adapter). Yet, the Z7 is only marginally different to its successor the Z7II, and is to all intents and purposes identical in IQ (Thom Hogan has even pointed out <a href="https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-cameras/nikon-z-camera-reviews/nikon-z7-ii-camera-review.html" target="_blank">on his site)</a>. Ask a Sony or Fujifilm user about the inherent financial value of a secondhand camera and they’ll complain about the loss in value in exactly the same way as the DSLR users do. <br /><br />Personally a far better idea is to think of your camera as a rental. What is the annual rental of your equipment. NEVER consider what the residual value will be when you sell, because there is no way that any technology equipment will hold value over time (again, unless it’s a collectible Leica, and even then it’s questionable whether the newer Leica’s will still hold in value like their film counterparts have). My personal calculation revolves around the outlaid cost in relation to what I can create (in my case earn) with it. This is a personal calculation that is different for everyone. My benchmark is 45MP Full-Frame stills output, 4k30p video with a reasonable gradable file (not necessarily ProRes RAW as my clientele currently don’t require that. The benchmark for others will be lower, or higher, depending on what they shoot and the output they require (if you are shooting real estate for a realtor, you really don’t need anything more than an entry level camera with 16MP sensor, a tripod, a decent wide-angle lens and a good flash - NEEDS are very different to WANTS). <br /></span></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>FOMO</b></span></h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Bizarrely photographers are jettisoning equipment to move over to mirrorless, and making tradeoffs as a result. The Canon 5Dmkiv is a fantastic camera, yet Canon shooters are ditching it for the R6, which has lower pixel count. Yes, the R6 has a new swivelling LCD and can shoot 4K/60p video, but the 5Dmkiv is no slouch at video either and is still being used by professionals around the world as a workhorse camera. Just because mirrorless is here, doesn’t mean that the 5D suddenly dies on the spot.<br /><br />An even closer comparison is that of the stellar Nikon D850 camera. The 45mp sensor is to all intents and purposes the same one that sits inside the Z7 and Z7II. The D850 has better weather-sealing, is built with sturdier materials and is part of the Nikon professional range meaning that it has support for things like the 12-pin accessory port. The Z7 doesn’t, and is actually built as a ‘prosumer camera’ (it’s a bloody good prosumer camera though). Anyone wanting to get rid of their D850 to pick up a Z7II isn’t doing it for better image quality. The brand-spanking-Z9 puts the 45MP sensor that Nikon has been using into a proper pro-level body at last, but even then the concluding remarks by the DPReview team in the <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z9-initial-review-we-take-a-detailed-look-at-nikon-s-new-pro-mirrorless-camera" target="_blank">initial assessment of the Z9</a> were “After all, if it can deliver <b><i>near-D850 image quality</i></b> only much faster, with image stabilization, much better autofocus and with access to better lenses, it seems fair to assume some photographers will be willing to pay a premium for that.” (italics added by me). So the questions needs to be asked; do you really gain something from jumping across to mirrorless. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D2gH2QF8j0A/YX_Z2tCsgPI/AAAAAAAAL6g/rAArmXwsV88lqE_oErg7V8SKapV-PQO0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Z9.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Newly Announced Nikon Z9" border="0" data-original-height="505" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D2gH2QF8j0A/YX_Z2tCsgPI/AAAAAAAAL6g/rAArmXwsV88lqE_oErg7V8SKapV-PQO0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Z9.jpg" title="Newly Announced Nikon Z9" /></a></span></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;">An image of the newly announced Nikon Z9 mirrorless camera...the current darling of the internet...courtesy of Nikon's promotional material<br /></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> <br /></span></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>All Alone</b><br /></span></h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Closely aligned with FOMO is the Fear Of Being Left Behind. With all the development that is taking place on the mirrorless front, there is a concern that if you are a DSLR user you will not be supported in the future. Canon have even compounded this by unequivocally stating that they will no longer be developing the EF mount. Nikon, although they state that they will continue to support their DSLR user base, certainly doesn’t seem to be doing anything in the line of marketing DSLR cameras. This is weird considering that the D780 is a superb all-rounder camera that users have said equals and betters the Z6II (same internals, better weather-sealing, longer lasting battery, and an optical viewfinder for those who want it - want a mirrorless? Switch to live view and the camera behaves exactly like a Z6II).<br /><br />The concern of FOMO is heightened by the flurry of lens development announcements that the manufacturers are using to drum hype and support in what is really an ailing industry. So we hear about interesting new lenses like the Nikon NOCT lenses and Canon’s brilliant new f2.8 series zooms and super affordable small aperture telescoping telephotos. There has to be a lot of development as the manufacturers have to churn out enough new lenses to tempt potential new mirrorless users into the fray. <br /><br />The thing is, what lenses did you still want? I can understand some niche professionals bemoaning that an exotic lens that they were holding out for has not been and now never will be produced for the EF mount. The irony of course is that enthusiasts should be rejoicing at this as it potentially brings the financial cost of the existing exotic lenses down to relatively affordable levels. You wanted a super-telephoto f4 or f2.8 lens? Perhaps in a few years when Canon, Nikon and Sony have launched their mirrorless mount exotics, you’ll finally be able to buy that monstrous lens that used to cost more than a car, but has dropped precipitously in value since the rental houses and sports agencies have started picking up the newer mirrorless mount versions (I personally think it’ll be a while yet before they drop that much actually). <br /></span></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>I ALSO Have Angst</b><br /></span></h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Don’t get me wrong. I have handled and played with the Canon R5, R6, Nikon Z6II, Z7II, a Sony A7RIV and A9, and even a Fujifilm GFR50 (not the 100 yet). They are amazing, beautifully made cameras, all of them…and yet not one of them will fundamentally improve the images that I am currently producing (I could argue that the Fujifilm GFX100s would give me potentially higher resolution and better IQ, but at the cost differential to what I earn from my images, it doesn’t make any financial sense at all). <br /><br />Everyone is talking about the newly announced Nikon Z9 as the new professional photographer’s halo product, but again, if some magical angel handed one to me tomorrow, it would not change the way that I shoot in any meaningful or even fundamental way. If you are currently photographing with a less than four year old camera, you are working with an image sensor that is as close to state of the art as it is possible to get. If you have the available resources, buying into the new mirrorless cameras that are available is not a bad idea in any way. <br /><br />The problem is that a lot of photographers are approaching the mirrorless vs DSLR debate in the same way that they approached the digital vs film argument. There is zero similarity between the two arguments though. The core technology remains the same with mirrorless and digital, whereas there was a seismic shift in the way the image was captured when transitioning from film to mirrorless. <br /></span></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>So whither do you go?</b></span></h4><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DCBeoyyX5AU/YX_b-65bTqI/AAAAAAAAL6o/olXkykV6digj4zODuSr14dNllIWswi9rwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/0905-30-45_panorama.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="View from Twins" border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DCBeoyyX5AU/YX_b-65bTqI/AAAAAAAAL6o/olXkykV6digj4zODuSr14dNllIWswi9rwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/0905-30-45_panorama.JPG" title="View from Twins in the Drakensberg" /></a></span></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Could anyone guess what equipment was used to create this image? Does it really matter? For what it's worth it is a two image stitch shot on a Nikon D700 camera in 2009 with an ancient 28mm f3.5 PC lens. <br /></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I ended up writing an entire article on whether to opt for DSLR or mirrorless on the Nature’s Light blog. You can read it there by clicking this <a href="https://www.natureslight.co.za/blog/selecting-a-camera-step-2-dslr-or-mirrorless" target="_blank">link</a>. The short answer though is:<br /><br /></span></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: medium;">If you are currently shooting with a DSLR and are happy with the quality, just concerned about the future, don’t stress. You have it good. Just keep making images. There’s plenty of time to shift over to mirrorless (which is inevitable as pushing the industry to mirrorless is a full win-win for the manufacturers). </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">If you don’t have a camera or are wanting to move to Full-Frame from a crop-frame sensor, absolutely consider mirrorless, but also realise that there are legs yet on DSLR equipment, particularly if you are looking for a bargain. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">If you want to be at the cutting edge of equipment, and have the available means to do so, buy a mirrorless camera - they are really great cameras, but to say that they unequivocally beat DSLRs is pure hyperbole based on opinion and preference rather than facts. </span></li></ul><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />At the beginning of this article I pointed out in an aside that NEEDS are very different to WANTS. I really do want a mirrorless camera. I love the fact that they are smaller and lighter than their DSLR counterparts (with the appropriately selected lenses of course…if you get the f2.8s you - bizarrely - actually end up heavier in most cases). I’ve done my calculations and right now I am not rewarded in any way for moving to mirrorless. That’ll probably change of course. I strongly suspect that a lot of photographers are in the same boat, and that’s fine. Mirrorless will happen for us, just not today. So why worry? </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-72494571979434541302021-07-07T14:50:00.004+02:002021-07-07T14:50:54.144+02:00 A Love Letter to a Lens - My Voigtlander 40mm f2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GcRikc8nlnY/YOWWpba4i4I/AAAAAAAAL4M/a32r75ksavgbMyGkp8Iy6blIzccTaXysgCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/2107-07-026-Voigtlander-EvM.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Voigtlander 40mm f2 Ulton on Nikon D780" border="0" data-original-height="566" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GcRikc8nlnY/YOWWpba4i4I/AAAAAAAAL4M/a32r75ksavgbMyGkp8Iy6blIzccTaXysgCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/2107-07-026-Voigtlander-EvM.JPG" /></a></i></div><i></i><i><br /></i><p style="text-align: justify;">That photographic equipment is getting increasingly better and better is something of a truism. Considering lenses and cameras from twenty years ago, it’s easy to to see the progress that has been made both in imaging as well as in optics. Client’s expect these changes too, and you can look back at commercial images shot in the 90’s and it’s very easy to see the limitations that our photographic techniques offered. That’s not to say the images weren’t good. They were excellent. Photographic heroes of mine all shot on film with varied cameras from half-frame Olympuses to the Sinar 4x5 cameras. However, film grain, blown exposure and lens defects all contribute to a perceived ageing of the image…apart of course from the clothing styles and haircuts. No, today the images that are created are clean, sharp, perfectly exposed, devoid of blemishes….and all the same. <i><br /></i></p><i><span><a name='more'></a></span></i><p style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QnlhzIDIUVc/YOWWnILwt1I/AAAAAAAAL3o/YQzsfDtbf8AQzuv7PgUfTyXLxQ9VneIsQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1805-25-007-Andavadoaka-EvM.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Madagascar girl" border="0" data-original-height="625" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QnlhzIDIUVc/YOWWnILwt1I/AAAAAAAAL3o/YQzsfDtbf8AQzuv7PgUfTyXLxQ9VneIsQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1805-25-007-Andavadoaka-EvM.jpg" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A portrait shot of a young woman on the west coast of Madagascar using the 40mm on a Nikon D850<br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><i> </i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I say this tongue firmly in cheek, but there seems to be two types of photographers at the moment; those who strive for perfection in their imagery, and those who want to throw technique away completely and attack everything photographically with a Lomo camera, or at least that style of photography. The former ranges the gamut from Photoshop wizards who create ‘perfect’ fantasies in the computer through to the in-the-field perfectionists who eschew digital manipulation, but will throw a mortgage load of funding into the perfect camera and the perfect lens, sitting on the perfect tripod in order to obtain the perfect pixel. The latter, call them hipsters if you like - they might not be offended, experiment with old-timey style cameras like the Lomo, trinkets like the Lensbaby, don’t care about getting the exposure spot on (hey, fix it in post, or love those blown highlights), and rarely use flash (you’ve heard the “Dude, I only use natural light” refrain). <br /><br />Agnostic that I am I tend to sit somewhere in the middle. I strive for the photographic perfection, but am tempted by the fluid and distinctive style of the photographic hipsters. I think the creativity found in free-flow styles is extraordinary, but look down on the ignorance of technique. Talk about mixed up. Which is maybe why one of my favourite lenses is so imperfect, yet was originally made as a supposedly perfect lens. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i> </i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Ar24a8ExMo/YOWWn_JBn7I/AAAAAAAAL3s/WRsFNjYwgQMw-U8mzLD_1zNZXRfKAl7-ACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1905-29-026-Reykjavic-EvM.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="City buildings, Reykjevik" border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Ar24a8ExMo/YOWWn_JBn7I/AAAAAAAAL3s/WRsFNjYwgQMw-U8mzLD_1zNZXRfKAl7-ACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1905-29-026-Reykjavic-EvM.jpg" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Probably one of the most useful aspects of this lens to me is it's portability. It makes carrying, even on a comparatively large DSLR camera like the Nikon D850 less of a hassle, meaning the camera is more likely to be brought out even for short city excursions.<br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /><br /></i>By way of a very long pre-amble, this article is actually about a lens that I always seem to find space in my bag for. It’s not that the 40mm Voightlander lens that I so love is an important lens. It’s not. If I have to choose a lens for an assignment, it’s often the last one to go into the bag in a sort of ‘just in case’ way. But it does go into the bag, just about every time I step out of the house, even if I know that I’m unlikely to use it. The thing is, when I do use the lens, I invariably find something about the images that I make with it, different to the other images from the same shoot. <br /><br />Other reviewers only really have a middling reaction to the Voightlander. It’s fairly sharp, but nowhere near Zeiss Otus levels of sharp. The corners are okay, but nothing like the new breed of mirrorless Z, RF and G Master lenses from Nikon, Canon and Sony. It’s an f2 lens in world where everyone is clamouring for bokehlicious f1.4 and wider. Despite not being an extremely fast lens, chromatic aberration is apparent at times. It’s even the in-between focal length; not actually a wide 35 and not actually a straight 50. It doesn’t have weather-sealing, and for its size it’s a hefty chunk of metal. Not exactly a gleaming endorsement to continually keep it in the gear bag is it? <br /><i><br /></i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-66WiELsQiLo/YOWWpkH2LeI/AAAAAAAAL4Q/NzMeIPmnlHELcV9PsUw5AHtxtrMnbAmXwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/2107-07-032-Voigtlander-EvM.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" height="426" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-66WiELsQiLo/YOWWpkH2LeI/AAAAAAAAL4Q/NzMeIPmnlHELcV9PsUw5AHtxtrMnbAmXwCLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h426/2107-07-032-Voigtlander-EvM.JPG" width="640" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>the thin focusing ring with metal knurled grip visible here. Towards the back of the lens is the aperture ring (remember those?). Thanks to the electronic coupling though, the aperture can be controlled via the control wheels on modern DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. <br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"> <i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Voigtlander have come out with various guises of the this 40mm Ultron F2 SL lens with the latest being given the designation SL IIs, and being rehoused in a lens body reminiscent of the old Nikkor Ai lenses (so think metal focusing ring with nickel barrel and ‘rabbit ears’ at the throat for the Ai metering prong on old Nikon bodies). Mine is a second iteration copy, the 40mm f2 Ultron SL II. This is an all black metal lens with solid metal focusing ring that hearkens back to the old Pentax/Takumar knurled metal grip. The focusing ring is pretty slim itself (about a centimetre front to back with the knurled portion being about half of that again). This makes focusing tricky if you are using large 100mm square filters. When shooting without filters though the ultra smooth focusing is a joy to work with. This is how manual focus lenses should work, and puts to shame just about any other lens I have used or owned apart from my Zeiss Milvus - in manual focus that is. Of course this is a manual focus only lens, so requires a modicum of skill to operate. Still, the lens has electronic contacts meaning that it can be used on cameras that use electronic stop down metering. It also means that the lens data is embedded in the camera's EXIF data, which is useful.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"> </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i></i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YTQiysIGUdk/YOWWoFrbuMI/AAAAAAAAL3w/v3okx1W6nSQfcQNbSf7v2oggG3qm-5UjgCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1909-22-001-Southport-EvM.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="depth of field" border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YTQiysIGUdk/YOWWoFrbuMI/AAAAAAAAL3w/v3okx1W6nSQfcQNbSf7v2oggG3qm-5UjgCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1909-22-001-Southport-EvM.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>An example of the depth of field separation possible with the lens, despite the fact that it only an f2 aperture when wide open</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><i></i><br /> </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As mentioned above it’s fairly hefty for its size at 300g. It accepts 52mm filters and has a minimum focusing distance of 38cm. F-stops go from wide open at f2 in full stops to f22. Diffraction on my D850 is visible from f8 onwards (although to be honest it’s probably working at it’s best optically at f5.6, but I feel comfortable using it at f11 for landscape photography). It also comes with a cone shaped lens hood that does a fairly good job of controlling flare. I tend to forget it at home as I don’t have a lens cap for the hood (poor excuse but there it is) and tend towards using the 52mm thread for filters). However flare is pretty well controlled even without the hood. <i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">So Why the Love?</h4><p style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Everything I have said so far makes the the lens sound plain Jane on paper. Yet, it has a character or personality that I absolutely love in the resultant images. I also love the fact that the lens is so small. Photographing people is a joy with this lens. Large aperture zooms like the 24-70mm lenses that everyone seems to love to much are big, bulky and intimidating when you are photographing strangers (or family for that matter). My preference leans heavily towards something that is small and inconspicuous. Mounted to my D780 (as in the cover image), it becomes a really small manageable documentary and street camera setup. Even when mounted to the larger D850 it has the effect of diminishing the size of the camera. To me that’s important. <i><br /></i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZaZZHnQ6ZmQ/YOWWnUIlU4I/AAAAAAAAL3g/CvJ4p8GxI40MHG_5-y8i2hzdSVDwKUxsACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1707-24-417-Refinery_Gala_Event-EvM.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZaZZHnQ6ZmQ/YOWWnUIlU4I/AAAAAAAAL3g/CvJ4p8GxI40MHG_5-y8i2hzdSVDwKUxsACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1707-24-417-Refinery_Gala_Event-EvM.JPG" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A quiet moment at a high level event in Maputo, Mozambique. Although not the fastest lens around, at f2 it still allows sufficient light into the scene to be able to shoot available light scene such as this. Once more, the small size of the lens makes it that much more 'discreet' while photographing. <br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /> </i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The current vogue is for lenses that have paper thin depth of field so as to separate the subject from its background. I’m not a wedding or fashion photographer though, and I tend to want to include the context of surroundings. I find this little lens has absolutely gorgeous 3D like rendering of a scene shot wide or close to wide open. There’s enough attractively rendered out-of-focus area along with detail that I get the separation, just without the dreamy look that seems so popular and which I personally don’t want, not for the style of work that I’m shooting that is. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gbf4d2uXWPw/YOWWnSjz7KI/AAAAAAAAL3k/LZcQZ5U-6PYVKSu91VKkZREA9FVXpBm6wCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1701-17-098-EVM.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Small-grower farmers" border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gbf4d2uXWPw/YOWWnSjz7KI/AAAAAAAAL3k/LZcQZ5U-6PYVKSu91VKkZREA9FVXpBm6wCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1701-17-098-EVM.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Photographed on assignment for Tongaat Huletts, this particular image is a nice example of the kind of 'look' that seems to come from the lens, admittedly helped along with a burst of flash.</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><i></i><br /><br />When I first received this lens (secondhand along with a Nikon D800e body) I actually didn’t really enjoy using it that much. Focusing the lens on the D800 was a chore! A significant amount of the images that I shot were just off focus. When I transitioned to the D850 the lens turned into something wonderful. Clearly the D850 has a better focusing screen than its predecessors, so focusing was suddenly easier and whole lot more accurate (that has continued with the D780 which is also a joy to use in manual focus). The amount of in focus keepers grew exponentially, and I’m not afraid to use this lens when shooting paid assignments, whereas with the D800 I tended to use it for personal projects fearing that I’d miss focus at a critical moment. <br /><br />There is definitely something to the ‘look’ of the images. Enough so that I find myself looking for shots that will give me an excuse to use the lens. However, the convenience of the size cannot be overstressed. Walking through village streets in Madagascar, I have found that the tiny size is fantastic for street photography. On top of the look, the fact that the lens is properly pocketable, means that I can take a walk in a busy market with an old Ais 24mm f2.8 and the 40mm Voigtlander and swop between the two lenses as I go (and yes, two small manual focus primes is in my opinion a better idea than one large f2.8 zoom, I prefer a smaller and less conspicuous form factor for photographing people). </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FMlKSCGuXvw/YOWWoufWaOI/AAAAAAAAL38/Fy1BMIoFiasmJyosZNK01Mo3qJWg-WdtACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1911-07-005_Pano.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="353" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FMlKSCGuXvw/YOWWoufWaOI/AAAAAAAAL38/Fy1BMIoFiasmJyosZNK01Mo3qJWg-WdtACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1911-07-005_Pano.jpg" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A stitched panoramic of the port city of Luderitz in Namibia<br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /><br /></i>As a landscape photographer by self-definition, I also find that I use the lens a lot for that style of photography. In particular, at f8, it produces excellent stitched panoramas. This gives me the vista aspect of a wide angle lens, but the slight compression of a telephoto lens. So all in, this tiny little pancake lens is an extremely versatile piece of equipment. <i><br /><br /></i></p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><i>Conclusion</i></h4><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tor07WKkExQ/YOWWofqESVI/AAAAAAAAL34/EKg_sK4cL6gufLFgLuP0Ujp-C1wBJQeIACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1911-06-019-Kolmanskop-.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Doors, Kolmanskop, Namibia" border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tor07WKkExQ/YOWWofqESVI/AAAAAAAAL34/EKg_sK4cL6gufLFgLuP0Ujp-C1wBJQeIACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1911-06-019-Kolmanskop-.jpg" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>There is absolutely nothing wrong with the image quality of the lens, and in fact when used properly it is extremely sharp, great for subjects with lots of micro detail<br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><i> </i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Voigtlander is certainly not a perfect lens. What it lacks in perfection, it makes up for in character though. Not crazy Lomo character, but optical character that allows images to pop in a way that a perfect lens doesn’t. By that I mean that the lens has no serious flaws that some photographer’s exclaim as ‘character’ traits. Like crazy flare, weird colour caste or distortion, or even light leaks. The lens is designed to be a superlative lens. It just isn’t in the same way as the new breed of lenses are. Instead, it has a beautiful three dimensional feel to the images when shot wide open. The out of focus portions are not super creamy, but are distinct enough to give separation while retaining contextual detail. In the centre of the frame it is properly sharp. The kind of sharp that has photographers comparing it the best lenses available at significantly higher prices. <br /><br />There’s a lot to love in this little lens. So it’ll keep on getting added to the bag, even when I don’t need it - maybe I can manufacture a reason to use it. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i> </i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i> </i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-STtQUhjPPi0/YOWWqf9ahSI/AAAAAAAAL4Y/Wz6TTKdS5i4rVLT9eDOAYb4qERM1WKmbQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Scan-170319-0006-Edit.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="590" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-STtQUhjPPi0/YOWWqf9ahSI/AAAAAAAAL4Y/Wz6TTKdS5i4rVLT9eDOAYb4qERM1WKmbQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Scan-170319-0006-Edit.JPG" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Due
to the diminutive size of the lens it has become the de facto standard
lens for me when I am shooting my old manual focus cameras, in this
case a Nikon FE2 loaded with Ilford Delta 100 film.</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> <br /></i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> <br /></i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4wZyBoNWD3I/YOWWoNlY8-I/AAAAAAAAL30/EQ8W1Fj2ibIWjJusWPP3bcSM8Wk22O9GwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1909-22-003-Southport-EvM.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Focusing the lens quickly" border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4wZyBoNWD3I/YOWWoNlY8-I/AAAAAAAAL30/EQ8W1Fj2ibIWjJusWPP3bcSM8Wk22O9GwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1909-22-003-Southport-EvM.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">With practice, manual focus is fast and accurate. The throw of the focus ring is about 75 degrees, so enough for fine focus, but also not so much that rapid focus is difficult. <br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p><i></i></p><p><i> </i></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNwVEwBurUI/YOWWrhbLsZI/AAAAAAAAL4c/4oRX_HBSe18g7AKEbItMHExMSEixNDD2wCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/DSC_0084.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Portrait of a daughter" border="0" data-original-height="580" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNwVEwBurUI/YOWWrhbLsZI/AAAAAAAAL4c/4oRX_HBSe18g7AKEbItMHExMSEixNDD2wCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/DSC_0084.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>To
me, an excellent in between focal length that isn't quite wide angle,
but still wide enough to document the context of the scene. To me this
is a more reportage way of portraying the scene than a standard 50mm
prime lens would give</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"> </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dyh3i-58ypU/YOWWpNLjg-I/AAAAAAAAL4I/a069e3JA0Roki4H7GdVvWRuubrU-LE6bwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/2011-12-023-Royal%2BNatal-EvM%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Detail of a tree" border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dyh3i-58ypU/YOWWpNLjg-I/AAAAAAAAL4I/a069e3JA0Roki4H7GdVvWRuubrU-LE6bwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/2011-12-023-Royal%2BNatal-EvM%2B1.jpg" /></a></i></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Another example of how I love using the Voigtlander for intimate scene, even in nature, where detail is important</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> </i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-60386986769799035612021-07-02T13:33:00.000+02:002021-07-02T13:33:04.584+02:00Ain’t It Pretty and About Bloody Time! - First Thoughts on the Nikon Zfc<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tv5XI--wJcg/YN7k8Gob_DI/AAAAAAAAL3I/whj2GHJbEPwhM8EhhDsQJUlSJKzt-xV0wCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Nikon%2BZfc%2B-%2BFM2_Photowriting.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Nikon ZFc and FM2" border="0" data-original-height="395" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tv5XI--wJcg/YN7k8Gob_DI/AAAAAAAAL3I/whj2GHJbEPwhM8EhhDsQJUlSJKzt-xV0wCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Nikon%2BZfc%2B-%2BFM2_Photowriting.jpg" /></a></div> <p></p><p>So, is the new Nikon Zfc a vanity project by Nikon, or a long overdue simple ‘dials’ and buttons take on modern cameras? As ever, the internet and commentators everywhere are divided on the issue. So this means that the Zfc is very definitely going to be a contentious design decision. Spoiler alert up front, I absolutely love the idea of the Zfc. It’s something I’ve been wanting Nikon to make, not for years, but for decades. I wrote<a href="http://www.photowriting.co.za/2011/07/pleasant-dream.html"> this article</a> back in 2011 essentially wishfully asking Nikon for a ‘retro’ take on the modern DSLR. Of course, Nikon did toy with the idea of a retro inspired camera in 2013 (yes it’s that long ago already) with the Nikon Df. This was a hodge-podge of parts that resulted in a clunky to use camera that was essentially a re-badged D600 with controls that didn’t quite merge the design ethos of analogue and digital (my take on the Df is <a href="http://www.photowriting.co.za/2013/11/thoughts-on-nikon-df.html">here:</a>). The Df continues to have its followers, but overall was not a sales success in the long term. <br /><br /></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><h4 style="text-align: justify;">A New (?) Camera by Nikon<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">So what is the Zfc? Essentially the new camera from Nikon is an updated Z50 (think Z50 II) internals squeezed into an uncannily FM-esque ‘panda’ style body. ‘Panda’ incidentally, is the term given to the old chrome plate and black leatherette style of camera from the pre-1990s. When I say that the camera is uncannily FM-esque; when you see an old FM2 and the Dfc side-by side, they could easily be confused by the uninitiated. The design cues are unashamedly retro inspired, down to the Nikon badge in the old font along with the slight protruding name plate. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />According to reviewers who have actually held the pre-production variant of the Zfc, there is a weight difference between it and its stylistic forebear, with the Zfc being significantly lighter than the old manual film camera. Also, although the Zfc has a magnesium alloy body, it’s a far cry from the old copper-silumin bodies of the the FM/FE series cameras. Still, it’s likely that the Zfc is better weather sealed than the old manual film cameras were (they weren’t sealed at all whereas the Zfc is actually weather-sealed against dust and moisture, although by term ‘moisture’ it probably is not the same as a fully gasket clad D5). So body feel is more akin to the plastic fantastic FM10 than the built like a brick FM2. <br /><br />I’m not going to recite all the specs verbatim from the launch as there are a plethora of other sites that spend significant time commenting on them. For a decent overview you can read the first look on <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z-fc-initial-review" target="_blank">DPreview</a> or the multiple articles (not particularly positive if you are looking for acclamation) by Thom Hogan on <a href="https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/zfc-questions-and-answers.html" target="_blank">Zsystemuser</a>. Or for a rehash of the actual press release there is also <a href="https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-zfc-announcement" target="_blank">Photographylife</a> ...amongst many others…just google "Nikon Zfc". <br /><br />In a nutshell though, the Zfc is an analogue inspired control layout camera housing an effective 20.9mp APS-C (yes, crop frame) sensor. That sensor delivers oversampled 4K @ 30fps video as well incidentally. The weight, battery included, comes to a svelte 445g, while the battery itself is the same EN-EL25 that is used by the Z50 camera. <br /><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">My Initial Thoughts</h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />I am unashamedly excited about the prospect of an analogue styled camera. I am fully aware that nostalgia drives part of this allure. There is a good reason that we moved away from the dials of past to ergonomically shaped hand grips and button inputs. However, for some photographers, and I am one of them and know plenty others, the dials approach to photography is a preferred way of shooting. The vast majority of my photography is shot in manual mode. Doing street photography with my Fujifilm XT-1 is a pleasure, because of the dials. I look down at the dials and see exactly what the settings are (with the caveat that the camera needs to be set to manual). <br /><br />The Df got the controls wrong. They essentially lied to you (dial will show one setting, but the mode or other settings would actually be different), and the nostalgic throwback of putting the exposure compensation dial on top of the ISO dial on the left of the camera was a mistake. Nikon got it right with the F4 back in 1988, and have positioned the EV dial on the right now (exactly as Olympus and Fujifilm have been doing) where your thumb can control it while your eye is to the viewfinder. The Dfc still has the problem of dials not necessarily aligning with the actual setting, particularly with ISO. However the simple mode selection switch nullifies that issue for the most part (again similar to the F4, just on the left rather than the right of the camera top plate). <br /></p><p></p><p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-44_ewYXlJTc/YN7k8OnEYsI/AAAAAAAAL3E/59Z3BfD79hUM2Big-_iV-haUK8Hg2jwyQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Zfc%2Btop%2Bplate.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Nikon Zfc top plate" border="0" data-original-height="629" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-44_ewYXlJTc/YN7k8OnEYsI/AAAAAAAAL3E/59Z3BfD79hUM2Big-_iV-haUK8Hg2jwyQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Zfc%2Btop%2Bplate.jpg" /></a><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">If I have an issue with the dial controls, it’s simply that there really should have been an ‘A’ setting on the ISO dial. Even in the days of film there was a ‘DX’ setting for reading the ASA/ISO speed directly from the film canister. I personally rarely use auto-ISO, but I can see where this would irk users to a certain degree. If Nikon ever continues with this line of design I will not be surprised if an update adds an ‘A’ setting to the ISO dial. <br /><br />Apart from the lack of an ‘A’ setting on the ISO dial, the only other two issues I potentially have with the camera as announced (bear in mind I have not used the camera, this is all based on images and videos of the camera and is only my thoughts on the announcement), is that I would really have liked it to take the EN-EL15 battery (better battery life and compatibility with the rest of the equipment that I and likely other Nikon photographers are likely to be using) and it really ought to have some way of monitoring audio output. <br /><br />Nikon didn’t just make a retro-inspired small camera. They stuffed excellent video capability into it at the same time. They even added a fully articulating swivel screen to the camera (the first on a Nikon interchangeable lens camera). As such the camera begs to be used as a light run and gun video camera or vlogging camera. There’s audio input, N-log colour profile (robust and easy to grade) as well as the ability to power the camera via USB-C during filming. Why on earth would you leave out audio monitoring then? The only workaround is for the photographer to use a mic that has audio monitoring (for instance using a Zoom H5 as a pass-through audio interface thereby allowing monitoring via the interface). If you use a standard shotgun mic, unfortunately the only monitoring you can do is by watching audio levels on the rear LCD screen; not ideal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xd6aCAABJeY/YN72okHhOgI/AAAAAAAAL3Y/p0S5s7QscGUXdL4ppAGG2t9EX_tjWIdFwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Nikon%2BZfc%2Bscreen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Nikon Zfc articulating screen" border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xd6aCAABJeY/YN72okHhOgI/AAAAAAAAL3Y/p0S5s7QscGUXdL4ppAGG2t9EX_tjWIdFwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Nikon%2BZfc%2Bscreen.jpg" /></a></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Whither Do We Go?</h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />It’s interesting that in the press release, Nikon refers to the Zfc as the “first Z-series camera to adopt a heritage design”. Does this mean that there will be more? Also, I’m not the only person to think it a little odd that the prime lens announced alongside and styled similarly to the Zfc, the 28mm f.28 SE, is a full-frame lens. This tiny little lens is exactly what a lot of photographers have been clamouring for: a small, light, inexpensive, pancake lens. But this is a full-frame lens giving an effective 42mm field of view on the Zfc. Surely it would make more sense to put this on a full-frame camera? <br /><br />Then, where are the rest of the DX/APS-C appropriate lenses? If the Zfc was meant to counter the flow of photographers moving from Nikon to Fujifilm, Nikon has a tall task ahead of them as Fujifilm has an optically excellent full range of appropriately sized lenses for their APS-C camera range. To stem the Fujifilm bound tide, Nikon needs at the very least some kind of commitment that they will produce similarly styled 14, 23, and 35mm lenses (for 21, 35 and 50mm equivalents). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />Further to this, the photographers clamouring for a retro-inspired camera, those that really buy into the nostalgia schtick, are likely to be predominantly full-frame users, or old-school Nikon shooters with a cupboard of old F-mount glass. APS-C is probably not where they were hoping the retro inspiration would lead. Rather, I think this camera was targeted to new photographers, moved by the retro trend where the style is more important than the function, as opposed to old photographers, who want to get back to their photography roots (that was the purpose theoretically of the Df, and that did not go as well as it was supposed to). <br /><br /><br />That the Zfc target audience is not long-standing Nikon users is hinted at by the fact that you can buy the Zfc in a range of pastel colours. This screams that the Zfc styling is first and foremost a a ‘style’ choice as opposed to a functional choice. In Japan, the most popular cameras amongst new photographers (at least according to <a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.bcnretail.com/market/detail/20210525_227047.html" target="_blank">BCN Ranking </a>) are cameras like the Olympus OM series, Fujifilm and Sony cameras - all with retro-inspired control layout and form (Sony is admittedly very much a button driven camera operation, but the style of the body and the top dials and switches are still reminiscent of the older analogue cameras). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FWKn1p_XNlI/YN7re512lMI/AAAAAAAAL3Q/SOpxXBg3W2cYqkJ-1swoyGJWwkhe4JR0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Nikon%2BZfc%2Bpastel%2Bcolors.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Style over function" border="0" data-original-height="313" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FWKn1p_XNlI/YN7re512lMI/AAAAAAAAL3Q/SOpxXBg3W2cYqkJ-1swoyGJWwkhe4JR0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Nikon%2BZfc%2Bpastel%2Bcolors.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The various colour options for the faux leatherette in some regions inidcate that the style of the camera is a primary marketing tool for Nikon. If form were more important we'd probably get an all-black version as opposed to 'panda'.</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;">That 28mm lens and the wording of the press-release (admittedly there could be a translation issue here) intimates that there may be more analogue styled cameras in the future from Nikon. If the Zfc is a sales success, I strongly suspect we will see a Full-frame camera with similar styling. After all, why call the camera the Zfc, and not the Zf? Unless Nikon is leaving a door open to the development of a full-frame retro inspired camera that they can call the Zf. I don’t think it’s a far leap of imagination to go from the Z5 to a Zf in the same way that the Z50 went to the Zfc. <br /><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Conclusion</h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />My current ‘street’ camera - the setup that I use for documentary and street photography - is a Nikon D780 coupled to a diminutive Voightlander 40mm f2. This is pretty much an identical setup to the Zfc with the 28mm lens. No surprise then that I am excited about the Zfc as it hits my exact sweet spot for a particular type of work that I do. It just happens to do it in a smaller, lighter package than I am currently using. What’s not to like there? </p><p>To be absolutely frank, the looks of the Zfc are it's biggest selling point, and why not? Fujifilm capitalised on the looks of it's X line of cameras very effectively. Put side by side I actually prefer the way the Zfc looks to something like the XT-4. Some photographers might bemoan the loss of grip; I don't. This is a super lightweight camera, so a grip isn't entirely necessary. The grip can be added (yes at a cost, but from a marketing perspective the options to bespoke your camera make good marketing sense), but I and many other photographers enjoyed handling the old MF series cameras (I still periodically use my FE2 loaded with Ilford film). </p><p>Oh and here's something cool. The FM2 needed the MD-12 winder to get 8 frames a second shooting. The Zfc shoots a nippy 11 frames a second on it's own. That's pretty cool. It also has excellent autofocus (swiped directly from the Z50 so we know it's good). </p><p>I hope this is a marketing success for Nikon. I personally would have preferred a full-frame version, but I think there's a good chance that might still come if the Zfc is successful. Short term I really think it will be. The fact that there are already vlogging kits being announced for the Zfc means that the camera is being targeted to a very different audience to the person reading this article. </p><p> As a tester I showed pictures of the Zfc and the Z50 to my YouTube besotted teenage daughter (when I say besotted she is determined to 'manage me' and avidly watches my follower count and has researched and given me advice on how to grow my channel). She didn't miss a beat when pointing at the Zfc as her preferred camera, alongside the comment, "that one looks authentic!" </p><p>Nikon made the mistake of marketing the Df to the die-hard Nikon afficionado. It was doomed to fail as a result. For that to work you literally needed a virtual digital equivalent of the FM, made to look and feel and shoot like it. They're marketing the Zfc to my daughter and her generation. It's modern internally, but looks 'authentic' on the outside. It has a sort of hipster street cred. That's why I think Nikon will be successful this time round. Forget what the photographers say about the camera. Concentrate on what younger non-camera owning but photographic minded youngsters say. Oh, and Nikon, if you are listening, price it accordingly for those youngsters and you might have a new generation of Nikon users. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-73075512099490659752021-06-07T12:14:00.001+02:002021-06-07T12:14:43.954+02:00A Review of the New Nik Collection 4 - lack lustre update, or must have app collection?<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-01pGmGwhACM/YL3KdWxyVSI/AAAAAAAAL1Y/NmlJahoU6wo46ioWKmE-dY8x0YOtXNJLACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Nik-4%2Bheader.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="498" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-01pGmGwhACM/YL3KdWxyVSI/AAAAAAAAL1Y/NmlJahoU6wo46ioWKmE-dY8x0YOtXNJLACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Nik-4%2Bheader.jpg" /></a></div><br />Last week, with very limited fanfare, DXO launched their now annual update to the Nik Collection of plugins and standalone image filters. This ostensibly brings the suite of applications to version 4. Although in a bizarre naming twist, only two of the apps are actually at version 3, with most of them still at version 2, and some still at version 1. The last properly major update was in 2019, and I wrote about it in <a href="http://www.photowriting.co.za/2019/06/is-upgrade-to-nik-efex-ii-worthwhile.html" target="_blank">this article</a>. Version Three came out in 2020 and was essentially some bug fixes and the inclusion of a miniature filter and the start of a theoretically non-destructive workflow. The new version is essentially a reboot of two of the Nik Collections apps: Silver Efex and Viveza. <br /></div><p style="text-align: left;"><br /><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>I Don’t have time to read, give me the summary<br /></b><br />Underwhelming update that actually breaks a bunch of things that worked if you have a non-PhotoShop centric workflow. Reasonable update to the UI of two apps (Viveza and Silver Efex) at the expense of a performance slowdown on said apps, plus a few more presets (not many and not applicable if you aren’t using the Nik Collection for its presets. <br /><br />Buy if you want to stay current and up to date, or want to take advantage of the one month introductory special, but make sure you have the old Nik Collection 3 install files as you may find yourself reverting to that until the bugs are sorted out. <br /><br />If you don’t already own the previous version of the Collection, the introductory price is worth it just for Silver Efex and one or two of the Color Efex filters. I may be disappointed with the update, but the Nik Collection remains a staple in my commercial and personal image workflow.</p><p><br /><b></b></p><p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZOZj2rVJaak/YL3LcP26SQI/AAAAAAAAL1g/Z4MTGwhMNuQyNFGi8Bs-xYWL9HHFJBg6ACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1911-06-140-Kolmanskop-%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="590" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZOZj2rVJaak/YL3LcP26SQI/AAAAAAAAL1g/Z4MTGwhMNuQyNFGi8Bs-xYWL9HHFJBg6ACLcBGAsYHQ/w420-h640/1911-06-140-Kolmanskop-%2B1.jpg" width="420" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>An image from Kolmanskop in Namibia edited in Silver Efex 3 from the new Nik Collection 4</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><b></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kHKI0ly50BU/YL3OshF4qmI/AAAAAAAAL1w/D_WV1KUBrBg3y4ciY4mSx0ufolcbHTYdQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Kolmanskop%2Bcopy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kHKI0ly50BU/YL3OshF4qmI/AAAAAAAAL1w/D_WV1KUBrBg3y4ciY4mSx0ufolcbHTYdQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Kolmanskop%2Bcopy.jpg" /></a></div><br /><b><br />The Review </b><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am not going to dive too deep into the new Collection as there are already several reviews on the internet (along with multiple ‘announcements’ which essentially copy each other word for word), of which the <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/dxo-nik-collection-4-review" target="_blank">DPReview one</a> is really comprehensive enough to be honest, and I would literally just be reiterating what it has to say (also <a href="https://photojoseph.com/moment/new-nik-collection-4-dxo-new-features-reviewed-detail/20436#.YL26G26xXUI" target="_blank">PhotoJoseph.com's video</a> is the best deep dive into the software that I could find - ). Instead, I’ll focus on any issues, or advantages that I came across while trying out this new version of the Collection. <br /><br />As background, I have been using Nik Efex filters since their inception - even before thy were a standalone company (that have now been acquired by DxO) - when it was baked into Nikon’s proprietary Capture NX editing software. <br /><br /><br /><b>Bad News out of the way first</b><br /><br />Straight out of the gate, my very first use of the new collection managed to crash Photoshop. I opened an image into Color Efex 4, applied a filter and the Color Efex app along with Photoshop both crashed completely. I restarted PhotoShop and it worked the second time around. However, as soon as I applied more than one u-point and tried to save, the same crash occurred. This is an old bug that was sorted out with the last update, so to me if felt a little like we’re regressing. It’s also not necessarily consistent, sometimes working, sometimes not. It’ll take me a little while to isolate what triggers the crash, but the point is that it ends up feeling like you are paying for a beta version of the software rather than the finished product.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The glitches continued unfortunately. If I tried to hit the ‘brush’ option on finishing work with the filters, it would load up into Photoshop as a separate layer with a filled in mask in place. Of course all the layers were locked up, and I couldn’t do anything apart from paint onto the mask. I couldn’t delete layers, duplicate layers, merge layers or even add a new empty layer. The only way to resolve this was to close the image and reopen it again, then suddenly everything worked as normal once more (to be absolutely honest, the old brush feature was really a waste of time anyway as all it did was automatically build a black filled mask onto the new layer within PhotoShop - which any user can do by simply holding the Alt/Opt button and clicking on the ‘Create New Layer Mask’ icon). <br /><br />And the glitches continued. My workshop centres around Capture One Pro as opposed to Lightroom. In the past it was very simple to roundtrip back and forth with the Nik apps. Simply select and image, opt to ‘Edit in Nik … (whatever app you selected)’ and a new Tif file would open up in the selected app. When you finished and hit save, the Tif file would be back in place next to the original RAW file along with the Nik edits applied. Better yet, with the use of Nik’s non-destructive editing, I could open that file back into the Nik app, and continue editing where I had left off. <br /><br />That continues to work in everything except the two newly redeveloped apps: Nik Viveza 3 and Nik Silver Efex Pro 3. I can edit to my heart’s content in either of these, but when I hit Apply or Save, the app closes and nothing has actually happened to my file. It’s as if it was never edited in the first place. The only workaround was to open it first in PhotoShop and then edit in Viveza or Silver Efex. Thankfully this didn’t happen with the other apps in the collection which have essentially been left unchanged since version 3. UPDATE - It does work, after opening and closing Capture One several times, and shutting the computer down, the round tripping suddenly started working. So it does work, just don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work immediately. Shut down your computer completely after install, and it will probably work. <br /><br />Another gotcha moment where you feel like you are using a beta version of the software is when you try to use fairly standard shortcut keys like Cmd + / Cmd - or Cmd 0 to zoom in, out or to 100% view. In the older apps like Color Efex these work as normal. Not so with Silver Efex 3 and Viveza 3. Hit those buttons and nothing happens. You have to use the onscreen buttons at the top of the stage view instead. Like I say, it ends up feeling like a beta version, not the finished product. <br /><br />Finally, if you are a heavy user of Viveza and you are on an older computer, Viveza 2 runs faster than Viveza 3 (I had a similar experience comparing Silver Efex 2 to the new version). That can be a little disappointing admittedly. None of the other apps seem to be affected by this speed change, so it appears that it’s only for the two new reboots of Viveza and Silver Efex. <br /><br /><b>The Good News</b><br /></p><p><br />Viveza and Silver Efex, overlooked in the last 2020 update have now received some love. They have both had a complete revamp of the UI (User Interface) so that they look more modern and are supposedly more in line with the rest of the DXO offerings. One of the biggest changes is that the Viveza u-points no longer have all the controls attached to the actual u-point. Now the controls stay locked in the panel on the right hand side of the screen. I’m sure some people will feel more comfortable with this, but users familiar with the u-point interface since 1999 might see this as a step backward to be honest. Still, each to one’s own taste I suppose. </p><p> </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rt6NJQSY74g/YL3NRyw0G7I/AAAAAAAAL1o/_nsDPk0I0NMRmge_1RQNfKUwuufE5MPlgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1130/Look.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1130" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rt6NJQSY74g/YL3NRyw0G7I/AAAAAAAAL1o/_nsDPk0I0NMRmge_1RQNfKUwuufE5MPlgCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Look.jpg" /></a></div><p> </p><p>Under the hood there does seem to be some refinement and the Silver Efex app in particular, it still turns out truly excellent black and white renderings of the input images. It does this with a fairly easy and intuitive update to the UI that will make sense too most photographers familiar with slider controls. For photographers yearning for that film like look to their digital images, Silver Efex also adds a plethora (39 I think) new film grains to its library of adjustments. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='793' height='537' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwr_1Abgm6NZurmHzxnqsvAP9acf3cIVppYB1PFarAN2EpROCY2D4l8p3_j3WDRHHe2uLAe99UkDiXscxvhDA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Added bonus for dedicated Lightroom users is that the Nik Collection now blends even more seamlessly into the Adobe workflow. You can now copy and paste Nik settings between images in Lightroom. That’s really cool, and has the potential to vastly speed up Lightroom Workflows (just as an example if you are wedding photographer and want to adjust one image using Color Efex Pro and have those edits copied to a bunch of other images, you can now do this with a relatively straight forward procedure). Admittedly, it took me a while to figure out how this is done as there is very little literature on the internet on how to do this, but it does work, albeit slowly. <br /><br />To copy settings from one image to others open an image into any of the Nik apps as usual. When you save the image it will land back in your Gallery view. Now right-click on this saved image and select Export>Nik Collection - Copy and Apply Parameters. A pop up Box opens where you can select which app settings to copy to clipboard. Once copied, you can select the images <br /><br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br /><br />Little things add up to some frustration using the new collection. I was disappointed that older, supposedly stable apps within the collection are now slightly buggy, while the shiny new revamps of Viveza 3 and Silver Efex 3 feel decidedly unfinished. There is still a lot to like with the Nik Collection as a whole, but if you are already a dedicated user of the Nik Efex apps, you are likely to be underwhelmed for the most part. If you are currently happy with version 3 of the collection there isn't all that much to force an upgrade (as it is, the free Google version from 4 years ago still works, making the transition to the DXO owned and supposedly bug free, but not, versions a non-necessity for many).<br /><br />If you are completely new to the Nik Collection, then I firmly recommend it, bugs and all. If only for the Silver Efex App, the collection is worth the introductory price of US$79. It’s not such an easy sell if you already own the previous version of the Nik Collection. You could take a risk and purchase the upgrade in the hopes that the bugs will be solved in the nearish future, or just to stay current with the latest software. As it is, I have found that even if DXO are sluggish in fixing their own apps, Adobe and Phase One have made their software work with the apps in successive updates. Once the round tripping problem resolved itself, the choice became a little harder for me. I use Nik Color Efex and Silver Efex extensively. The other apps, including Viveza might as well not exist for me as there are better tools within Photoshop in my opinion (although I have to give Dfine 2 a thumbs up as it is extremely easy to use and produces very clean results from noisy files, so does get used occasionally when I have an image that needs rescuing). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As suggested in the above summary at the beginning of the post; if you don't already own Nik Efex, buy it at the introductory price. It really is worth it. If you already own the third version of the Collection, the only compelling reason to upgrade would be for Lightroom Users who want to copy and paste Nik settings across images. The US$59 upgrade is worth it for LR users in my opinion. If you are a C1Pro User though, maybe stick with the previous Collection and see if DXO throws you some love in next year's round of updates. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The current version and it's introductory price are available on the <a href="https://nikcollection.dxo.com/?utm_source=affiliation&utm_medium=awin&utm_campaign=nik-2-affiliate-regular&awc=18170_1623060190_01e4ec601bfabf7d76500cafab014fd0" target="_blank">DXO site</a>. <br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><span><!--more--></span>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-14636499028989473802021-06-02T11:14:00.000+02:002021-06-02T11:14:13.250+02:00Shooting Distance<div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mxnP7RC52_g/UwMClqgQKwI/AAAAAAAAEmo/3LhACdpT1Xs/s1600/1311-08-036-EvM.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mxnP7RC52_g/UwMClqgQKwI/AAAAAAAAEmo/3LhACdpT1Xs/s16000/1311-08-036-EvM.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
Arguably, the first thing that novice photographers attempt to ‘fix’ in their images is the issue of flatness, the sense or feeling that an image is 'flat' when looked at. The way we perceive our world is three-dimensionally. Images are not three-dimensional though, hence our interpretation of the two-dimensional is often one of flatness. The complaint tends to go along the lines of ‘this doesn’t do justice to what we saw’, or ‘it looked a lot bigger in real-life’ or simply, ‘it looked very different when we saw it’. <br /></div><div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V-hH3YHUHQg/YLc4ULmY0yI/AAAAAAAAL08/R0bt2ww8E9MtKyUtxGhEWNDHzhUlUDHHgCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1710-31-126-Fish_River_Canyon-EvM%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V-hH3YHUHQg/YLc4ULmY0yI/AAAAAAAAL08/R0bt2ww8E9MtKyUtxGhEWNDHzhUlUDHHgCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1710-31-126-Fish_River_Canyon-EvM%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The vastness of something like Namibia's Fish river Canyon will often inspire photographers to take as wide a view as possible, and then they wonder why the image looks flat once viewed.</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7bKnpY12P-Q/YLc4UEx90fI/AAAAAAAAL1A/kMsbMODTtDYYGQdIZjZ9PvlZj6I69mTcQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1911-04-113-Fish%2BRiver%2BCanyon-%2B1.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="580" height="537" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7bKnpY12P-Q/YLc4UEx90fI/AAAAAAAAL1A/kMsbMODTtDYYGQdIZjZ9PvlZj6I69mTcQCLcBGAsYHQ/w353-h537/1911-04-113-Fish%2BRiver%2BCanyon-%2B1.jpg" width="353" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i> A longer lens of the same canyon potentially creates depth</i></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>.</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Living in a three-dimensional world, we automatically scan our immediate environments, taking in a multitude of details, but concentrating on only a few. If we stand at the viewpoint where Ansel Adams famously photographed Yosemite and the iconic Half Dome peak, we concentrate on the vista in front of us and in the distance. The mountains seems inspiring and massive because of our position in the landscape. Take a photograph and suddenly the mountains seem small and insignificant. Another good example is that of the Fish River Canyon in Namibia (the example could also apply well to the Colca Canyon in Peru or the Grand Canyon in the United States, with the caveat that the Fish River Canyon has fewer trees in its environment, a point which becomes significant below). The canyon, as awe-inspiring and enormous as it is in real life looks rather uninspiring and insignificant in many photographs. The impression of smallness and flatness is exacerbated by the use of ultra wide angle lens such as a 12mm on APS or an 18mm on Full Frame. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div>
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">One way to portray the sense of the three dimensional is to effectively use linear perspective. In three dimensional space all parallel lines essentially become vanishing points. Imagine a cube viewed from one corner (see image below). The closest side appears larger than the furthest side and the horizontal lines converge rather than run parallel to one another. This convergence is known as vanishing point, and can be used very effectively in portraying space and distance and in an image. Photographs of roads and railway lines use this to particular effect creating the sense of a an endless line that recedes into the far distance. Up closer, photographers can use wide-angle lenses to emphasize size by having the foremost part of an object larger in the frame, while the rest of it tails off and becomes smaller, often through linear perspective (think of photographs of fighter jet aircraft and motor cars shot from immediately in front with a wide angle lens). Not only does this linear shape create the impression of space, but also of movement through that space as the vanishing lines give us the same impression as George Lucas’ star streaks as his heroes break into warp speed in Star Wars. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NppXhNze-FY/UwMCjE7DlFI/AAAAAAAAEmc/-Esnu4Wm298/s1600/linear-perspective.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NppXhNze-FY/UwMCjE7DlFI/AAAAAAAAEmc/-Esnu4Wm298/w380-h400/linear-perspective.jpg" width="380" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A cube viewed from an angle to illustrate linear perspective and vanishing points</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />More readily taught to photographers than linear perspective is the concept of near and far subjects. Ansel Adams writes about it in his book, The Camera, and internet writers like Thom Hogan mention it frequently. As described above, the world is three dimensional, whereas our images are two dimensional representations of that three dimensional reality. A great many photographs can benefit from creating a three-dimensional-like quality to the images by carefully selecting and placing elements in the frame to create a visual sensation of near and far.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Adams writes about the ‘Near-Far Approach’ while Thom Hogan talks about the ‘Near, Middle, Far’ mantra. Both are essentially the same. Images that successfully portray a three-dimensional feel have recognizable foregrounds that link to a well executed background. When we view a scene we take in the entirety of that view, including the foreground. By showing the foreground in an image we create the sense that the viewer is almost included in the scene. This gives the sense of three-dimensionality. Thom Hogan elaborates in the Near-Far Approach by stating there should be a recognizable middle distance subject, hence the mantra - near distant, middle distance, far distance - in selecting elements in the frame. By excluding the foreground there is a perceptual severing between the image and the viewer. This can be be used creatively, but for the most part vista like images need a strong foreground element to ground the viewer in a perceived space. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EZMz72eAj2Y/UwMClWrIwqI/AAAAAAAAEmk/-tyLN1aruCE/s1600/1211-08-34-EvM-panorama.jpg"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EZMz72eAj2Y/UwMClWrIwqI/AAAAAAAAEmk/-tyLN1aruCE/s16000/1211-08-34-EvM-panorama.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Essentially, creating depth markers - recognizable elements in a scene that indicate or illustrate near-far distance - we create the perception of three-dimensionality in our images. If we see a fern leaf large in the foreground, and tree trunks slender and small in the background (as the above example above shows) we perceive depth and distance between the foreground and the background of the image. This is because our experience of the world says to us that fern leafs are usually smaller than tree trunks, and if they appear larger to us, the tree-trunks must be further from us than the fern-leaves. <br />
<br />We can also manipulate the viewer’s perceptual experience of distance within the image by using different focal lengths. Wide angle lenses usually accentuate the sense of distance, making elements in the foreground and background appear further apart than they really are. Similarly, telephoto lenses have a fore-shortening effect that makes distant objects appear closer to the foreground subject than they really are. By excluding a foreground and only a shooting middle and far distant elements together we can make objects appear almost on top of each other. This is done to particular effect in wildlife photography, and in particular wildlife cinematography, making animals appear perceptually far closer in proximity to one another than they are in reality. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M69S4kKu7xg/YLdK4ITfqHI/AAAAAAAAL1M/nthdjVztE7AsSxxvNY-b7g9UgB_IGybgACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/2007-11-100-Mweni_blend.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="583" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M69S4kKu7xg/YLdK4ITfqHI/AAAAAAAAL1M/nthdjVztE7AsSxxvNY-b7g9UgB_IGybgACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/2007-11-100-Mweni_blend.tif" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A 24mm lens is stull wide, but means that the distant mountains are not so distant that they become insignificant in the frame. </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Lens choice can become particularly important when we start to consider how the perception of depth is going to be read into an image. Experienced landscape photographers will point out the strength of a wide angle like a 24mm (on a FF body) as opposed to a wider lens like a 18mm, in that the 24mm still allows the background to have some 'size' in relation to the foreground. Using a wider than 24mm lens on mountains for instance, will often diminish the size of the mountain in the image, so that it's real size and majesty is lost potentially. <br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Perspectival distance can create sense of depth, or lack of it. The size of a subject in relation to the world around it gives us further meaning in interpreting the image. Is the person on a mountain tiny in relation to the looming peaks, or large in relation to distant mountains? These visual clues add interpretative depth to the images we create. Viewpoint becomes all-important then in selecting what to frame and how to frame it so that perspective becomes a natural part of the composition. Create and manipulate perceived depth in an image and those images will never again appear flat. The trick however is to not simply use foreground elements and differing sized depth markers simply for the sake of using them. The difficulty is still creating a meaningful relationship between these elements. Therein lies the secret to truly masterful compositions. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Foz7FytdiDU/YLdK4PwaclI/AAAAAAAAL1Q/2_Dv5TUFiJc33ERgCtffqQMAdQDg_ThkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/2104-11-010-Yacht%2BMole-EvM-Pano%2B1.tif" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Foz7FytdiDU/YLdK4PwaclI/AAAAAAAAL1Q/2_Dv5TUFiJc33ERgCtffqQMAdQDg_ThkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/2104-11-010-Yacht%2BMole-EvM-Pano%2B1.tif" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>If you want to capture more of the scene, consider a panoramic stitch with a slightly longer lens - this still allows for the perspectival depth to stay more or less the same, but allow for a wider view (this image was a 5 image stitch from a 24mm lens). </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-34964043482816621162021-05-03T12:21:00.000+02:002021-05-03T12:21:47.634+02:00Space - The First Frontier<div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gRJZ_WGvfD0/YI_DQLff_OI/AAAAAAAAL0I/bmmPP0fvY-oNduOc3msEE6KQT9m5B1WUACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1207-23-03-EVM.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gRJZ_WGvfD0/YI_DQLff_OI/AAAAAAAAL0I/bmmPP0fvY-oNduOc3msEE6KQT9m5B1WUACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1207-23-03-EVM.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For many photographers, the first mistake they make in composition is trying to fill the picture frame. I’m guilty of this myself, particularly with wildlife photography. There’s the big lens theory that you need to get a big fat piece of glass on the front of the camera so that you can fill that sensor with the leopard in a tree. For landscape photographers there’s the opposite - little lens theory - that you get as wide a lens as possible so that you can fill the frame with as much of the landscape as possible. Then with all these wonderful big and small lenses we wonder why our images look dull and uninspired. It’s because filling the frame is not necessarily the best way to create a meaningful image. Sometimes, you need to leave it empty. <br /></div><div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Different teachers and writers talk about different aspects and use different terms when discussing space; negative space, dead space, white space, copy space and so on. Essentially the simplest way to think of space is that which is often taught to students learning to draw; that the three primary elements of a picture are: the frame, positive space and negative space. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3wA277HOhOg/UuJXea1VL-I/AAAAAAAAEjs/tfFNZOO8ZvY/s1600/Rubins_Vase.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3wA277HOhOg/UuJXea1VL-I/AAAAAAAAEjs/tfFNZOO8ZvY/w320-h312/Rubins_Vase.jpg" width="320" /></a></p>Positive space is relatively easy to understand. It is the pictorial space occupied by the subject itself. Negative space is then the pictorial space that surrounds the positive space. This is where many photographers leave the discussion. The thing is that negative space can define the positive. What we strive for in an artistic composition is often the balance between negative and positive. Consider the old visual trick where we see either a vase, or two faces looking towards one another (known as Rubin’s Vase). If you see the vase, your perceptual interpretation of the image is that the central portion is the positive, and the surrounding area the negative. If you see two faces the central portion is now the negative space.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The important but often overlooked aspect of Rubin’s Vase, is that the negative space still implies or defines the positive. We can still see the vase, even if we draw the faces (and vice versa). This means that the negative space in an image is as important as the positive when viewed in the context of the frame. We’re not always photographing vases of course. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T__OUIUbTAg/YI_DP8BiVzI/AAAAAAAAL0A/lnvwkJ6ywdkd6VTfpaTjMJqN5Ql4M3LbwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1911-08-136-Dead%2BVlei-%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="600" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T__OUIUbTAg/YI_DP8BiVzI/AAAAAAAAL0A/lnvwkJ6ywdkd6VTfpaTjMJqN5Ql4M3LbwCLcBGAsYHQ/w426-h640/1911-08-136-Dead%2BVlei-%2B1.jpg" width="426" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Most simply, negative space can be used to create context within the images we create. If we place a tree, small in the frame to a lower corner and leave the rest literally open to the sky, we start to create an image that is playing with the idea of space. In this instance the vast area of negative space implies a lone tree in a large area. Themes like, ‘solitude’, ‘loneliness’ and ‘emptiness’ start to play through the mind of the viewer. Placing the tree in the horizontal centre of the image (but still low) again subtly changes the meaning of the image. Now the tree plays a more central role in the interpretation of the image. It becomes less about the open space and more about the tree’s role within that space. <br /><br />Problems arise when there isn’t balance. This is when dead space can potentially occur. Viewers find that images that are well-balanced often guide their eyes around the image frame, scanning virtually all of the pictorial space. Dead space occurs when there are sections of the image that the viewer’s eye does not want to be drawn towards. Consider an image where we have a person standing in the centre of the frame looking out towards the right hand side of the frame. Because we empathize with the subject (this is automatic, we even anthropomorphize plants and animals to better interpret pictorial arrangement) we look towards the right hand side of the picture space. But what about the left? If there is nothing there to draw our eyes back into this portion of the frame this could potentially be dead space. Dealing with dead space literally becomes a balancing act. In this regard, this article’s opening image depicts a lioness looking out to the right of frame. She is not central, but rather placed further to the left. Notice how the eye comfortably travels between her and the empty area to the right. The implication is that she is looking towards this negative space, which in turn potentially defines the lioness’ place in the frame. Notice how the eye does not comfortably look behind her (to the left of the frame). Placing the lioness picture left effectively balances her against the negative space picture right. If the lioness were in the centre of the frame this balance wouldn’t occur and the image would probably fall flat.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PRKa9T_QI0U/YI_DP3VE9VI/AAAAAAAAL0E/C79nfXU3-FEvUFguEwNaIECB3pfFqN4sACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1705-19-045-Andravona-EVM.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PRKa9T_QI0U/YI_DP3VE9VI/AAAAAAAAL0E/C79nfXU3-FEvUFguEwNaIECB3pfFqN4sACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1705-19-045-Andravona-EVM.jpg" /></a><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">This is the essence of negative space: it tells us about the positive. Some photographers talk about white space when referring to a particular usage of negative space. This is the space that the subject is moving towards. Again, using the example of an animal or person, if we place empty space in front of where the animal is moving we get the impression that the subject is moving from point A to point B. Placing the subject slap bang in the centre of the frame begins to imply a kind of stasis. It’s not that the subject isn’t moving, but that the directional movement is no longer the emphasis of the image. Very importantly the eye travels from the subject in the direction that the subject is moving. Often the eye ends up momentarily resting on the white space rather than the subject. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />The Japanese have a word that they use that roughly translates to what is referred to here as negative space. The word ‘Ma’ is used to suggest a type of interval. Ma can also be described as a consciousness of place in that it can be the simultaneous awareness of both form and non-form. Importantly Ma is not something that is automatically created through composition, but is rather the imagining of the viewer as they look at the image. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wbAQdUkRr-I/YI_Fzpe6uVI/AAAAAAAAL0Y/5Eo65vlgc8kwCYZcPOtkb1UeWEwtAFAtQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1411-05-259-EVM%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wbAQdUkRr-I/YI_Fzpe6uVI/AAAAAAAAL0Y/5Eo65vlgc8kwCYZcPOtkb1UeWEwtAFAtQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1411-05-259-EVM%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>It is admittedly easier in some places to practice minimalism in composition (such as the tree abive in Namibia's Dead Vlei), but the more you shoot with an eye toward minimalism, the more you are likely to see it, even in jumbled chaotic settings</i>. <br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br />Moreover, emptiness as an element in the frame is also minimalist in compositional style. Minimalism is essentially reductive: it involves honing and paring until the image is left with nothing but the essential information, which is also beautiful in its simplicity. Empty space in this regard is an excellent way of isolating a subject and suppressing additional detail that can potentially detract from the key messaging in the composition. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rDx9R54unqw/YI_N5eERXCI/AAAAAAAAL0g/ZoBFiQrsYRkoYPGCv_Dzeq8WmAnMCqE9gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1200/1812-26-008-Southport-EvM%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="847" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rDx9R54unqw/YI_N5eERXCI/AAAAAAAAL0g/ZoBFiQrsYRkoYPGCv_Dzeq8WmAnMCqE9gCLcBGAsYHQ/w452-h640/1812-26-008-Southport-EvM%2B2.jpg" width="452" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>As mentioned above, once you start looking for minimalist compositions that emphasis space, they become easier to 'see'.</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Emptiness in a frame can often tell us a whole lot more than a filled frame. Pauses and intervals are an integral part of poetry and the written word. Imagine a paragraph without any punctuation, or a poem without stanza or line form. This is a akin to filling the photographic frame without any meaningful space. Film-making and theatre are perhaps the art of the pause and empty space at their finest. The empty pause can be used to extreme effect by heightening tension (Hitchcock was a master of this). It leaves space for the imagination to literally fill in the blank (the concept of Ma). We also know that a change of scene or pace is sometimes followed by a pause. <br /><br />If photographic composition is about the arrangement of elements to convey a message, the elements themselves are the letters that make up the words. When the elements are arranged correctly we get words. Making sense of the words comes by inserting spaces and punctuation. Without space, all we see is nonsensical and chaotic. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NMhm-2sxdvA/YI_OpDhTEVI/AAAAAAAAL0o/qxuY65T6LPAIUdI9tZ0FSWcGceODTAChwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1511-15-099-EvM-Pano.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="342" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NMhm-2sxdvA/YI_OpDhTEVI/AAAAAAAAL0o/qxuY65T6LPAIUdI9tZ0FSWcGceODTAChwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1511-15-099-EvM-Pano.jpg" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><p style="text-align: left;"></p><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3wA277HOhOg/UuJXea1VL-I/AAAAAAAAEjs/tfFNZOO8ZvY/s1600/Rubins_Vase.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZolL-tMKa58/UuJX6SQGByI/AAAAAAAAEj0/uU63ZWTHlPY/s1600/movement+illustration.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-53080301452211333462021-03-31T08:46:00.000+02:002021-03-31T08:46:49.654+02:00The 'Rule' of Thirds<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KeYBcleAqwQ/YGQNV2rCVCI/AAAAAAAALtw/VSf6uNWm45EsfKkahsYSAjCABtrjM8l1ACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1311-05-158-EvM-Edit-Edit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The Rule of thirds" border="0" data-original-height="555" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KeYBcleAqwQ/YGQNV2rCVCI/AAAAAAAALtw/VSf6uNWm45EsfKkahsYSAjCABtrjM8l1ACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1311-05-158-EvM-Edit-Edit.jpg" title="Quiver Tree thirds" /></a></div><br />
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a rule that seems to be taken as a biblical guidance caste down in stone as the 11th commandment for photographers: The Rule of Thirds (hereafter referred to as RoT). This piece of guidance is viewed by many as a starting point for composition. It’s muttered like a mantra at camera-club meetings (woe betide the photographer who dares not use it at one of these gatherings), and is often the first thing that is mentioned in books on photographic composition. The problem with such a strong term as ‘rule’, is that photographers will sometimes feel that they have to craft the image so that it fits the rule, rather than look at the elements and allow them to fall into place in a manner that works best for both the subject matter at hand. <br /><br /></div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
The basic gist of the rule of thirds is that the image can be divided into 9 equally sized blocks by drawing 2 equidistant lines horizontally across the frame at third intervals (see image below), and an additional 2 vertically also at third intervals. The lines form a basic guide as to where to place the horizon (horizontal lines) and subject (vertical lines) so that there is an aesthetically pleasing arrangement that has a sense of harmony or balance. The engraver John Thomas Smith is possibly the first person to have written about this arrangement in his 1797 book, “Remarks on Rural Scenery” (his long explanation of this rule can be read on this wikipedia <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds" target="_blank">link</a>). In more recent y§ears attention has been given to the actual intersection of the lines as forming what Niall Benvie calls, “the eyes of the picture” (Creative Landscape Photography 2001:32). The advice is still that the horizon should be placed on or near one of the horizontal lines, but that the subject or point of interest should be placed on one of the intersections of the lines. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ltRo-m5eEU4/YGQQVJpUHDI/AAAAAAAALt4/zuVxbcFsiDwKEXlGjgASyGy250KngiNDACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/Eyes%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bpicture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Eyes of the picture" border="0" data-original-height="601" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ltRo-m5eEU4/YGQQVJpUHDI/AAAAAAAALt4/zuVxbcFsiDwKEXlGjgASyGy250KngiNDACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Eyes%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bpicture.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>An image of the managers house at Kolmanskop in Namibia showing the classic arrangement of the horizon and principle subject using the rule of thirds. </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table> <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is an interesting discussion on the internet site <a href="http://photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00bytF" target="_blank">photo.net</a> regarding the RoT. The actual origin of the term ‘rule of thirds’ is argued by some that it is a relatively recent invention and is aimed primarily at teaching amateurs the basics of composition. This is echoed in some more established writings such as those by Michael Freeman (The Photographers Mind - Focal Press:2011). Most importantly, there seems to be some consensus that the rule of thirds is actually a dumbing down of the Golden Mean, or Golden Ratio.<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DcX6cqSHrDY/UspIhp7pesI/AAAAAAAAEgk/TLDVYA6gFUA/s1600/Thirds_Golden_Ratio.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DcX6cqSHrDY/UspIhp7pesI/AAAAAAAAEgk/TLDVYA6gFUA/s1600/Thirds_Golden_Ratio.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><p>
<br />
<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Golden Ratio was first written about by the ancient Greeks and was more than just a way of organizing the picture space. For the Greeks, perfection was found not in excesses, but rather in the space between two excesses. This idea of the middle path stretched into everything that the Ancient Greeks did; philosophy, governance, art, everything. For them beauty was a mixture of symmetry, proportion and harmony. The Golden Ratio is a mathematical principle expressed as: a+b is to a as a is to b (see this <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio" target="_blank">link</a> for images) and was the mathematical expression of this ideal. Subsequently this principle has been mapped to a host of natural processes, although with varying success. Importantly the ratio is roughly 1.62 to 1, meaning that the perfect rectangle for the Ancient Greeks is 1.62 on the long side and 1 on the short. It is not the same as the 2:3 ration that we see through most APS and FF cameras and is also different to the many types of traditional and digital photographic papers that are available. Although I think it’s interesting that it is closer to the 16:9 aspect ration that is used for widescreen cinema (as a completely irrelevant aside I find myself veering towards the 16:9 aspect ratio for a lot of my own personal work, preferring it over the usual 2:3 aspect ratio of the camera). Above are the two principles with their counterparts overlapping. I personally disagree that the RoT is a dumbing down of the Golden Mean as the points are actually quite different.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H_eS252-DmI/YGQTQBvGs2I/AAAAAAAALuA/PTzLN8yc6JM1IlGFnjhhgPrWC8xI2BrlgCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1911-09-159-Dead%2BVlei-%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="16:9 aspect ratio" border="0" data-original-height="493" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H_eS252-DmI/YGQTQBvGs2I/AAAAAAAALuA/PTzLN8yc6JM1IlGFnjhhgPrWC8xI2BrlgCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1911-09-159-Dead%2BVlei-%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>My general preference tends toward the 16:9 aspect ratio which is closer to the ancient Greek's Golden Ration of 1.62 to 1.</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The basic premise of the Golden Ratio as a compositional guide, apart from the actual shape of the rectangle, is that a series of intersection points creates a spiral that gets smaller and smaller. It’s often suggested that the point where the spiral gets to its smallest is the point of tension within the composition. Think of it as the focal point for ease of illustration. The rest of the composition should be roughly guided by the spiral as it winds outwards. In this way a number of Henri-Cartier Bresson’s images have been illustrated to have used the Golden Ratio (see this <a href="http://www.yulyaryding.com/reading-the-image-frame/" target="_blank">post</a> on Bresson’s cyclist image). Whether this was on purpose or not is unknown. <br />
<br />
Putting the Golden Ratio aside for the moment, the way that the Rule of Thirds works on images is that it automatically creates a sense of balance within the frame. In a <a href="http://www.photowriting.co.za/2021/03/the-first-order-of-composition-frame.html" target="_blank">previous post</a> I pointed out the importance of the picture frame itself. I would suggest that it is near impossible to view the image outside of the context of its frame. So, the frame can potentially dictate how the elements should be arranged in order to create the sense of balance. Imagine a bird flying against a blue sky. If we use the RoT to place the bird on one of the eyes of the picture we automatically create balance with the intersection diagonally opposite to the bird in question, even if there is nothing on that point. Automatically the image becomes more pleasing to the eye as the balance in the frame has also started to create a sense of story. A bird centred in the frame is simply a bird flying. A bird off to one-third of the frame is a bird that is moving in a direction. It isn’t simply hanging in space.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UqetpTO0KxM/YGQVX4BhKPI/AAAAAAAALuI/9VtFk_TEL64Uhy6bBBmVQHlifR2uJVmKwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/EmilvonMaltitz_BlendingIn_Birds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UqetpTO0KxM/YGQVX4BhKPI/AAAAAAAALuI/9VtFk_TEL64Uhy6bBBmVQHlifR2uJVmKwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/EmilvonMaltitz_BlendingIn_Birds.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Not necessarily a blue sky (I am a landscape photographer more than a bird photographer to be fair) but the principle remains: placing the subject on the eyes of the picture automatically forces a balance against the diagonal opposite portion of the frame. </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> <br />
Think instead of a landscape. When the horizon is centred there is a definite feeling of flatness to the image. Theoretically, symmetry should give us balance, but, most landscapes have other elements either in the sky (clouds) or on the land. The elements in the sky are not necessarily balanced with those on the ground (reflections in water are a notable exception), so despite the horizon being centred the image becomes unbalanced. The RoT suggests placing emphasis on either the sky or the foreground by placing the horizon on or near one of the third lines. If the upper third line is chosen then the emphasis is on the foreground (and vice versa). Taking the RoT further, the suggestion is that the principle subject should be aligned with either the left or right vertical third. This again creates a form of balance that is pleasing to the eye within the context of the frame. <br />
<br />
The important thing here is that the RoT works in the context of the image frame. I often perform a little exercise with groups where I bring up a 2/3 ratio rectangle frame with nothing in it. Asking one half of the group to watch the other half, I change the slide to one where there is a large black dot in the centre of this rectangular frame. The students watching the other students note that there is little to no eye-movement by the students watching the slides. I then put up a slide with the dot on one of the eyes of the picture (intersection of lines). Now the reporting students describe how the eye’s of the watching students flicker across the frame. Basically, what’s happening is that our eyes and brains are essentially lazy. When the subject is placed slap bang in the centre of the frame the brain needs to do the least amount of work to decipher the image. By placing the subject away from the centre of the frame the eye is forced to dart across to it. Interestingly, it’s as if our brains require some kind of balance, as straight after alighting on the subject, the eyes either flicker diagonally across to the opposite side of the frame (which is empty), or do a cyclical tour of the frame, seeking out other information, despite there being none. <br />
</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4oj9EOqRpPI/YGQaHfSVVyI/AAAAAAAALuY/K-KpqljXiMk17c2Bmo9mU-f5Fc-j9uEWgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1046/Slides.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1046" data-original-width="900" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4oj9EOqRpPI/YGQaHfSVVyI/AAAAAAAALuY/K-KpqljXiMk17c2Bmo9mU-f5Fc-j9uEWgCLcBGAsYHQ/w550-h640/Slides.jpg" width="550" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The two slides that I show one after the other to gauge eye-movement of the viewer</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
The RoT is not the same as the Golden Ratio, despite the suggestion that it is a lazy appropriation of it. For a start the rule of thirds works with any format choice, not just the rectangle. The Golden Ratio is more than a spiral, it’s about where the points of the spiral are, so drawing a spiral in a panoramic image is not the same as using the Golden Ratio. Yes, the RoT is easier to understand (thankfully) which is one of the reasons it is often the first tenet of composition that is mentioned. It is not the be-all and end-all of compositional theory though. Think of it more a compositional 'get out of jail free' card. It's there when you have absolutely no idea of how to compose the scene. <br />
<br />
One of my favourite quotes is that of Henri-Cartier Bresson where he apparently said, “I hate rules, I love principles”. Rules tend to be adhered to religiously, while principles are guides that can be ignored if necessary. To me, the RoT is actually where the image potentially ends, rather than the starting point from which the composition is created. Ultimately the photographer should be aiming for content driven composition rather than rule driven composition. There is far more to composition than simply slapping the horizon on a line and the subject on a point in the frame. I hope to explore this a little more over the coming months with ways to recognize compositional elements and their ordering in the frame. Stay tuned for more. </p><br />Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-54176010284303872932021-03-30T08:03:00.000+02:002021-03-30T08:03:00.771+02:00 Advice In Looking for that first bit of work experience<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HC9iFJ9HBCk/VO7m3X3C5rI/AAAAAAAAHW8/ay-7qldpQVIxH7XgJ_Ib-OJt89yL1-K9QCPcBGAYYCw/s750/_DSF4352-Edit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="750" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HC9iFJ9HBCk/VO7m3X3C5rI/AAAAAAAAHW8/ay-7qldpQVIxH7XgJ_Ib-OJt89yL1-K9QCPcBGAYYCw/s16000/_DSF4352-Edit.jpg" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Every now and again I get a request from some young photographer asking if they can shadow me on a shoot, be an intern, or more baldly, be given a job. Some of these requests I entertain, as the photographer has caught my eye in some way. The reality though is that I doubt that many of these job/intern/shadow seekers get much success from the email approach. The hit rate with me is probably 1:20. I have found myself writing a response to several in the past as to why their missive hasn’t struck the right cord. So this is a post written to all those out there who are wanting to get noticed by a potential employer. </div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Don’t put it in a bulk email<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">You as the job seeker probably don’t realise it, but addressing your request for work experience to every photographers’ email that you can find on the internet, is not going to endear you to those photographers. In fact, it’s insulting. The irony is that very often in the text of the email are the lines “I really admire your work/style/approach (take your pick here, as I have had a variation on all of them) and would love to work with you”, yet, the email is addressed to “Whom It May Concern” and is cc’d to twenty other people. This is the number one fastest way to have email tossed into the trash. If you are not going to personalise the email, it's not going to get given any attention by the recipient (in fact the 'To Whom It May Concern' line coupled with multiple addressees might even arouse the spam-bots and toss the the email into the trash folder before it even gets delivered).<br /><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">You Have Chosen the Wrong Profession if you think there is a hiring spree (at any point)<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">The vast majority of professional photographers I know work for themselves. Admittedly I am, in the freelance crowd and don’t rub shoulders that often with dedicated journalists, or junior photographers in design companies. Most freelancers, also work alone. Sending out an email to these guys to get a job is a shot in the dark in the first place. The money is not good, except for the very tippy top of the pile. Any request for a job is usually met with ‘huh, I can’t even pay myself, let alone an assistant’, and the request gets thrown in the trash pile. What the vast majority of photographers do though, is hire assistants as and when they need them. Don’t expect an email in the dark to be the way these photographers vet potential assistants. <br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">The Best Assistant’s Are Not Photographers<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">I’ve been through several assistants over the last decade. Some have been amazing, some have been terrible. What I did realise though is that the best assistants are not photographers. Photographers need someone to deal with the crap of running a business. Photographers need a PA, secretary and general handiperson, not necessarily another photographer. They need someone who can deal with invoicing, keywording, editing and hauling gear. The last thing they want is someone who thinks they know better and who might potentially steal their client base after a few months (I kid not, this has happened to photographers I know in the city where I work). If you really want that internship, possibly point out that you want to help with the background stuff, not the shooting, and just maybe the photographers that you are approaching might sit up and take notice. <br /><br />As a very brief aside; years ago I was approached by a photography student from abroad who said she really wanted to be my assistant. She had done her homework and knew what I shot and the kind of work that I did. However when I explained what I needed from an assistant, she quickly decided against pursuing the post (that didn’t actually exist in the first place). She was incredulous that I would not be paying her to join me on workshops in Namibia, and commercial shoots in Mozambique, and said she didn’t want to be in the office editing and doing keywords (which is what I really needed at that stage). <br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">The Last Thing a Photographer Needs on a Big Shoot is someone who doesn’t know what to do<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">In theory, shadowing is a fantastic way to get experience. In reality, the majority of situations that a lot of photographers find themselves in, ‘any shadow’ would simply get in the way. If I am working in a factory or a mill, I am in a tight, potentially dangerous space trying hard to get images that the client will be happy with. Looking after a shadow who has never done this before is going to detract from the actual picture-taking process. It’s hard enough with a first-time assistant, let alone a stranger who is just tagging along. Then there’s the very real liability issue. If something happens to the ‘shadow’ while on a shoot, the photographer is potentially responsible legally. As mentioned above, some of the work I shoot is industrial. Just to get on site I often have to jump through several hoops so that the client is not liable if I injure myself while shooting…now what happens if the assistant/shadow/intern is injured? So usually, the response to this question from most photographers is just simply no. <br /><br />This isn’t to say that shadowing is a terrible idea. When I started learning about video I asked videographers I knew whether I could shadow them. I have had both students and established photographers shadow me. Part of the rationale behind workshops is essentially the opportunity to shadow (with instruction) another photographer. Shadowing can and does work, but asking a stranger in an email for the opportunity is probably not the best way to go about it. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">By now the common theme here of 'stranger' should be picking at readers brains. The biggest problem for the entrant is that it is a fairly small established group of players in the industry. Lots of people trying to get in, but those who have managed to create sustainable businesses rank in the minority. Small businesses, regardless of the industry, tend to work with people they know (and trust). There simply isn't budget to be able to risk on unknown entities. So the goal is to become known, to not be a stranger. <br /><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: justify;">So What Can You Do?</h3><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Do Your Homework<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">The bulk email approach is a sure-fire way to be rejected, period. I don’t know a single example of where It has worked among any of my colleagues. In fact, most people see the list of addressees and simply bin the email before even reading it. So if you are going to email a photographer, figure out who they are and what they shoot. Get to know their work and mention it specifically in your email (a little bit of ego stroking goes a long way). I am willing to bet that the majority of the shadow requests I receive don’t even know what I shoot. I strongly suspect that the only part of my website they have even looked at, is the contact page. <br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Do Some More Homework<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">An individual freelancer is less likely to respond to your email than a large studio with a group of photographers. The difference is simple. The individual is used to working on their own, or hand-picking an assistant from a referral from someone that they trust. A team is used to hiring and the complexities of working in a group. Sending an email requesting a post from the individual is far less likely to garner a response than from a large studio that literally has a hiring policy in place. Do your homework and figure out who you are addressing the email to in the first place. <br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Don’t ask for a job<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">…ask for a coffee. Here I have to give a big up to Llewelyn ‘Juice’ Makhanya (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/llwellynjuiceAwesomeness">https://www.facebook.com/llwellynjuiceAwesomeness</a>). When he started out he gave me a call and asked just to meet me and pick my brain. Although I haven’t found the right job to work with him yet, I still try and figure out how I can use him on a shoot. In the circles of professionals that I work with, photographers don’t hire, they collaborate. You don’t get in by sending an email. You get into this world by meeting people. So rather than sending an email asking for work-experience, ask if you can buy the photographer a coffee and pick their brain. You can even ask if they would be prepared to meet with you (you’re buying the coffee, not the photographer, mind you) to go over your portfolio and ask for advice. <br /><br />The core thing to do is to get to know people, without any hidden agenda. Established photographers are not the gate-keepers to some secret world of work. They are peers however, with plenty of world and work experience and advice that can help someone starting out. <br /><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">You’re a photographer, where’s the portfolio?<br /></h4><p style="text-align: justify;">It’s unbelievable how many requests I get for work that don’t include a portfolio. Back of the hand, I think it’s probably 1 in 10 that actually attach a portfolio or even a link to a webpage or profile. I get lots of CVs admittedly, but these are next to useless in judging a photographer. When I was still a student and met Obie Oberholzer briefly while trying to figure out my career path, he said to me that “a CV is worth (expletive) all!” It doesn’t matter where you studied, or how many diplomas/degrees you have. All that matters are your images. <br /><br />For that matter, where’s your website? Sure you have a Facebook profile, but if you are serious you have a gallery of images that are available on the internet. There are plenty of options out there that don’t cost a cent (courtesy of social media) including Instagram. Can’t afford a website, then build a blog of your images. However, if you want to be taken seriously get a website. It doesn’t have to be state of the art, but it needs to be out there as a calling card for anyone who asks to see your work. <br /><br />As a photographer everything you do should be linked to image-making. By not receiving an image in the email request for work, the applicant is basically saying, “I’m not a photographer, I’m just looking for a job”. That simply does not make that person stand out. <br /></p><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion<br /></h3><p style="text-align: justify;">Finding work is hard. Is doesn’t get any easier the longer you stay in the industry either. Start out on the right foot by getting to know people in the industry. It’s who you know that ultimately gets you the referrals for work. Sad, but true. I know several photographers who produce absolutely stunning work, but they haven’t managed to market themselves effectively, and as a result they lose out to lesser photographers who know how to trumpet their name. <br /><br />Email campaigns are a shot in the dark to start with, so a vague request for a job without any portfolio, or reason to go beyond the first few lines of text are doomed to fail from the moment you hit ‘send’. First and foremost, give the photographer a reason to meet you. Preferably a reason that isn’t overtly linked to ‘give me a job’. The same advice could probably go toward any photographer looking for clients as well. Get to meet people first, show your portfolio around, and maybe people will be more inclined to go from there. <br /></p>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-46974929931620565582021-03-01T17:10:00.000+02:002021-03-01T17:10:02.254+02:00 The First Order of Composition - Frame<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wTinKzb0syQ/YD0BHziGo-I/AAAAAAAALs4/Nf4IZGUKHTIOkx-_n__nCfH0_f6Nam-RACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1608-28-155-EVM_-Pano-Edit.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="364" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wTinKzb0syQ/YD0BHziGo-I/AAAAAAAALs4/Nf4IZGUKHTIOkx-_n__nCfH0_f6Nam-RACLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1608-28-155-EVM_-Pano-Edit.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Classic use of objects within the frame to frame other objects, creating layers of frame-subject relationships</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the defining characteristics of a photograph is that it is two dimensional. Being two two dimensional means that there has to be an edge to the picture as an object. This is very succinctly put by Stephen shore who wrote that “the photograph has edges, the world has not” (Stephen Shore -The Nature of Photographs: 1998). Part of the photographer’s goal is to delineate their experience of the world within a frame and so depict their ‘view’ of the world to a viewer in another time and place. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;">Of course saying this is easy whereas putting this into practice takes a little more skill. The problem is that as photographers start out they tend to be overly concerned with the content - as they should -and how much they can fit into the scene. As they grow more experienced the realization dawns that less is more and the concern shifts to how little should be included in the scene.<br /></p><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BV3nVoM3kW0/YD0BH5fYxoI/AAAAAAAALtA/6Oymyb-TRdoWmtWqayKbn6R4aEis977IwCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/_EVM0047%2B1%2B1%2B1%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BV3nVoM3kW0/YD0BH5fYxoI/AAAAAAAALtA/6Oymyb-TRdoWmtWqayKbn6R4aEis977IwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/_EVM0047%2B1%2B1%2B1%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A frame does not have to be dark - lightness frames the darker center of the image, however a very slight vignette ensures that viewer interest doesn't complete leave the scene. </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The key word above is inclusion. Angela Farris Belt in her book, ‘The Elements of Photography’ explains that “even those photographers who know the basic rules of two-dimensional composition don’t necessarily understand how to apply those rules toward orchestrating content within a photographic frame” (6:2008). I dislike the use of the word ‘rules’, but essentially photographers end up ignoring one of the defining characteristics of the photograph, the fact that the image is an encapsulated reality within the boundaries of the photographic frame. <br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DlEZQ0U2UxE/YD0CoJk76VI/AAAAAAAALtU/CsEDjGj2O3E9tORXzoHOPfoIzddK4zvFQCLcBGAsYHQ/s900/1210-24-053-EvM-panoramic-2.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="523" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DlEZQ0U2UxE/YD0CoJk76VI/AAAAAAAALtU/CsEDjGj2O3E9tORXzoHOPfoIzddK4zvFQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/1210-24-053-EvM-panoramic-2.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>A visual pun utilizing a frame within a frame to frame the subject of the image...although the frame itself is subject as well.</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />The first order of framing is of course what we point the camera at. What gets included and excluded plays an enormous role in the meaning that is transmitted through the image. One of my favourite images to demonstrate this is Weegee’s “The Critic”. Taken in 1943, the image depicts a ‘bag-woman’ supposedly criticizing two overdressed socialites as they walk past her. The more commonly viewed image shows the crop of just the bag woman and the two socialites. In this crop the meaning is fairly obvious. However, the less frequently viewed <a href="http://museum.icp.org/museum/collections/special/weegee/weegee09.html" target="_blank">original image</a> shows other people on the left of the frame who the bag woman may actually be talking to (the man is possibly Weegee’s assistant who assisted in the staging of this image). What is included or excluded from the frame is critical to the reading of the image. There is an interesting side effect of the act of framing that John Szarkowski picks up on: “To quote out of context is the essence of the photographer’s craft” (The Photographers Eye 70:1966). Kevin Carter’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter" target="_blank">iconic image</a> of the Sudanese girl and vulture is a perfect example here. What we see through the image and what the reality is, are often two different things entirely!<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />“A visually literate viewer assumes that the entire content of the frame to be intended by the photographer” (Farris Belt 7:2008). The photographer needs to be consciously aware of what goes in and what stays out of frame. Cropping, is the post-capture act of refining the framing of the image, and as such helps the photographer eliminate the elements that serve to distract the viewer from the intended meaning of the image. Sometimes it helps to shoot loose and crop later (photographing sport and wildlife comes to mind immediately), but the awareness of a future crop should still be a part of the intended creation of the image. This is particularly the case when we intend to change the final format of the captured image.<br /><br />Our eyes view images within the context of the frame. This is an important consideration as the edges of the photograph are the first order of the design of the image (the composition). In this way our eyes automatically pan across a panoramic format image. We unconsciously look toward the centre of a square format frame and seem to subconsciously yearn for third or diagonal balance in 2:3 ratio frames. This brings us back to Farris Belt’s comment regarding the photographic frame. The edges of the photograph take on an active role in the way that the image is read. This is why some of the more prestigious photographic salons actually ask the photographer what colour matt (background) the image should be viewed on. The choice can determine how an image read by the viewer. <br /><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I8lsSwb7Twc/Upg6WpB85wI/AAAAAAAAEeU/uMjWyizQYb0yuPuiKLwhROiWKmPP1dgWwCPcBGAYYCw/s2000/1305-25-099-EVM-compare.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1222" data-original-width="2000" height="392" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-I8lsSwb7Twc/Upg6WpB85wI/AAAAAAAAEeU/uMjWyizQYb0yuPuiKLwhROiWKmPP1dgWwCPcBGAYYCw/w640-h392/1305-25-099-EVM-compare.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click to view a larger screen size image for comparison</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />The images above are all slightly different. The image on the left has a very faint vignette to it, while the central image lacks the vignette. The right hand image is identical to the central image, but has a thin black border to it. The subtle differences play an active role in the reading of the image. In the left image, the vignette forces the eye into the frame so the viewer concentrates more on the elephants. The central image has no vignette and as a result the eye wanders outwards towards the bright edges of the image, giving the impression of a greater space - possibly similar to that depicted - outside of the actual image. The right image encapsulates the viewer’s eye within the black frame, precluding any thought of a world outside of the framed image. Personally, I find it difficult to decide between the first two images as to which works more effectively, but each certainly has a subtly different reading to that of the other. <br /><br />The basic premise in action here is the difference between active and passive frames. An active frame is one which stops the viewer’s eye from wandering outside of the confines of the image space. A passive frame on the other hand tends to imply that there is space beyond the borders of the image. These are simple post-production techniques which play a large part in the ultimate meaning of the image. Bearing these in mind while actively framing the image in camera could potentially change the way the photographer creates the image. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GP_uPQf6YtI/YD0BHySaAFI/AAAAAAAALs8/Tf_baVuN2gAtk4LSHokFpgplyjjXrZ6AACLcBGAsYHQ/s900/_EVM4706-Pano-copy.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="718" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GP_uPQf6YtI/YD0BHySaAFI/AAAAAAAALs8/Tf_baVuN2gAtk4LSHokFpgplyjjXrZ6AACLcBGAsYHQ/w510-h640/_EVM4706-Pano-copy.jpg" width="510" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The quite literal use of the image frame to create an active frame to the image. It is an effective technique to signal to the viewer notions of authenticity as well as centering of the image and the importance of the central subject. The frame encapsulates the view completely and does not hint at an outside world beyond the image. </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br />Photographic composition can be greatly improved through recognition of the frame as an integral part of the design of the image. The camera is able to encapsulate the world in a single frame, but that frame does more than simply border the content of the image. The frame plays a didactic role in converting the content of the image into a meaningful subject. <br /><br /></p><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><br />Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-71955866915839694722021-01-13T08:36:00.002+02:002021-01-13T08:39:19.885+02:00 A Brief Rant About Lenses<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9AhDm9Xs_Us/X_6O4A2hOdI/AAAAAAAALsM/1iaL2DHqv90QjSURUjPilHedL534Hv-ugCLcBGAsYHQ/s720/Nisi%2B15mm.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9AhDm9Xs_Us/X_6O4A2hOdI/AAAAAAAALsM/1iaL2DHqv90QjSURUjPilHedL534Hv-ugCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Nisi%2B15mm.jpg" /></a></div><p style="text-align: justify;">2021 started with the announcement of a new lens. It started with a whole lot of other stuff besides, but the lens is what I am going to concentrate on. The lens in question comes from the Chinese optical filter manufacturer, Nisi. On paper it looks fantastic. A really great option for mirrorless (it only comes in mirrorless mounts at the moment) admittedly, and one which I would no doubt be considering if I weren’t still shooting from behind a mirror. So why am I irked? <br /></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />Basically I want to scream, ‘enough with the exotics already!’ I love the fact that Nisi have decided to manufacture lenses for mirrorless cameras. I am a firm proponent of their glass filters (full disclosure - I am a local South African Ambassador and rep for Nisi) and was really excited when they started producing quality cine lenses for the film industry. However, despite the fact that the Nisi is an f4 maximum aperture lens, it is still an exotic in that it is a super-wide. As such it follows in the footsteps of Samyang, Laowa and Irix. All produce manual focus super wide-angle lenses with minimal if any electronic contacts to the body. Apart from the Samyang, they all boast minimal distortion, excellent resolution and vanishingly little chromatic aberration. They are optical marvels (I use and love the Laowa 12mm f2.8 Zero-D lens). On top of this, by not including auto-focus, vibration reduction or distance information transmitted through electronic contacts, they are extraordinarily well-priced compared to their Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fujifilm brethren. But where oh where are the stalwarts, the standards, the classic lenses…the glass that captured the most iconic scenes of the last 100 years?<br /><br />By this I am referring to the stable of primes that many photographers cut their teeth on and which seem to have all but disappeared from the optical works of everyone except Zeiss and Leica. I am referring to the 24, 35, 50 and 85mm f2.8 lenses of the past. Note, the aperture! I did not mention 1.8 or even 1.4 aperture. I said f2.8!</p><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J_W1GYVdnfQ/X_6NBeQ9fCI/AAAAAAAALro/jx7Xcr0oooU9K34y0Lq7q51GyVM9tP0iACLcBGAsYHQ/s837/Nikkor%2B20mm%2Bcomparison.tif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="837" height="299" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J_W1GYVdnfQ/X_6NBeQ9fCI/AAAAAAAALro/jx7Xcr0oooU9K34y0Lq7q51GyVM9tP0iACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h299/Nikkor%2B20mm%2Bcomparison.tif" width="400" /></a></div><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wVVs7Jrei4w/X_6NCr3hEUI/AAAAAAAALrw/EcyWlaLC_ZMIxuTEobcpJk4LZIUJSNWfQCLcBGAsYHQ/s837/Nikkor%2B24mm%2Bcomparison.tif" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="837" height="299" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wVVs7Jrei4w/X_6NCr3hEUI/AAAAAAAALrw/EcyWlaLC_ZMIxuTEobcpJk4LZIUJSNWfQCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h299/Nikkor%2B24mm%2Bcomparison.tif" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The older f2,8 prime lenses from the eighties compared to the newer f1.8 variants from the last decade or so. </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: left;"><br />Anyone over 40 will remember when f1.8 was considered an exotic aperture on anything other than a 50mm standard lens. Now, we seem to start at 1.8 (witness the Nikkor 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85mm f1.8 lenses). These lenses are really excellent, but their achilles heel is size and cost. Fujifilm were on to something when they brought out their diminutive but optically excellent f2.8 primes. They seem to have forgotten the point of them of late and started back down the road of bokeh mania and as large-as-possible aperture since then. <br /><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">What Makes f2.8 attractive?</h4><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GTIbrQrVABE/X_6NA68fh4I/AAAAAAAALrg/a0Ghw4OBxZIFLXwEYRYh_o4GSkaV7GktQCLcBGAsYHQ/s783/D850%2Bvs%2BZ7ii%2Bcopy.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="783" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GTIbrQrVABE/X_6NA68fh4I/AAAAAAAALrg/a0Ghw4OBxZIFLXwEYRYh_o4GSkaV7GktQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/D850%2Bvs%2BZ7ii%2Bcopy.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Nikon D850 compared to the significantly smaller Nikon Z7 ii - Showing how much smaller we can potentially make our camera kits, if only the lenses weren't so enormous</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The first thing that comes to mind is size. As mentioned above, Fujifilm have more than proven the point that size does matter, and that small is wonderful. A quick comparison though between f2.8 lenses from the eighties and f1.8 lenses from the the last decade also illustrates the MacDonald diet that lenses have been on of late. <br /><br />Admittedly modern plastics and aircraft grade aluminium have meant that the bloat hasn’t necessarily added weight to the new lenses, but similarly modern f2.8 lenses would also benefit from these new materials and would be feather light in comparison. Not everybody wants, or indeed needs, an enormous lens mounted to the front of the camera. Sure, we can get the focal lengths and aperture out of a f2.8 zoom, but despite lens advances primes lenses are still optically superior to zooms. The size of a .8 zoom is also significant when you compare it to that of a small f2.8 prime. There is a reason why street photographers have preferred small primes for decades, and it has nothing to do with sharpness or even bokeh. Small, light and indiscrete are extremely important features for these photographers. <br /><br />F2.8 also automatically means a lower cost and lighter lens by dint of the fact that significantly less glass is required. A f1.8 lens - requires significantly more glass up front in order to catch more light and allow it to pass through a physically larger aperture. It’s the same reason why exotic telephotos are so expensive (and heavy). In order to have an effective f-stop of 2.8 on a 400mm lens, you require an initial surface area of glass of roughly 160mm in diameter. That is a lot of glass and where the bulk of the raw expense comes from. <br /><br />The size comparisons are most obvious when you consider some of the new 50mm lenses being announced. The new Nikkor Z 50mm f1.2 lens is physically enormous (as well as eye-wateringly expensive). It’s great to have this as a halo product, but where are the normal lenses for the rest of us mere mortals (and please don’t say that a zoom with a variable aperture is the answer, it isn’t). <br /><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">The Promise of Mirrorless</h4><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DwHQfITHybE/X_6NCqZeMEI/AAAAAAAALr0/3GXqItZQdPQbyh7D8a40CsJDd6tpO1UtgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1500/sony-alpha-7r-iii-sel-fe-24-70-mm-f-28-gm-best-price-sonya7riiiselfe2470gm-sony-alpha-7r-iii-buy-sony-alpha-7r-iii-sel-fe-24-70-.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1500" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DwHQfITHybE/X_6NCqZeMEI/AAAAAAAALr0/3GXqItZQdPQbyh7D8a40CsJDd6tpO1UtgCLcBGAsYHQ/w331-h320/sony-alpha-7r-iii-sel-fe-24-70-mm-f-28-gm-best-price-sonya7riiiselfe2470gm-sony-alpha-7r-iii-buy-sony-alpha-7r-iii-sel-fe-24-70-.jpg" width="331" /></a>Initially the promise of mirrorless was that it was able to achieve the optical acrobatics of the the venerable DSLR but in a tinier, mightier package. Unfortunately this seems to have all but been forgotten when you consider the behemoth monstrosities sitting in front of Sony Alpha, Canon Rs and Nikon Zs. Consider the enormousness of the Sony G-Master lenses on the diminutive frame of the Sony A7 series. Or worse, consider the telescope size of the 50mm <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br />Here I applaud Tamron for their take on mirrorless lenses. They have introduced the Di III series of lenses which all have a maximum aperture of f2.8, and are all comparatively diminutive in size. Reviewers complain a little of slow autofocus, but considering the size and cost of the lenses in question, they are a breath of fresh air (and practically weigh as much) to the world of mirrorless cameras. <br /><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion</h4><p style="text-align: justify;"><br />I admit that the above rant is skewed towards what I want in a lens. I’ve spoken to enough other photographers though that I know I am not unique in these desires. The current drive to create more exotic, more expensive lenses is disturbing to a lot of photographers. Which confuses me as to why some of the new lens manufacturers like Laowa and now Nisi aren’t turning their attention to simple, but brilliantly executed standard lenses. <br /><br />My very first lens was a Pentax 40mm f2.8 lens. I ended up swopping it for a 50mm f1.4, and regretted it almost instantly. I finally found my replacement some 25 years later when I bought a secondhand Voightlander 40mm f2. The lens is almost always added to the bag. It’s size and sharpness means that it’s easy to pop into a pocket, and the results are almost always pleasing. As a travel and landscape photographer I would be in Nirvana if I could find a truly modern update to my almost equally diminutive 24mm f2.8 Ais lens (unfortunately the older manual focus Nikkors do not hold their own when pitted against modern glass on something like a Nikon D850 body). <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3fWxpJb9sjQ/Wx_EG4k9P-I/AAAAAAAALQY/IjPsazfn-1Ad49FqeVxcjnHxu3P5IHJAwCPcBGAYYCw/s900/_EVM3184.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="625" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3fWxpJb9sjQ/Wx_EG4k9P-I/AAAAAAAALQY/IjPsazfn-1Ad49FqeVxcjnHxu3P5IHJAwCPcBGAYYCw/s16000/_EVM3184.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Voightlander 40mm f2 is one of my favourite lenses simply because it so tiny. It performs more than adequately optically, and it's diminutive size means that it is never intimidating to people who are being photographed with it. </i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> <p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So quite possibly when I finally forgo the mirror and dabble in the world of mirrorless I’ll be adding some Tamron lenses to the mix, as they seem to be only lens manufacturer to be brave enough to produce the classic focal lengths in a realistic travel friendly size. Oh, and course a few exotics like the Nisi 15mm f4. <br /></p>Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-39516724578573478302020-07-15T15:09:00.002+02:002020-07-15T15:14:32.735+02:00Shooting in the Cold<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vsaqpra9mOE/Xw7hQ5UXkdI/AAAAAAAALpU/6FNKarxV8ukG03id8woYtxWXLbY49ycPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2007-12-141-Mponjwane-EvM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="446" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vsaqpra9mOE/Xw7hQ5UXkdI/AAAAAAAALpU/6FNKarxV8ukG03id8woYtxWXLbY49ycPQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2007-12-141-Mponjwane-EvM.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Landscape photography often entails having to work quite hard to get to the actual landscape itself. As a result a lot of landscape photographers are also keen hikers and trekkers, since this is what is often needed in order to find interesting compositions. After a recent hike into the Drakensberg with another landscape photographer, Carl Smorenburg, to chase some snow (which didn’t materialise unfortunately) someone suggested on post that I write about the equipment required to get the shot (thanks for the suggestion Jeff Dell). </div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
A little backstory first (particularly for non-South African readers): The Drakensberg is an extraordinary mountain range on the eastern side of South Africa. By various measures it stretches from the southern end of the Eastern Cape all the way to the Limpopo Province (although geologically speaking it actually only runs from around Clarens in the Free State Province to the southern end of Lesotho. Several times a year there is snowfall - enough to coat the mountains in dress of layered white. The snow doesn’t usually last long, so when it falls it is seen as something of an event. The Drakensberg is truly breathtakingly beautiful on the occasion that it dons this wintry dress. <br />
<br />
A recent weather forecast predicted a fairly sizeable dump of snow throughout the Drakensberg. Carl Smorenberg a well known landscape photographer in Kwazulu-Natal, who specialises in photographing the Drakensberg, messaged me at the eleventh hour asking whether I would like to join him on a ‘snow mission’ to the ‘Berg’. Permission was granted by my long-suffering wife, Jackie, and the next day we were headed to the Mweni region of the Northern Drakensberg. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0iyoQMWKm3A/Xw7hRK7G2uI/AAAAAAAALpc/kxhds5aZzIwqujsDk_CUhlUIB14w4lUdwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2007-12-009-Mweni-EvM%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="488" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0iyoQMWKm3A/Xw7hRK7G2uI/AAAAAAAALpc/kxhds5aZzIwqujsDk_CUhlUIB14w4lUdwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2007-12-009-Mweni-EvM%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Landscape photographer Carl Smorenburg photographing the Mweni Pass in the early morning after a night on top of the Berg</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
To put this into some sort of meteorological context, we were expecting temperatures of between -17 to -21 degrees centigrade with the chill factored in. Wind speeds were predicted to reach a maximum of around 18 metres a second. About 2cm of snow was expected where we were heading - not a lot, but enough to make a nice snowy mantle for a short period of time. Our intended goal was a view of the Mweni Needles from a perch of just under 3000 metres above sea level. To get there would require a two days of hiking to cover about 17km of distance and 1400m of ascent. This is not something you can go and do wearing sandals and a t-shirt, hence the suggestion to discuss what is needed to go and capture the shot. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
Safety First</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Before even thinking about the actual photograph you have to think about your own safety on the mountain. The Drakensberg is very much a real mountain, along the lines of the Atlas Mountains in North Africa, the Alps in Europe and the Andes in South America. If you are not prepared, the mountain can kill you. <br />
<br />
Venturing on to the Drakensberg escapement in winter means that you have to dress appropriately and have the right sleeping equipment and tent. Carl and I both used down filled sleeping bags with comfort ratings of -8 degrees centigrade. We also both slept on four season rated air mattresses (the season rating refers to the fact that it is good for winter use). We also used a 4 season two man tent. Without the tent the sleeping bags probably wouldn’t have been sufficient to keep us comfortably warm. A decent four season tent is also essential to withstand the gale force winds that you are likely to encounter on the escarpment. We crested into the 3000m altitude band which is also high enough that you feel the physical effects of altitude on your body: shortness of breath, lagging muscles and potential dizziness (the last not something that I suffer from thankfully). This is of course can also impact on the way your body handles the cold. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6wWaqef_pWU/Xw7hQwjb-iI/AAAAAAAALpY/_QtVMc5z7TcPoVWBE-wv4jkvFcmKO5XlgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2007-11-152-Mweni-EvM.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6wWaqef_pWU/Xw7hQwjb-iI/AAAAAAAALpY/_QtVMc5z7TcPoVWBE-wv4jkvFcmKO5XlgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2007-11-152-Mweni-EvM.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The four-season K-Way Kilimanjaro 2-person tent that kept us warm, dry and wind proof in 80km/h winds.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
So in a nutshell, this is the kit required before you even get to take a photograph:</div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Four season tent (shared between Carl and I)</li>
<li>Sub-zero rated sleeping bag</li>
<li>Winter rated sleeping mat </li>
<li>Warm clothing - down jacket, polartec fleece, warm socks (multiple pairs in case they get wet), beanie, thermals etc.</li>
<li>Waterproof Boots (not everyone likes wearing boots but if you are expecting snow expect cold and wet toes…frostbite is a thing even in Africa)</li>
<li>Gloves - same as the above, preferably more than one pair</li>
<li>Waterproof shell (jacket and pants preferably) - Again, snow and exposure to freezing wind can literally kill you, and a decent shell will make a huge difference to your comfort. </li>
<li>Stove with fuel (Shared between Carl and I) - My preference is for the slightly heavier but bombproof benzene stoves which are manually pressurised so burn more efficiently at altitude (I use a 20 year old MSR Dragonfly). </li>
<li>Food and supplies for the duration of the trip - volumes could be written on this and is a favourite discussion among dedicated trekkers and hikers. </li>
<li>Needless to say a backpack to carry all this in. </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
Now For the Image Making</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
There’s more besides the above, like first aid kit, hat etc. but these are the essentials for the kind of photography we were planning. Then comes the actual photographic equipment. I am one of the more masochistic of landscape photographers and insist on carrying quite a lot of equipment whereas others will go minimalist and take just one camera and lens with a lightweight tripod. The equipment I carried to the top was:</div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Nikon D850 DSLR camera</li>
<li>Nikon 24mm f2.8 Ais lens</li>
<li>Nikon 50mm f1.8 AFS lens</li>
<li>Nikon 70-200mm f4 AFS lens</li>
<li>Zeiss 18mm f2.8 Milvus lens </li>
<li>Nisi V6 holder with adapters for all lenses </li>
<li>Nisi Landscape CPL, 0.9 Medium Grad, 0.9 Soft Grad, 1.8 ND, 3.0 ND</li>
<li>3 batteries + 20000mAh battery pack for charging phone and batteries via a USB charger</li>
<li>Small camera bag which I chest mount to my rucksack harness</li>
<li>Medium F-Stop Accessory bag to hold the tele lens, batteries, blower, and battery pack (and goes in the main compartment of the rucksack. </li>
</ul>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-COn-PvcGMoE/Xw7hR_8gVEI/AAAAAAAALpg/h2XDeYpfdw06Oco0ygnFqdL6qCGndU1agCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/gear%2Boverhead0010%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-COn-PvcGMoE/Xw7hR_8gVEI/AAAAAAAALpg/h2XDeYpfdw06Oco0ygnFqdL6qCGndU1agCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/gear%2Boverhead0010%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Most of the kit (all the clothing and food not necessarily shown) required for a winter shoot on the top of the Drakensberg</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lastly, and very importantly is the tripod. I currently use a Leofoto LS-284CEX tripod with a Leofoto LH-40LR ball head for hiking. This is a full height tripod with a built in levelling base which makes panoramic photography very easy (I’ll have more to say about this in a future article). For a tripod of this size it’s really light weight and easy to use. Still, all the above adds a good 6kg to the amount of equipment you have to tote up the mountain. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
Out in the Cold</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Needless to say the most important thing to remember is to layer clothing. Walking many kilometres, then setting up and essentially remaining stationary (often at the cusp and tail end of daylight) means that you are going to experience vast range of temperature variation. <br />
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QraUnLMfaqE/Xw75aRrwbRI/AAAAAAAALpw/mqEIfP-pMRcpOXAtRrkoQili4EbRbv2FgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/_DSC4396%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="601" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QraUnLMfaqE/Xw75aRrwbRI/AAAAAAAALpw/mqEIfP-pMRcpOXAtRrkoQili4EbRbv2FgCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/_DSC4396%2B1.jpg" width="426" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Admittedly not from the Drakensberg, but an image of fellow Nature's Light instructor Nick van de Wiel in Iceland, but showing the type of clothing to stay warm and safe when shooting in the proper cold (not quite polar, but cold enough). </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Actually shooting is the next tricky bit. European winter photographers will know of the difficulty of shooting in sub-zero temperatures. The most important thing is to stay as warm and dry as possible. Safety first! After that you can start to think about the image-making. <br />
<br />
The first thing to be aware of is that your camera and lenses have some difficulty transitioning from the warm to the cold. As weather sealed as modern cameras are I have had the occasional condensation build up moving from the warm (relatively speaking) interior of the tent to the extremely cold outside and vice versa. The temperature change, particularly the latter, can cause moisture droplets to form inside the lens array. It’s worse with unsealed lenses (and even the most weather sealed lens still allows some air, and therefore moisture in). My solution to this is to always have the camera bag with the camera. If I am shooting outside I put the camera into the new cold bag and then take it into the tent. The cold bag means that the camera will slowly warm up, lessening the chance of condensation. When leaving the tent, do the same In reverse.<br />
<br />
The next thing is how to deal with batteries. As the temperature drops, so too does the efficiency of the camera batteries. For this reason always have a spare battery on hand, and close to your body. You’re keeping it close to your body so that it stays warm. I’ve even had a supposedly dead battery suddenly recover to about 50% capacity after being placed in an inside pocket close to my body for an hour. <br />
<br />
Also, make sure to look after your fingers! As a photographer we have to use our fingers to operate the camera. A non-photography hiker will likely keep their hands in pockets to keep warm. The photographer has to have their hands out in the open all the time. My personal preference is to wear a thin liner pair of gloves and then a second pair of fingerless mittens over these. This means I can have the dexterity of ‘almost’ gloveless hands while working with finicky bits of photographic equipment, but can get the mittens back on quickly to try and keep the finger tips warm. On top of this I also have a pair of wind-proof (once upon a time water proof) over-mittens which keep the wind and some of the water out in a storm. Needless to say it helps if you have a camera with chunkier buttons. I still miss the design simplicity of the old film Nikon F4 which could be handled dexterously with welding gloves! Unfortunately modern DSLRs are not made with gloves in mind (Sony in particular). Still, I’m thankful a for at least a few over-sized buttons and dials on my Nikon D850. If you are looking for a winter camera, be aware of the fact that you are likely to be wearing gloves while shooting. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The rewards of shooting in the cold are immense for the small amount of discomfort that is likely. Snowy vistas, mist shrouded peaks, violent oceans and ice encrusted streams are all potential subjects. Just remember to stay safe and warm and it will be that much easier to create great images. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-43974271704729778822020-07-08T15:53:00.000+02:002020-07-08T15:53:31.549+02:00Brave New World<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rVrPNLv-YY0/XwXNJpYcqjI/AAAAAAAALo4/Qnmv9pltuBEygy08M_SZ93u59eOfMnx4ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2006-04-012-Food%2BFlow-EvM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rVrPNLv-YY0/XwXNJpYcqjI/AAAAAAAALo4/Qnmv9pltuBEygy08M_SZ93u59eOfMnx4ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2006-04-012-Food%2BFlow-EvM.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So much has changed in the last few months. People keep asking each other, is this the new normal? Not to rehash the millions of words that have already been written regarding the state that the world find’s itself in, but this too shall pass. Back in 1918 it must have felt like the world was truly coming to an end. As horrific as the coronavirus is, it pales into insignificance next to the truly terrifying disease that was the Spanish flu. Still, Covid-19 is here and it is upended the way we work, and the way we live. At least for the time being at any rate. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a photographer I have been personally and profoundly affected by the lockdown that our government imposed - similar to that done by governments around the world. I, and other photographers are not unique. The lockdowns in their various guises and intensities have wreaked economic havoc among the lives of just about every professional service provider in the world. A small amount of consolation or solace kept reminding me; I am not alone in this. If you are a waitor, a chef, a singer, street performer, events organiser, wedding planner, child day carer, hairdresser, make-up artist, dancer, car salesperson, home realtor, house painter, tiler, construction worker, or anything to do with tourism and the travel industry….your career and income came to a grinding halt in a matter of days. These are just a small smattering of the jobs that literally dried up as the world locked down. <br /><br />It’s understandable why people felt, and still feel, despair at the situation. But there is a light at the end the tunnel (and it isn’t a freight train barrelling towards you). Being a photographer, I obviously speak a lot with other photographers. The fact that you are reading this means there is a more than good chance that you are also a photographer. I have been absolutely blown away by the resilience and the upbeat anticipation of the future by my colleagues. <br /><br />There are those who took advantage of the entire situation and were able to create incredible imagery and footage of the lockdowns in their various hometowns and countries (for the South African readers, if you haven’t had a chance to see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj0r2lTqbcM" target="_blank">Timothy Hayes and Simon Mulholland’s epic 6K drone production</a> of the lockdown in KwaZulu-Natal, do yourself a favour and watch it). Some of us spent more time with our families that ordinarily we wouldn’t have (although this was no doubt frustrating at times, this is actually something we’ll one day look back on and treasure). For other photographers it was a chance to clean hard drives and tackle projects that have been on the back-burner for years (I finally got stuck in on my personal website after sitting on the domain name <a href="http://www.emilvonmaltitz.com/">www.emilvonmaltitz.com</a> for over 8 years). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gtz9I8_9r6o/XwXNJpY19fI/AAAAAAAALo8/PLxZfeFvTd0ZOAo9DgxfyeOCRNBFIwgOACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2006-05-023-Food%2BFlow-EvM%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gtz9I8_9r6o/XwXNJpY19fI/AAAAAAAALo8/PLxZfeFvTd0ZOAo9DgxfyeOCRNBFIwgOACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2006-05-023-Food%2BFlow-EvM%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of the few jobs I found myself shooting during the lockdown was a probono project for an NGO startup (FoodFlow) assisting small-grower farmers and households in need due to loss of income as a result of 'lockdown'</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><br />Then there are the thoughts for the future. Again, listening to my friends and colleagues, they all seem extremely upbeat about the future and their place in it as photographers. As one friend put it, it’s going to separate those who are truly passionate about being photographers from those who have treated it as a sideline hustle. Although the initial impression is that there isn’t enough work for the number of people who consider themselves ‘professional’ photographers, the reality is that there is more than enough work available for the those who can do it (properly). At the same time photography as a hobby, a pursuit of passion is far from dimming as a result of the virus and the lockdowns. If anything it seems to only have gotten stronger, but with the economic ‘side-hustle’ component dwindling. That’s good news for people who earn their entire living from it, but also good news for photographers who pursue photography as art. <br /><br />Despite the fact that we seem to be drowning in visual content, the world needs more images! The lockdowns drove us into our homes and increased the importance of the visual. Images are needed for just about everything we do online…and online is where we increasingly exist. Despite magazines going out of circulation due to the economic calamity, other requirements for imagery have emerged. The very fact that we are forced into a digital transition means that there will be more businesses, more people, more services that need photography and visual content. <br /><br />Added to this need is something that I am noticing more and more with my clients, and something Jackie, my wife, pointed out to me. The more images there are, the higher the bar to pass muster. Older photographers might fear the younger upstarts stealing their slice of the diminishing pie (or so it’s perceived…I actually think it’s growing as a result of the lockdown), but the photographer with experience and skill actually has a massive quality advantage over those starting out. It makes it that much harder to break into photography as a profession. Here again is that idea that those who are passionate and serious will naturally separate from the side-hustlers. <br /><br />Six weeks ago I couldn’t sleep for fear of how we would pay the mortgage. Now I can’t sleep because I’m momentarily overwhelmed by the amount of work I have to get done (and I am so thankful for that). I hear similar things from a number of my photographer friends (well, those who don’t usually shoot weddings that is). <br /><br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l_8YzrisQOI/XwXNKGkzkrI/AAAAAAAALpA/wBUwywL3IpohzYpgW5tOPaUYcXbXiEN9gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/2007-01-011_Monteseel_pano.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="347" data-original-width="900" height="246" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l_8YzrisQOI/XwXNKGkzkrI/AAAAAAAALpA/wBUwywL3IpohzYpgW5tOPaUYcXbXiEN9gCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/2007-01-011_Monteseel_pano.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">After three months of essentially being confined to our homes, it was amazing being able to go and shoot a dawn again from the lofty perch of Monteseel in the early hours of the morning. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In some ways the lockdown is to the photographic industry a little bit like the transition to digital was (or the move to colour photography was). Photography is a constantly evolving profession. Usually it’s the technology that leads the need to pivot or change the way we work. Photographers who have been adept at changing, and moving with the times have always been the most successful. This time, it isn’t the technology that has changed, but the social melee that we find ourselves in. The same will apply. The photographers who can adapt to change, will remain successful. Be brave and embrace the change. </div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-45367625552849905172020-01-31T15:10:00.001+02:002020-01-31T15:10:41.293+02:00The Basics of Perspective Distortion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PLyljVZqr0k/XjQh0t2B90I/AAAAAAAALnI/s7b30qt2keMeh_o-hc2HoaD5umE5cNZ1gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1911-06-117-Kolmanskop-%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PLyljVZqr0k/XjQh0t2B90I/AAAAAAAALnI/s7b30qt2keMeh_o-hc2HoaD5umE5cNZ1gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1911-06-117-Kolmanskop-%2B1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
One of the ways in which photographers can make people see the world in a different way, is to use their lenses creatively to manipulate relationships within an image. The most basic way of doing this is arranging elements inside the frame in order to force the relationship. A Photograph of two doors in a symmetrical composition implies an equal, symmetrical relationship between the two doors (as above). A composition where one door is larger and an angle to the other implies depth and distance between the doors, as well as a visual hierarchy of what to look at first. The perceived distance beyond the door also creates a perception of distance and three dimensional space. Clever use of perspective distortion is one way to create this sense of space. <br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
A stumbling block that photographers encounter when they first start out creating images, is that they are often trying to recreate a three dimensional image - that which they are experiencing - onto a two dimensional plane - the photograph. So the trick is to create two dimensional images that have a sense of three dimensionality. As many discover, this is not actually that simple a task. It’s a task that is made harder by the fact that we have an arsenal of lenses to select from, which can confuse the situation for photographers as they as they start out. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VdM6JJMEAHY/XjQZ8KMum-I/AAAAAAAALm0/KDvieiVUF7ohzg-6Ak9zpDKqq5brBUpGACEwYBhgL/s1600/220px-Camera_focal_length_distance_house_animation.gif" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="220" data-original-width="220" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VdM6JJMEAHY/XjQZ8KMum-I/AAAAAAAALm0/KDvieiVUF7ohzg-6Ak9zpDKqq5brBUpGACEwYBhgL/s1600/220px-Camera_focal_length_distance_house_animation.gif" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Perspective distortion is the way that a subject changes shape or distorts based on the focal length of the lens in use, and the distance of the subject to the camera. Importantly, simply changing lenses doesn’t change perspective. It's the physical moving of the camera closer or further away from the subject that creates the perspective change in conjunction with the choice of lens. An example of how this would work on a building can be seen on the left in this moving graphic (obtained from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>)<br />
<br />
One of the easiest ways to describe or see the effects of perspective distortion is to watch when it is used in cinema during what is called a ‘dolly zoom’. This is a cinematic effect that was first used in Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Vertigo’. Cameraman Irmin Roberts worked out how to move the camera on a dolly while at the same time zooming the lens so that the subject remained the same size on screen. It’s been used for effect creating tension and a sense of scale in movies like ‘The Lord of The Rings, Jaws, Pulp Fiction, or a sense of entering an intimate setting from a broader context as in the film ‘Goodfellas’. That’s how it works on moving film, what about the effect with stills?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BjzabggD8ZQ/XjQZ6unIQPI/AAAAAAAALmo/IbQkAntbRf0JA9Bu4Qyy1RpAqaG45kzJQCEwYBhgL/s1600/1910-08-015-TsekeTseke-EvM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BjzabggD8ZQ/XjQZ6unIQPI/AAAAAAAALmo/IbQkAntbRf0JA9Bu4Qyy1RpAqaG45kzJQCEwYBhgL/s1600/1910-08-015-TsekeTseke-EvM.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A telephoto lens (200mm on the end of a 70-200 zoom lens) compressed the perceived distance between the hiker (Nature's Light instructor Cornelius Muller) and the mountains in the background. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zfbGA0Hw9Ng/XjQcRo-uE9I/AAAAAAAALm8/i3fuq9z-bik5J0r5Xocx4fpx7QKuQ-nkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/G161-Hiker%2Bup%2Ba%2Bpass-Cordillera%2BBlanca-2004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="583" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zfbGA0Hw9Ng/XjQcRo-uE9I/AAAAAAAALm8/i3fuq9z-bik5J0r5Xocx4fpx7QKuQ-nkwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/G161-Hiker%2Bup%2Ba%2Bpass-Cordillera%2BBlanca-2004.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A wide angle lens (20mm) extends the perceived distance between the mountains and the hiker (my wonderful wife, Jackie while we climbed Gara Gara Pass in Peru). the distance between the hikers and the mountains was similar in both situations (if anything they were closer in the wide angle image, despite the appearance of being further away).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Photographers can use perspective distortion to emphasis relationships in creative ways. Kevin <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_vulture_and_the_little_girl" target="_blank">Carter’s Pulitzer Prize winning image</a> of a Sudanese child with vulture in the background is a classic example of this. The vulture and the child appear much closer to each other than they really are due to something that many photographers refer to as ‘lens compression’. In truth it’s actually called ‘compression effect’ as the lens is only part of the distortion. The other, more important part, is the distance between the subject and the lens. At any rate, and to simplify things, if the camera is further away from the subject and a longer (telephoto) lens is used, the compression effect is prominent. If the camera is brought up close to the subject and a wide angle lens is used, ‘extension effect’ becomes visible. This is the opposite of of compression, and gives the sense that the objects in the frame are further apart in three-dimensional space than they are in reality. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e669oIMxAI4/XjQaEJFzV2I/AAAAAAAALm0/S9gZ_RduT1gN3KAZl0-cRkZ4MRRfRcCegCEwYBhgL/s1600/Perspective-distortion-moving.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="530" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e669oIMxAI4/XjQaEJFzV2I/AAAAAAAALm0/S9gZ_RduT1gN3KAZl0-cRkZ4MRRfRcCegCEwYBhgL/s640/Perspective-distortion-moving.gif" width="424" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
To illustrate the effect I shot the famous ‘Blue Room’ in Namibia’s Kolmanskop with 4 prime lenses: A Voightlander 40mm f2, a Nikkor 24mm f2.8, a Zeiss Milvus 18mm f2.8 and a Laowa 12mm f2.8. All four lenses are considered wide angle lenses (although the 40mm is somewhere between wide and ‘normal’). I composed the classic shot that everyone shoots of the doorway, then changing lenses moved closer to the doorframe to approximate the same size of the door in the viewfinder. Even with such a small focal range, the perspective distortion is pronounced between each of the images. <br />
<br />
To create a sense of depth and space, use a wide angle lens with the subject close to camera. If you need to isolate the subject from their background, or emphasise the scale of the background, try using a longer lens from further away, thereby compressing the perceived distance between the subject and background.<br />
<br />
The Blue Room example is informative because it shows the effect of compression and expansion in an area that is no more than 10, maybe 12 metres in depth. The 40mm lens creates an impression of flattened space, such that the walls look far closer together than 10m from lens to the rear wall. The opposite is the extreme depth created by the 12mm Laowa lens, where the walls now ‘look’ like they are much further apart. Important for the overall composition though, is that there is a very different interpretation of the image from each of the different lenses. The 40mm has a far more abtract look to it where the shapes are more important. The wide the lens, the more like a tunnel the image becomes, and the more expansive the space.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the choice of lens should be determined by the effect and 'feel' that the photographer is trying to create in the image. Remember that for perspective distortion to work optimally, it requires moving position AND focal length. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Images below for closer viewing (click to enlarge) with 40mm on the left and 12mm on the right. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u7QXy0lEMgg/XjQZ6jdD7aI/AAAAAAAALmk/ErZTSHQr7c8c8vpz_K4XWKvZ9a2YCXGHACEwYBhgL/s1600/1911-06-140-Kolmanskop-.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u7QXy0lEMgg/XjQZ6jdD7aI/AAAAAAAALmk/ErZTSHQr7c8c8vpz_K4XWKvZ9a2YCXGHACEwYBhgL/s200/1911-06-140-Kolmanskop-.jpg" width="133" /></a><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LRJAhw-3I6w/XjQZ6nbI9FI/AAAAAAAALm0/DmE4jpRCyW4-0GIBdVv7IAJemUUsfWUigCEwYBhgL/s1600/1911-06-143-Kolmanskop-.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LRJAhw-3I6w/XjQZ6nbI9FI/AAAAAAAALm0/DmE4jpRCyW4-0GIBdVv7IAJemUUsfWUigCEwYBhgL/s200/1911-06-143-Kolmanskop-.jpg" width="133" /></a><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3FO7Jb42tP4/XjQZ7e-h3QI/AAAAAAAALms/nR-ZyUKi7cc9XUMJFUC3levrx37GfiQ_ACEwYBhgL/s1600/1911-06-145-Kolmanskop-.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3FO7Jb42tP4/XjQZ7e-h3QI/AAAAAAAALms/nR-ZyUKi7cc9XUMJFUC3levrx37GfiQ_ACEwYBhgL/s200/1911-06-145-Kolmanskop-.jpg" width="133" /></a><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GV92uibMV9M/XjQZ7mXlIzI/AAAAAAAALmw/xA2ZWoPhA_8LVS7ZY4ma35u03-AKgIrlQCEwYBhgL/s1600/1911-06-147-Kolmanskop-.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GV92uibMV9M/XjQZ7mXlIzI/AAAAAAAALmw/xA2ZWoPhA_8LVS7ZY4ma35u03-AKgIrlQCEwYBhgL/s200/1911-06-147-Kolmanskop-.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-90312524142671281602020-01-14T14:22:00.000+02:002020-01-14T14:22:20.110+02:00New Year, New Decade, New Gear<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HC9iFJ9HBCk/VO7m3X3C5rI/AAAAAAAAHW8/ay-7qldpQVIxH7XgJ_Ib-OJt89yL1-K9QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/_DSF4352-Edit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="750" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HC9iFJ9HBCk/VO7m3X3C5rI/AAAAAAAAHW8/ay-7qldpQVIxH7XgJ_Ib-OJt89yL1-K9QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/_DSF4352-Edit.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The last ten years have been extraordinarily good to us as photographers. The first ten years of the millennium saw an incredibly fast paced development of digital photography that was really exciting to be a part of. Digital photography matured in the last decade though. In particular, I would say that we reached a basic plateau in image quality in about 2012 that marks a kind of baseline from which we still judge images at the beginning of this decade. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course there are many people who would disagree with the above statement, but there are images being shot on the Canon 5Dmkii (more so the mkiii), Nikon D800 and Sony A7 today that are nigh on impossible to tell the difference with compared to cameras like the Nikon D850, Canon EOS R, or Sony A7Rmkiv. Obviously if you look closely there are differences, but nothing like the difference between the Nikon D700 which came out in 2008 and the D100 which was introduced only 6 years prior to it. The reality is that you can continue to shoot professionally and expect your images to hold up against the newest cameras with equipment brought out eight years ago. Indeed many photographers are using lenses significantly older than eight years young. <br /><br />So the new decade rolls in and the news reports from the photographic industry are such that there is nothing but doom and gloom for the likes of Nikon, Canon and Sony. The CIPA numbers that have come out recently continue to show the year on year decline in cameras shipped. The only bright point was an uptick in mirrorless cameras, but this was significantly lower than both Nikon and Canon forecast. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCZyTvF9Cdw/Xh2tJK_5fvI/AAAAAAAALl4/uZNgMRnlDL0NkQjIdP1RwvPkFeT3BkilQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/camera%2Bannouncements.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="324" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCZyTvF9Cdw/Xh2tJK_5fvI/AAAAAAAALl4/uZNgMRnlDL0NkQjIdP1RwvPkFeT3BkilQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/camera%2Bannouncements.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><br />This is not to say that there aren’t interesting cameras being announced. AT CES 2020 Canon introduced the 1Dxmkiii (an odd place to announce a high end sports camera) and Nikon pulled out the D780 along with a couple of lenses. In the latter half of 2019 we also saw the Nikon Z50, bringing them into the realm of APS-C mirrorless, the Olympus OMD-EM5iii, the Sony A6600 and the Fujifilm X-Pro3. <br /><br /><b>Mirrorless or Optical Viewfinder? </b><br /><br />The first thing that many people seemed to be getting concerned about is the future of their existing equipment if they have a current DSLR. Canon have recently come out with a statement that they will not necessarily be doing any further research and development into the EOS EF lens range unless there is any interest from its users. All development, one assumes, will be pushed towards the new RF mount (considering they have literally just announced their halo EF mount product this was probably a poor statement to make). Nikon, on the other hand, have stated that they remain committed to the F-Mount and their DSLR line. The recent introduction of the rather expensive 120-300mm f2.8 might some show credence to this statement, but remember this lens has been in the works since long before the introduction of the Z6 and Z7 mirrorless cameras. <br /><br />So going into 2020, do you move across to the world of mirrorless, or stay in the DSLR realm? If you are even thinking about this, be aware that the move to mirrorless does not change the image quality in any way. The way photographs are captured has not changed at all. The only difference is that we are now using cameras that use a digital display to present the view of the lens, as opposed to a system of reflected light through an optical eyepiece. There are potential differences based on the design of the lens, but the IQ is inherently the same as the sensors used in both mirrorless and digital are basically the same. In fact, with the introduction of the Nikon D780, we can say that they are the same as the D780 is to all intents and purposes the guts of a Z6 built into a DSLR. <br /><br />The future is mirrorless (for the most part) whether you like it or not, simply due to the economics of manufacture and sale. The camera companies need to bring down costs while improving sales. Mirrorless is the perfect answer for them. A mirrorless camera has fewer parts and less expense in construction and calibration than a DSLR. Simply put, it is cheaper to build. Thanks to the decision to make a new mount for the new breed of full-frame mirrorless cameras, this means that there are a whole glut of new lenses that are likely to be sold (when they finally appear). So it’s a no-brainer decision for the camera manufacturers; they will make more money if they slowly transition to mirrorless (unfortunately for the manufacturers they may have tilted a little late as they are trying to grow sales in a declining market). <br /><br />Deciding personally whether to go mirrorless is a different matter. Although I like the products that are coming out, I am in no way feeling compelled to dive into purchasing them. Looking at what full frame mirrorless would give me in contrast to what I already have (Nikon D850, D800e and D3x) with a range of lenses that are good to excellent in terms of IQ) and I cannot actually justify the expense of any switch. I would get more out or newer lighting and lenses than moving across to mirrorless (or worse, a different mount). <br /><br /><b>APS-C, FF or MF</b><br /><br />The last decade has also seen extraordinary advances in the abilities of the different sensors, as well as their pricing. Who would have thought in 2010 that you would be able to get a sub US$1000 full frame camera. Now you can buy the Sony A7mkii for under $1000. Jumping to $2000 opens up the market significantly with multiple models from Sony, Nikon and Canon. At the same time APS-C and M43s have also made advances that have photographers arguing whether their IQ matches that of full frame cameras. On top of this, Fujifilm and Hasselblad opened up the world of (sub) medium format to the slightly less-well heeled with the introduction of the Fujifilm GFX50s and Hasselblad X1D.<br /><br />Many photographers are now looking at their equipment and wondering about their choices in terms of image sensor sizes. Despite what some photographers might proclaim, size does still matter, although not necessarily in the way that everyone tends to argue. As was the case when Micro four thirds appeared, there is about a stop of difference in terms of IQ between each of the different sensors when shot at base ISO (with the same lens). A full frame image from a Z6 is going to have slightly better IQ than a Sony A6600, which is going to have slightly better image quality than an Olympus OMD-EM5III. And yes, the Fujifilm GFX50s is going to have an edge over the Sony A7rmkiii, Canon EOS 5Ds and Nikon D850. <br /><br />The comparison thing falls apart though when you start looking at more than just the sensor. An advantage that Fujifilm (and Hasselblad) has over any of the full-frame cameras is that the lenses made for larger sensors have a greater tolerance for defects thanks to the larger photo sites on the sensor (this is the same reason why photographers suddenly began to obsess about lens acuity when the D800 first came out - excellent lenses on the older 12 and 24mp sensors suddenly looked weak on the 36mp sensor). Then there are photographers who talk about the myth of the ‘look of medium format’. These photographers are usually referring to the shallow depth of field acquired with wide angle lenses. With the current set of equipment available this is a poor reason to look at so-called medium format digital as the current lenses won’t produce that look at all. If we look at the current lenses from Fujifilm for the GFX format (43.8mm x 32.9mm) and convert the aperture to that of full frame (36mmx24mm) in an attempt to get ‘equivalence’, we find that the 63mm f2.8 (the ‘equivalent’ 50mm lens) only really gives us the equivalent of f2.2. So you won’t get the same isolation via depth of field as you would on a 50mm f1.4 lens in front of a standard full frame sensor. Similarly, if you are looking for shallow depth of field with a 35mm equivalent for the Fujifilm, the closest you will get with existing lenses is the 45mm f2.8, which gives an equivalent f2.2 again. This is not the same, nor perceptibly better than using a 35mm f1.4 on a full frame sensor. <br /><br />If you are looking for a different metric though, then the advantages of going up a size can be tangible. The GFX100s is a phenomenal step towards high IQ, far more so than the Sony A7rmkiv with it’s 60mp sensor. This is assuming your goal is print beyond the size of a high desktop printer; i.e. greater than A2. <br /><br /><b>What and Who Do We Shoot For?</b><br /><br />Herein lies perhaps one of the most significant advances over the last decade. Forget the ability to print large for a moment, and rather concentrate on the fact that we share images with each other at a scale beyond anything imaginable ten years ago. It’s not just that we are shooting more, but we are sharing more as well. <br /><br />This is where we maybe should be looking in terns of cameras of tomorrow. At the moment our cameras are distinctly sharing unfriendly. In fact it is easier to share an instax/polaroid photo with someone than it is a digital photo from a high end digital camera. Why is it in the world of uber connectivity is it so difficult for us to get a photo from our cameras to someone else? Sure there will be readers who say, “oh but I can send a photo from my camera to my phone and then send it that way”. Except they forget to mention the hair tearing frustration to get the camera to connect to the phone in the first place. The fact that you then need a data connection in order to send that photo (okay so you can airdrop with Apple and Android now offers similar connectivity to similar devices) is also often overlooked. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h3Sqtwz2yac/Xh2qKGZT0ZI/AAAAAAAALlo/gHMMOQI8ZuEgyG2VzLJWEV9OUNsGuDyVgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Untitled-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h3Sqtwz2yac/Xh2qKGZT0ZI/AAAAAAAALlo/gHMMOQI8ZuEgyG2VzLJWEV9OUNsGuDyVgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Untitled-1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Zeiss' ZX-1 includes both easy connectivity as well as a way to edit images on the fly with a built-in Lightroom app running on Android.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Zeiss’ stab at connectivity and sharing, the ZX-1, may have missed the mark a little (it’s enormous and very, very, very expensive for what it is, plus it still isn’t available despite being announced over a year ago), but it might just be a foreshadowing of what to expect in the next decade. Although my needs for a camera are the ability to produce high quality large prints for advertising and publication, that is not the need for the vast majority of photographers out there. For most people the ability to share the images is actually paramount. <br /><br />If you bought a camera in the last three years, you are already shooting with state of the art. Maybe this is why photographers I speak to aren’t that excited about the current equipment announcements (I don’t include the local Fuji-philes who I am in contact with ;) , who seem to be able to get excited about anything Fujifilm slaps a sticker on). The Nikon D780 is a perfect case in point. It doesn’t really raise the bar in any meaningful way (both of Canon’s mirrorless full frame cameras can be accused of the same). It is arguably a better more refined camera than the D750 it replaces, but it is a minor update, as opposed to a decade opening introduction. The D750 is almost 5 years old now, and existing users are scratching their heads wondering whether the new D780 is worth upgrading to. That is a sign of a matured technology. Then years ago the upgrade would have been obvious, now I suspect we are at a point where photographers may potentially be happy to keep their camera for a decade. This was certainly not the case in 2010.</div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-29387719526952895142020-01-10T10:46:00.002+02:002020-01-10T10:46:51.390+02:00The Shoot More share Less Idea <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-owzLGuzNbT4/XhXylCqWX2I/AAAAAAAALk8/KBoPL7E240cUjzmXimL8DBrC2lAat6w9wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1912-19-015-Royal%2BNatal_focus%2Bstack%2B3%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="597" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-owzLGuzNbT4/XhXylCqWX2I/AAAAAAAALk8/KBoPL7E240cUjzmXimL8DBrC2lAat6w9wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1912-19-015-Royal%2BNatal_focus%2Bstack%2B3%2B2.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As the new year rolled past I found myself taking a significant break from the internet and the constant flood of imagery that scrolls through our lives courtesy of our numerous devices. The break was both refreshing and eye-opening and was also unintended (I haven’t taken a complete break from work in about twelve years as all breaks invariably involve writing, shooting, social media and marketing). The unintentional nature of the break - thanks to an inundation of family, the virtual Christmas shutdown and lengthened holiday due to the serendipitous days that Christmas and New Year’s fell on - meant that I never intended to be away from social media, or any of the usual photographic related writing that I usually do when ‘on break’. The sense of relief and lack of stress that resulted was both unanticipated and surprising. It is now becoming recognised that social media has a darker side, causing anxiety and depression in its users (see <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/social-media-mental-health-negative-effects-depression-anxiety-addiction-memory-a8307196.html" target="_blank">this article</a> in The Independent). Photographers, by nature of the fact that we produce imagery, seem to have to stay lock-step in sync with social media…or do they?</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The current modus operandi for many photographers is to push out as much content as possible on literally a daily basis. The thought is that if you don’t, you will be forgotten or overlooked in the stream of imagery that we see every hour and every time we pick up a phone or look at a computer screen. Unfortunately this is a real concern. If you are not on the internet and in people’s faces, you are to a certain extent invisible. This is the very reason that so-called ‘influencers’ have to churn out content in a virtual stream of consciousness display. The flip side though is (and this is just my opinion admittedly) that if you are pushing content every day (and in some cases multiple times a day) you are also invisible.<br />
<br />
I have written before that we have become almost inured to the power of an image through the simple abundance of these images. The social act of ‘liking’ an image means that for many people the image is ‘liked’ more for social reasons than for the strength of the image itself. There are even photographer groups that form around the need to have as many ‘likes’ as possible - the idea being that by supporting the other photographers in the group by liking their images, they have a better chance at being noticed by potential buyers and clients. Of course this has been put to a stop now that Instagram has changed the way that ‘likes’ are displayed. The point though is that the ‘likes’ often have nothing to do with the image itself. <br />
<br />
Which brings me to the potential ‘invisibility’ of the photographer who posts imagery on a near constant basis. Unfortunately when a photographer, even a good one and prominent one like Adam Gibbs or Thomas Heaton posts incessantly, viewers don’t stop to look at the work. It’s scroll, like, move on. So it’s no surprise maybe that the likes of Adam Gibbs and Thomas Heaton don’t post incessantly. Rather, they post at careful times that are spaced apart. Their’s is not an open tap flow of images. <br />
<br />
The answer, at least if you want people to look at your imagery in a slightly more meaningful way is to NOT post all the time. An incessant flow of images into the feeds of our friends and followers starts to look a little bit like spam unless it is truly jaw-droppingly incredible all of the time. National Geographic can get away with this as they have a small army of incredibly talented photographers producing work year round which equates to thousands of truly exceptional images and an enormous historical database of equally astounding images to back it up. <br />
<br />
So admittedly, there is a catch-22 in all of this. The likes of National Geographic, Time, even smaller labels like Africa Geographic post daily as they are required, as purveyors of content, to do so. As a professional photographer I also feel obligated to produce imagery incessantly for the social media vacuum. I didn’t quite realise the almost constant low-level anxiety resulting from the need to keep feeding the machine until my unintentional break from social media. Take away that low-level anxiety and I am happier, healthier photographer, I think. <br />
<br />
Social media is a reality. To stop posting entirely isn’t the answer in my opinion. Taking a more considered approach to how one posts might be though. For a start, only post one or two images at a time as opposed to an entire glut or gallery of images. Believe me, the vast majority of people who see the images won’t actually look at all of them, and even if they do, only one or two. Realise that ‘likes’ are not a true indication of the worth or merit of an image. The photograph of an egg that racked up millions of likes (see <a href="http://www.photowriting.co.za/2019/01/its-egg-loss-of-thinking.html" target="_blank">this post</a>) is a perfect example of this. I have become an absolute cynic when it comes to the likes of Instagram and Facebook. I take solace in the rather wise words of a friend of mine (and phenomenal photographer to boot), Myllo Menorah: “The problem with photographers is that photographers care too much about what other photographers think. They forget the clients and they forget the consumers of photography” (see some of Myllo’s work on Instagram <a href="https://www.instagram.com/myllo_africa/" target="_blank">@myllo_africa</a>). A vast amount of the photography that I see on Facebook and Instagram is by photographers, for photographers. Not photographers, for potential clients.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qWbZgO6VQ-g/Xhg4MBjcstI/AAAAAAAALlI/VGKGJ1GUZqQLCrwa0ktZYxFBIPSeH60tQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1911-16-031-Ballito-EVM%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="663" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qWbZgO6VQ-g/Xhg4MBjcstI/AAAAAAAALlI/VGKGJ1GUZqQLCrwa0ktZYxFBIPSeH60tQCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/1911-16-031-Ballito-EVM%2B1.jpg" width="471" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best place to start is to ask ourselves why we post our images on social media in the first place. For photographers like Gibbs and Heaton above, it is to promote their brand in order to get more video views and potential youtube commissions. They specifically target other photographers because other photographers form the basis of their income (I do the same while wearing my NiSi hat). It also grows the possibility of selling another seat on a workshop. For many other photographers I know the goal is to get a gauge of their own photography vis-a-vis others and potentially some constructive feedback on the same. The problem with the latter is that the nature of social media is such that most people will not actually give that feedback, apart from positive platitudes (even if the image is terrible). On top of this I know several photographers who claim that they want feedback but get upset and angry when it is offered.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3xLIYTyQ9jk/Xhg51UW0udI/AAAAAAAALlU/sS2DJ-Jhjjk1hLGnmUcN3Ges7Wjq8bZ0QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/instagram%2Bexamples.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3xLIYTyQ9jk/Xhg51UW0udI/AAAAAAAALlU/sS2DJ-Jhjjk1hLGnmUcN3Ges7Wjq8bZ0QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/instagram%2Bexamples.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
My personal view on posting imagery this year will be:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Only post what I know to be worth posting. If I don’t think it’s good, don’t post it (unless it’s to illustrate a point as to why it isn’t good).</li>
<li>One image is enough, two is too many if I actually want people to look at the image as opposed to scrolling past at the speed of a thumb swipe (unless I am trying to show a BTS shot as well). </li>
<li>Once a day is more than enough for a particular platform…in fact it’s probably overkill. More and it's the visual equivalent of spam. </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Of course, some might take this article as being churlish in spirit. The argument is that social media is for ‘friends’ to connect and share. That’s a great argument, if only it were true. If it were true so many photographers wouldn’t feel compelled or obligated to post imagery constantly. Real friends don't require that kind of workload. Chances are they would be less wedded to their phones too. Every now and again over the last few years I would go through spates of online posting, reading the advice by digital marketers, carefully targeting and timing posts. I can’t say they resulted in an uptick in business or following to be honest. If anything, all they did was add to the stress and anxiety that social media is now known to produce. Nah, personally I would rather shoot more and post less.</div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-76439533105290140402019-11-29T18:21:00.003+02:002019-11-29T18:21:35.074+02:00Becoming a Better Photographer Through (Deliberate) Practice<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nFZD7_ZRYx4/XeFDyFblOLI/AAAAAAAALkI/Pcj1Nia6GWMJqpw_D_pg7LcR9kAdbaIzwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1911-10-040-Sossusvlei-%2B1%2Bcopy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="737" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nFZD7_ZRYx4/XeFDyFblOLI/AAAAAAAALkI/Pcj1Nia6GWMJqpw_D_pg7LcR9kAdbaIzwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1911-10-040-Sossusvlei-%2B1%2Bcopy.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The old adage ‘practice makes perfect’ is usually seen as a truism. The more you practice the better you will get at something. Except it doesn’t take into account that the word ‘better’ is the wrong qualifier in that statement. ‘Better’ assumes that there will be an improvement in what we do. It assumes that if I take a 1000 photographs I will be a better photographer than when I took the first photograph (make it 10 000 photographs since digital doesn’t cost us financially in the same way that film did). The oft-said truism has bothered me for quite a while as I often explain to photographers that one has to spend a considerable amount of time learning and practicing the art of photography. If we go by the 10 000 hour principle as espoused by Malcolm Gladwell’s book, ‘Outliers’ (based on research by Eric Anders), then we need to put 10 000 hours into any venture or skill that we want to master. Except this doesn’t work for photography anymore. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a name='more'></a><br />
Going back to the simple statement of ‘practice makes perfect’. I shoot a thousand frames, all I have really done is trained my finger muscles to press the shutter button. If I have improved in any way it might only be that I now have a muscle memory of where the shutter lies and how much pressure it requires to trip the shutter. Does this make me a better photographer? Not necessarily. I started to think more critically about this while hiking in the Drakensberg recently with some fellow photographers. All of us are professionals who earn a living from creating imagery. One of them commented that I work intuitively with filters and don’t seem to think at about using them. It was said as a compliment, but made me realise; am I using them in the best way possible, or am I just using them. Am I so practised that I don’t think about it anymore, to the detriment of the image?<br />
<br />
As an analogy, you often hear about people developing bad habits. Drivers who have had their license for decades often struggle to pass a drivers test when they move countries because they have now developed bad driving habits over years of practice. The simple act of practicing doesn’t do anything other than reinforce behaviour or action. The more repeat a task, the more mindless it potentially becomes - this is not something one hopes for in creating something like a meaningful image. Then I stumbled across the concept of ‘deliberate practice’, also studied and written about extensively by Eric Anders (in his book ‘Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise’). The entire concept of practice suddenly clicked into place and helps explain how to get better in a much more accessible manner. <br />
<br />
The problem we all face when we start out with any new activity is that we are told that we have to practice. But what do we practice? The idea of practising photography is exceptionally difficult. The creation of an image is not the result of a single skill, or action for that matter. First, you need to be able to see the image, or at the very least have an idea of what you want to photograph. Next you need to know how to compose through the lens, as well as know how to arrange the composition so that it is more than just an object replicated by the camera. You then need to know how to use the camera in all its varied ways in order to capture something of what you ‘see’. This means knowing about focus and exposure control. Then you need to have the skills to get that image file into your computer and work the image digitally to approximate your vision of the scene in the first place (for some this is a simple, to the point that they might shoot in jpeg or on their phone even, for others it can be hours of work in post-production). <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wj22QdLoHJI/XeFEqkdkKpI/AAAAAAAALkQ/oAW64kqpisMFhBwNDc61snT8lkC_ePzUgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/in%2Bthe%2Bfield.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wj22QdLoHJI/XeFEqkdkKpI/AAAAAAAALkQ/oAW64kqpisMFhBwNDc61snT8lkC_ePzUgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/in%2Bthe%2Bfield.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Deliberate Practice can actually speed up the learning process, and hopefully significantly shorten the whole 10 000 hours idea. The starting point is to break the process into its component parts. Anders writes about prominent golfers breaking a swing down into tiny micro-components. In photography we can do the same. Starting out we can look at fairly large chunks of action, but break them down as we become more adept at them. For example, photographing a landscape involves several large components; technical knowledge of the camera, understanding of the light and how it is recorded onto the sensor (or film) and the aesthetic arrangement of the scene and its elements to create a composition. Considering the first chunk, this can be further broken down into the camera’s controls; aperture, shutter speed, ISO, metering patterns, focus settings etc. By practising working on one component we master that component faster than simply saying, “I’m going to practice landscape photography. Instead one could say, “I am going to practice getting in-focus images in landscape photography”. By breaking the goal down to a more definite, measurable and achievable goal, the practice will lead to improvement. Moreover, by identifying ‘focus in landscape photography’ we are further refining the set of skills that need to practised from say ‘focus in sports photography’ (which should also be further broken down to the type of sport). <br />
<br />
The next part is actually the harder part. According to Anders for deliberate practice to work there needs to be some form of coaching and feedback for it to really work. By this, feedback needs to more than just a ‘heart’ in Instagram or a ‘thumbs-up’ on Facebook (or whatever other social media site is the current pill). It means finding some kind of feedback that lets you know you are getting better. Some skills you can actually do this yourself. Going back the example of perfecting focus; you can demonstrably see if your image is more focused. In the same vein you can see in the images whether this becomes consistent or not. However, it is a good idea to get other people involved by getting their input. This can be in the form of showing work outside of the social media sphere to people/photographers who will actually give you real feedback (think peers, clubs and online forums of photographers you trust). <br />
<br />
The coaching similarly doesn’t mean having to find an actual coach. All it means is that there needs to be an active attempt to gather learning and information on the chosen sub-component that you are wanting to practice. Once again the internet is a treasure trove of information (and baloney). Ignore click-bait articles that claim to ‘improve your photography in ten easy steps’. These are far to general to actually be of any good. Look instead for dedicated sessions on particular aspect of photography related to the tiny component that you have chosen to perfect and practice. Some of the most valuable lessons I have come across on the internet are the small, webinars and videos working at a very specific task. Because they are so specific they tend to have low-viewership, and are a little harder to find as a result. Because they don’t promise ‘ten easy steps’ they tend to be packed with the kind of specific coaching that is actually useful (think of the Capture One Webinars as an example). <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yvJ769KEbfM/XeFFdF-t-iI/AAAAAAAALkc/Yi2WWlC5bpofoOa11uUNQuVUPc4ggsqqACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/shooting%2Bover%2Bvalley.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yvJ769KEbfM/XeFFdF-t-iI/AAAAAAAALkc/Yi2WWlC5bpofoOa11uUNQuVUPc4ggsqqACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/shooting%2Bover%2Bvalley.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Still, not everyone learns the same way from the internet. If this is the case, find a local workshop with a photographer you trust and use this as a coaching option. Engage with the workshop group/instructor and find a way to improve the practice with their input and feedback. <br />
<br />
Anders points out that in order for deliberate practice to really work you need to move out of your comfort zone. As with my use of filters mentioned above, mindless practice does lead to a comfort zone where we all we do is repetitive action without actually thinking. It is necessary to push ourselves in new directions in order to improve. If you are wanting to perfect focus in landscape, there’s a good chance that you will have to improve your manual focusing technique. In todays age of photographers who have either learned on autofocus, or who have ageing eyes (having once upon a time learned on manual focus), manual focus is a step too far in terms of comfort or convenience. Yet, it is a vital component of good landscape photography. Want to move away from a comfort zone while practicing improved composition? Ditch the zoom and use a prime lens for a while. <br />
<br />
One of the core tenets of the concept of deliberate practice almost goes without saying. Motivation is integral to the practice actually having any effect. If we are not motivated to practice in order to improve, then all we end up doing is sliding back into mindless practice and repetition without thinking. The idea of practicing something in order to get better at it is fantastic, but unless we are actually interested and motivated enough to do it in the first place, it’s unlikely that we can stick to practicing it. Perhaps the first thing we really need to decide is why we want to improve. If you can figure out the why, there’s a good chance we can figure out the motivation. <br />
<br />
As ever, there is no quick fix to becoming a better photographer or creating better images. One of the joys of photography is that it isn’t something that can be learned overnight. It is a constantly changing exercise and pursuit that shifts with the times that it finds itself in and with the technologies that emerge. This is exciting to me. Although the incessant learning and practicing can be exhausting, and Sisyphean in nature, there is a reward in seeing images that are more consistently ‘good’ (by whatever measure we find in good). The idea of deliberate practice is also particularly useful when you are at a stage in your photography when you have probably already done over 10 000 hours. Deliberate practice now helps focus onto aspects that need refinement. In this way we can truly master the aspects we want to, rather than mindless repeating and further digging ourselves into a photographic rut. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-42154363406652720212019-10-23T13:48:00.001+02:002019-10-29T12:35:33.093+02:00How To Photograph Into The Sun<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PRPHgtu2ahs/XbA6MJ1Yz0I/AAAAAAAALiE/AEryRwnilgUkte2CTx8XeMn4yb-JQq1TwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1006-17-40.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PRPHgtu2ahs/XbA6MJ1Yz0I/AAAAAAAALiE/AEryRwnilgUkte2CTx8XeMn4yb-JQq1TwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1006-17-40.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An image almost a decade ago using a a polariser and two graduated filters (and held-held) shooting into the sun.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As landscape photographers the inclination to shoot into the sun is overwhelmingly powerful. Funnily enough I haven't heard the term we used to use and which was the
topic of many articles when we shot predominantly on film; the term
being contre-jour (shooting into the sun). This despite the fact that often the best light is in the opposite direction, or that shooting into the sun almost always leads to a nightmare exposure with an exposure value range from pure black through to burned out highlights. Still, we feel compelled to turn our lenses directly towards our galaxy’s star and photograph it as it moves from dawn to dusk through the sky. How do we get to the point where our images are actually artful as opposed to a mess of inky blacks surrounded by flare and ghosting artifacts?</div>
<h4>
<a name='more'></a> </h4>
<h4>
Understanding The Realities of Shooting Into The Sun.</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before attempting to get exposure right while shooting into the sun, it is important to understand some of the limitations that physics and the natural world create for us. To start with the sensor (or film); only a certain range of visible light can be recorded at a time on the sensor. The range of tones that can be reproduced is what we refer to as the dynamic range of the camera. Even the very best digital cameras only achieve between 11 to 13 stops of dynamic range. This is actually extraordinarily impressive when you consider that transparency film like Fujifilm Velvia 50 only really had a dynamic range of roughly 5 stops. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
As an exercise take your camera and point it at the sky during a clear sky day and note what the shutter speed value is. Then point the camera at darker foreground and make a note of that shutter speed (with all other settings remaining constant). If the sky is 1/1000th of a second and the foreground is 1 sec, you would need a dynamic range pf ten stops in order to render both without any issue. Of course this is more than achievable now, and usually there isn’t actually that much difference between the sky and the foreground. Unfortunately, when the sun is within the composition, then there is every likelihood that the range will be greater than 10 stops. So the first thing to be aware of is that the range of tones that need to be captured by the camera is potentially greater than the dynamic range of the camera’s sensor itself. <br />
<br />
Now do the same exercise as described above, but point the camera directly at the sun. Now the shutter speed could easily get even faster. Bear in mind that the camera is trying to get a middle grey tonal average when it sets the shutter speed (assuming the camera is set to Aperture Priority). If you were to <br />
<br />
The next thing to be aware of are the physical characteristics of the lens being used, as well as any other glass that gets put between the subject and the sensor. If you read lens reviews you’ll often come across the issue of lens flare and ghosting. Essentially what happens is that light doesn’t just refract through the glass elements of the lens, it also reflects off of them internally, scattering inside the lens barrel and causing reflections which we see as flare and ghosting. Often you can even count how many events of glass there are in a lens by how many flare spots there are. So even if you can contend with the exposure issue, you still need to be aware that often when there is a bright pinpoint light source included in the image, then flare is going to become an issue. </div>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Solution 1 - Get The Timing (and the subject) Right</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For the most part we tend to want to shoot into the sun when it is fairly low on the horizon. The good news is that this also happens to be the best time to shoot into the sun. When the sun is low on the horizon the light is essentially traveling through a thicker portion of the atmosphere (which also has a more layers of atmospheric dust). Not only does this result in a redder sun (due the wavelengths of light and how they travel through a transparent layer as well as the actual dust creating a red cast) but also reduces the actual amount of light that we see at our position vis a vis the sun. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li><i>Dynamic Range is the range of tones from pure black to pure white that can be recorded on a sensor or film and then reproduced. </i></li>
<li><i>Exposure Latitude (sometimes mistakenly referred to as Dynamic Range) is the number of stops that a film can be under or over-exposed by without losing its dynamic range. </i></li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is that the when the sun is low on the horizon, the actual foreground is usually very dark, so the exposure extreme is at its maximum. This is made a little easier if we are photographing a relatively high tonal value foreground. So it’s actually easier to photograph bright desert sand or while shooting directly into the sun, than the ocean or a dark mountain (the ocean’s colour is actually a reflection of the sky, so if the sky is dark, the ocean will be too). There needs to be sufficient light in the sky to light the foreground for it not too be an inky black hole. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nmXUSArRJsc/XbA421aw6dI/AAAAAAAALhk/YLBUpQLb0-chZhZS-o8iN1O7GpnlcYmCgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sun%2Brefraction.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nmXUSArRJsc/XbA421aw6dI/AAAAAAAALhk/YLBUpQLb0-chZhZS-o8iN1O7GpnlcYmCgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sun%2Brefraction.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another aspect that is critical for a lot of ‘into the sun’ shooting’ is to make sure that the sun partially obscured by something. This can be the edge of a mountain, branches in a tree, a cloud, or even mist. As soon as the sun is partially obscured the optical brightness of the pin-point source is massively reduced and also contributes to the creation of sun-star patterns. The vast majority of successful ‘into-the-sun’ shots actually have the sun partially blocked by something. </div>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Solution 2 - Know Your Lens and Camera</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first thing is to work out how badly, or well, your lens performs shooting into the sun. This is fairly easy as all you need to do is take it outside and take some test shots with the sun in the frame. You can get a feel for where the the flare is going to create the most flare (if at all), as well as at what apertures it is likely to be at its most evident. <br />
<br />
Another aspect of the lens that is worth learning about, is that as the aperture gets smaller, the length of the sun-stars potentially increases. Some lenses have very attractive star patterns that form around pin-point light sources, the sun being the most evident of these. Some lenses require you stop all the way down to the minimum aperture to achieve this effect, but others will start showing obvious star patterns even with relatively wide apertures. Usefully, the smaller the aperture the more likely you will be able to include the sun in the image. Also, you are ,more likely to be able to shoot directly into the sun with an extreme wide lens. The reason is simply that the wider the lens, the smaller the sun will appear, and therefore having less effect on the overall exposure.<br />
<br />
In terms of the camera, it is truly astounding how far we have come with digital capture in the last few years. Use the histogram to work out what the best exposure would be for shooting into the sun. Here, the idea is to use the 'Expose To The Right Rule' rather critically; meaning that your histogram is going to have a lot of very dark shadows in the image. In post production you can then pull these shadows up. Because you have exposed for your highlights, the sun won't blow out too badly. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cigwWO9wO9k/XbgVHq1_DbI/AAAAAAAALjw/AHBmLPgiKOYLY3NIzVB2jZfA-7Vwdc-jgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1909-08-124-Amanzimnyama-EvM.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" height="426" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cigwWO9wO9k/XbgVHq1_DbI/AAAAAAAALjw/AHBmLPgiKOYLY3NIzVB2jZfA-7Vwdc-jgCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/1909-08-124-Amanzimnyama-EvM.jpg" width="640" /></a> <br />
<br />
The above (and below) example is probably about as hard as it can get. Here, I was shooting an aerial image for a client from a helicopter at dawn. Forget about using filters or even doing an exposure blend, or using a tripod for that matter. The image has to be shot by hand, with a high enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake, and with an exposure to cover both the sun and the shadowy foreground. Incredibly, cameras can now do this, but you have to keep an eye on the histogram and forget about trying to use auto-exposure as it will go wrong. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6VaxfjwNKN0/XbgVHQ2iHhI/AAAAAAAALjs/aPgxocu99GAGXpbhY3DrtqCBKGJc17hjQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1909-08-124-Amanzimnyama-EvM%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6VaxfjwNKN0/XbgVHQ2iHhI/AAAAAAAALjs/aPgxocu99GAGXpbhY3DrtqCBKGJc17hjQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1909-08-124-Amanzimnyama-EvM%2B1.jpg" /></a></div>
</div>
<h4>
Solution 3 - Use Filters</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Contrary to popular belief, using filters is not a silver bullet solution to photographing into the sun. In fact, poor filter technique can exacerbate the issues of shooting into the sun. A filter is just another air/glass interface that the light has to pass through, meaning that it increases the chances of flare as a result of internal reflection. <br />
<br />
Another issue that often comes up with the use of filters is that any dirt, dust or scratches on a filter will be become immediately obvious when shooting directly into the sun. If you are going to try shooting into the sun with a filter on your lens, then that filter (as well as the front element) has to be spotlessly clean. On top of this some square system holders create their own reflections, creating a halo of magenta when used in conjunction with an extreme wide angle lens. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--qHZNgMto_o/XbA5Jge5NbI/AAAAAAAALhs/lgB6lPWHl-oL87iz5Tx70H5q8fJe9r21ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1902-14-017-Ampthitheatre-EvM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--qHZNgMto_o/XbA5Jge5NbI/AAAAAAAALhs/lgB6lPWHl-oL87iz5Tx70H5q8fJe9r21ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1902-14-017-Ampthitheatre-EvM.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Halo and flare caused when using a 0.9 Medium Graduated Neutral Density and pointing directly into the sun. The exposure is manageable in post-production by pulling down the highlights, but the halo ruins the shot. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, filters can be useful so long as you keep them spotlessly clean, and select the correct strength. I also find that the polariser can be effective when the sun is higher in the sky and you are wanting to include it in the frame. It is particularly effective when using a small aperture with the lens. <br />
<br />
Something else that tends to surprise photographers when they go down the route of using filters to shoot directly into the sun, is the weird tonal range that results. A case in point is shooting across the Indian Ocean from the eastern seaboard of South Africa (or the Pacific from Australia and the Atlantic from the US). The sun rises directly over the flaker horizon of the ocean. In theory you should be able to shoot into the sun using a 4 Stop Hard Graduated Neutral Density filter. In the end this just results in an unnaturally dark sky with an artificially bright foreground (ugly in other words). Filter manufacturers brought out something called a Reverse Grad to combat this. This filter has a hard dark line for the horizon, but then tapers off in density as it approaches the top of the filter. The result is mean to reduce the light at the brightest point of the horizon where the sun is, but still allow the sky to maintain a natural amount of brightness above bright band where the sun is. The problem then is whenever you shoot something that has mountains, buildings, cliffs or anything else that isn’t flat along the horizon, as they are also darkened by the hard edge of the filter. <br />
<br />
This is not to say that filters can’t work though. They do, and I use them to shoot into the sun all the time. A case in point is the image below shot on a single exposure using a Nisi 0.9 Medium Grad filter. Just use filters with an understanding of how the lens is being affected by the sun, as well as how to place the sun to get the best effect. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P10HE9E9zlg/XbA5ievASlI/AAAAAAAALh0/hpjR7V1QwG88lHuppTivOKRS1pCX8M_hACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1902-14-030-Ampthitheatre-EvM%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P10HE9E9zlg/XbA5ievASlI/AAAAAAAALh0/hpjR7V1QwG88lHuppTivOKRS1pCX8M_hACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1902-14-030-Ampthitheatre-EvM%2B1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Another example of shooting into the sun where the use of a filter has now worked, in this case a 0.6 Hard Graduated Neutral Density on a 70-200mm telephoto lens.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
Solution 4 - The Digital Approach</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sometimes you simply have to resort to the digital approach to properly capture the sun in the frame and have it ‘look’ the way you perceive it in real life. There are a variety of techniques available in order to do this from using dedicated high dynamic range software through to simple tonal blending in a bitmap editor like Photoshop. I also include the technique I refer to as ‘<a href="https://www.photowriting.co.za/2016/02/giving-it-finger-photoshop-layering.html" target="_blank">giving it the finger</a>’ (follow the <a href="https://www.photowriting.co.za/2016/02/giving-it-finger-photoshop-layering.html" target="_blank">link</a> to step by step approach to this). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K-PCOlEHZ9I/VriVN0NoGiI/AAAAAAAAKdU/zN1T2xH7REQudYkpdbSk_myoCDvSjy2FwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/1601-19-042-EVM-Edit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K-PCOlEHZ9I/VriVN0NoGiI/AAAAAAAAKdU/zN1T2xH7REQudYkpdbSk_myoCDvSjy2FwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/1601-19-042-EVM-Edit.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A blended image where multiple images were required to remove flare and balance exposure</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The goal for me is to create a realistic transition of tones while still including the sun in the composition. This means that while shooting I am pre-visualising in my mind/imagination how the final image should look. This then gives me an idea of how to shoot the image and with what techniques. I find that the best ‘into-the-sun’ images often end up being ones where I have used all four techniques together for the one shot. Complicated, but worth it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
Conclusion</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Shooting into the sun is not impossible, but it is difficult and technically exacting to do right. In a talk I give when demonstrating Nisi filters I always recommend shooting with the sun just out of frame. When you do that it is relatively simple to get the exposure right while maintaining the drama of the sunlight itself. Adding the pinpoint highlight of the sun just introduces a whole new level of complexity. If you are keen on working through that complexity you can be rewarded with some spectacular images, but you need to understand that technique and patience are required in bucketloads (not to mention a little bit of serendipity and good old fashioned luck). Believe me, it is worthwhile learning how to do it right. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-36831327073432880332019-10-17T15:40:00.001+02:002019-10-17T19:59:47.937+02:00Thoughts on the Nikon Z50<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_95qd1wIDGM/XahtEN34sQI/AAAAAAAALhM/FQYNz58nySYd42Tm_7j1hTV5-sVAiUKvACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Z50%2Bcopy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="586" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_95qd1wIDGM/XahtEN34sQI/AAAAAAAALhM/FQYNz58nySYd42Tm_7j1hTV5-sVAiUKvACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Z50%2Bcopy.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Last week while I was battling my way up a pass in the Drakensberg Nikon dropped the Z50 onto the world. As usual the commentary is fairly hyperbolic and boiling in indignant negativity towards the announcement. Which is weird as the camera looks fairly compelling to me. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So what is it exactly? The Z50 is a mirrorless APS-C camera from Nikon with a 20.7mp CMOS sensor that is similar to the one used in the D7500, though tweaked for mirrorless focusing (in reality a 20.9mp sensor which uses the outside sensels for various tasks other than actual imaging). A number of commentators have already said that the Z50 is there to ‘replace’ the D5600, but it doesn’t and isn’t the same thing at all. Despite having the smaller APS-C sensor, the lens mount is the same Z-mount as the Nikon Z6/7 full frame cameras. In other words, the mount is massively oversized for the sensor size. This isn’t necessarily a problem, but will mean that lenses are going to be physically larger than is necessary. The good news though is that all the existing Z-mount lenses will work perfectly on the Z50, as will all other Nikkor lenses that are supported by the FTZ adapter. This includes existing DX lenses. <br />
<br />
The standout items for me personally are the small form factor and light weight. The Z6 and Z7 although smaller than their DSLR brethren are not necessarily much lighter, and when coupled to Z-mount lenses end up being about the same weight and size. The Z50 is already significantly smaller than its full frame counterparts, and at 450g is 225g lighter than the Z6. The real difference is ultimately going to be with the lenses. Full frame lenses simply require more glass than lenses designed for the smaller APS-C format. Still, if pitted against the likes of the Sony A6400, or Fujifilm XT-30, the Z50 is quite a bit heavier. <br />
<br />
The weight is no doubt coming from the magnesium chassis of the camera. Unlike the other ‘consumer’ APS-C mirrorless cameras, the Z50 is weatherproofed, or at least weather sealed beyond what the competition have. To keep size down, the camera is also lacking a top LCD, relegating all visual displays to the rear LCD screen. In fact the top plate doesn’t look that dissimilar to a Sony A7iii. Personally I find the Nikon cleaner and a little easier to understand. What’s more, unlike the D5600, the Z50 has twin controls. This means there is a separate dial for aperture (finger dial at the front of the camera) and shutter speed/exposure compensation (thumb dial at the rear of the camera). <br />
<br />
In their marketing material, Nikon claim that the camera has been designed for people that are not used to cameras. In a nutshell, the Instagram generation that are more at home with a cellphone than camera with interchangeable lenses. To this end there are a host of filters that can be added to the images in camera. The wifi and bluetooth connection is also supposed to be more robust so that Snapbridge works more effectively (anyone who has worked with snapbridge knows how abysmally unreliable it is).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_o9liRKnKWI/XahuoTdSeQI/AAAAAAAALhY/vOTm7NjtQwgBkUnNK971dDteJBQOGObUQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Z50%2Bfront.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="698" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_o9liRKnKWI/XahuoTdSeQI/AAAAAAAALhY/vOTm7NjtQwgBkUnNK971dDteJBQOGObUQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Z50%2Bfront.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<h4>
What About Lenses</h4>
The achilles heel of any newly introduced camera is the dearth of lenses that accompany the announcement. In this case it isn’t all bad news though. Being a Z-mount camera it means that there are already several excellent lenses already available, albeit with a visual 1,5x crop (a 50mm effectively becomes the equivalent of a 75mm lenses on a full frame camera). This obviously means that the Z50 is lacking wide angle lenses to start with. <br />
<br />
Announced alongside the Z50 were it’s companion lenses, the 16-50mm f3.5-6.3 and 50-250mm f4.5-6.3 zoom lenses. These two new lenses have collapsible designs so that they can be stored in an even more compact package. The relatively small maximum apertures also contribute to the small form factor. So, if one considers the intended target market, probably a pretty good design choice. However enthusiasts are moaning about the small apertures. This is understandable as the camera, although marketed to non-camera users, is actually very compelling to enthusiasts - people who know their cameras and how to use them.<br />
<br />
At any rate, as mentioned above, the Z50 can use the FTZ adapter and pretty much adapt any FX or DX lens made so as to work on the camera. In reality photographers who buy the Z50 have a plethora of lenses to choose from. Of course the is with the small inconvenience of having to attach the adapter. It won’t take long for the third party lens manufacturers to start producing lenses for the Z50 though. The Sony E-mount is used for both full frame and APS-C, and there are a number of lenses that are already being adapted from Sony E-mount to Nikon Z-mount by the third party manufacturers. If Nikon doesn’t build the primes that photographers want, you can all but guarantee that Samyang, Sigma, Tamron and others will. We can’t really judge the Z50 until we actually know what kind of future lens support there will be. Despite Nikon’s poor support of DX lenses in the past, I am tentatively positive about future lenses. <br />
<h4>
Conclusion</h4>
Small, light, relatively inexpensive (in comparison), direct controls and weather-sealed means that the Z50 is actually a brilliant enthusiast camera - on paper at the very least. Yes, it’s missing a few things like a headphone jack for video. However, it shoots at 11 frames per second with autofocus and autoexposure, does 4K video (at 30fps) and has a nice large viewfinder (2.36 million dots). This might just be the small light Nikon to stop photographers leaking over to Fujifilm and Sony. For a start, the interface and menus are pure Nikon, meaning that if you have already become accustomed to Nikon, there will be almost no learning curve in getting used to the Z50. A very different scenario presents itself if you want to go from Nikon to Fujifilm (or Sony with extraordinarily long and complex menu system).<br />
<br />
I’m pretty sure that this is just the opening volley for Nikon’s APS-C offerings. I strongly suspect that Nikon will create an entry level full frame camera in the same chassis at some point in time (they are being idiotic if they don’t), as well as an even smaller and lighter APS-C variant of the Z50 (akin to the D3xxx series of DX APS-C DSLRs). For the most part though, if you wanted wanted small, light and competent and were considering jumping from Nikon to another manufacturer, now you at least have something tangible to consider within the Nikon realm. Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-14719743853539176982019-09-11T10:25:00.000+02:002019-09-11T10:25:21.078+02:00Confusing Circles and Airy Disks: A relatively simple explanation of depth of field and hyperfocal focusing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QR7JP28hccw/XXilR5IHe4I/AAAAAAAALgg/GU2WLCIKXPMOI6w3i0Mb5vuTLtayxT9dwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1311-07-006-EvM%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="601" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QR7JP28hccw/XXilR5IHe4I/AAAAAAAALgg/GU2WLCIKXPMOI6w3i0Mb5vuTLtayxT9dwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1311-07-006-EvM%2B1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">After much
searching of the internet and reading of photographic textbooks (the dense kind
that have little if any pictures) I discovered I’m absolutely clueless as to
how to actually calculate hyperfocal distance and little better at
understanding it. My goal then became to reverse this if at all possible. This
tutorial then is my attempt to wade through what I saw as rather complex math
and distil it into something that makes sense to other mathematical luddites
like me. I’ll start the article with the simple stuff, and move on to the more
complicated matters after. </span><br />
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;"> </span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<h4>
<b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Hyperfocal focusing</span></b></h4>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">To put it simply (remember I’m trying to steer
clear of the technical stuff as much as possible), hyperfocal focusing is when
you focus your lens such that there is a depth of field that encompasses the
very near distance through to infinity. This is what creates that three
dimensional look to landscape photographs that seem so bitingly sharp and crisp
that we could almost step into the picture.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpSDJSZl56o/XXiopjUQ-VI/AAAAAAAALgs/oNmEg0rWFbIUA3WEC5gV3iViZb25Oc15wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/lens.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="817" data-original-width="600" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpSDJSZl56o/XXiopjUQ-VI/AAAAAAAALgs/oNmEg0rWFbIUA3WEC5gV3iViZb25Oc15wCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/lens.jpg" width="293" /></a></div>
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Most prime lenses (i.e. lenses that have only one
focal point and no zoom) have a hyperfocal scale engraved or painted on the
barrel of the lens. The theory is that to obtain the hyperfocal distance
(defined by the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography as the “focus setting that
makes the far limit of sharp focus equal to infinity) the photographer focuses
on the nearest point that they require to be in focus and makes a mental note
of the distance on the distance scale on the lens for this point. By using the
hyperfocal scale on the lens barrel, which indicates the distance between focus
points in relation to different apertures (see image) he or she is able to
adjust the focus (without looking through the lens) such that the hyperfocal
markers are on the infinity mark of the focus ring and either encompass or fall
past the nearest required point of focus. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Let’s say I want to photograph a scene with aloe
flowers in the foreground while maintaining sharp focus through to clouds that
are gathering on the far horizon. Obviously the storm clouds would be in focus
at the infinity setting of the lens (the focus ring stops turning in that
direction…or at any rate stops focusing – I realise that newer Canon and Nikon
lenses just keep on turning). The flowers however only 1.7 metres away from
where I am photographing from. Simply stopping down to f16 or even f22 still
doesn’t place the elements such that both the flowers and the clouds are in
focus if I focus either on the clouds or on the flowers independently. The
answer is in using the hyperfocal scale. By choosing an aperture of f16 and
setting the focus so that f16 hyperfocal point is in line with the infinity
mark, I am able to also get the nearest distance of 1.7m into focus as well
(see images). In fact I even get a little closer than 1.7m. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">So what’s
the problem? How many lenses, particularly zooms have hyperfocal focusing
scales on them anymore. The problem is that only the most expensive lenses now
cater to photographers who want to shoot using hyperfocal focusing. An easy way
around this is to focus roughly a third of the way into the area that you
require to be in focus. This is because, except for close-up subjects, the
depth of field is assymetrical about the focused distance. Essentially the area
behind the focused point is twice as deep as that in front of the focused
distance. Therefore by focusing a third of the way into the area that you
require to be in focus, there is a good chance that you will obtain hyperfocal
focusing. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Let’s say you want to be more exact in your
calculations when you are trying to focus hyperfocally. After much delving
through technical manuals I came across a reallt elegant and simple equation in
a book by the British nature photographer Niall Benvie. What is particularly
useful about the equation is that you can use it at home to create a small
chart that can be glued to the inside of your lens cap for the hyperfocal
focusing distances for your most used zooms. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-By-M8jkf7PE/XXfRpHrJXqI/AAAAAAAALgU/64O1u2fGE0Y_KrsS_ptnZQk9gwDA-so2wCLcBGAs/s1600/Hyperfocal%2Bfocusing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="310" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-By-M8jkf7PE/XXfRpHrJXqI/AAAAAAAALgU/64O1u2fGE0Y_KrsS_ptnZQk9gwDA-so2wCLcBGAs/s1600/Hyperfocal%2Bfocusing.jpg" /></a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<h4>
<b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">The Circle of Confusion</span></b></h4>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">So why not simply stick the aperture at f22 so as
to ensure a maximum depth of field and probably achieve hyperfocal focusing
distance anyway? The problem lies in diffraction. Light passes through the lens
and is essentially squeezed or bent through the aperture hole. When the light
is bent in this way it scatters, making it harder to resolve back to its
original ‘shape’. The smaller the hole that the light has to pass through, the
more the light is bent and therefore the more diffraction there is. This means
that f22, or f32 on some 35mm format lenses, although having the most depth of
field, lose there resolving power due to diffraction. In fact, on my 35mm f2
lens (used in the images), the three sharpest apertures are f8, f11, f5.6 (in
this order). F22, although not the worst, is distinctly ‘soft’. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Conventional wisdom is to rarely if ever use the
lowest aperture on your lenses unless you absolutely have to. Then why are
medium format and large format lenses considered sharp when images are shot at
f32 and even f64. Afterall, Ansel Adams was one of the founders of the famous
Group f64. The answer lies in the circle of confusion and magnification. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">When a lens
resolves an image of say a point source onto the sensor or a piece of film it
is essentially creating a cone of light (see image). Critical focus is achieved
when the apex of the cone of light meets with the focal plane (the image sensor
or film). If the apex of the cone falls short of or beyond the focal plane we
can consider that the image is no longer critically sharp. The small circle
that is resolved onto the focal plane is considered to the ‘circle of least
confusion’ (i.e. it is perfectly sharp). It is possible, however for the apex
of the cone to fall slightly before or beyond the focal plane, but still resemble
a point source, or disk of light, rather than a circle. This is known as the
‘permissible circle of confusion’ (or the ‘acceptable circle of confusion’). A
useful (but technically accurate) way of demonstrating this would be to shine a
torch beam like that from a maglite onto a wall. By focusing its beam into a
sharp point we can simulate the ‘circle of least confusion’. As we defocus the
beam the disk of light enlarges until the disk suddenly becomes a circle. The
defocused circle is actually a result of diffraction and is known as the ‘Airy
disk’. Essentially the focused beam of light is that between the ‘circle of
least confusion’ and the ‘permissible circle of confusion’ before the Airy disk
appears. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5084915060092128647" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nYqLYCC_nJI/XXivCTxJQzI/AAAAAAAALg4/c3_tK9pxb-Eg2DHGL0-tgjj90hxJA878gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/circle%2Bof%2Bconfusion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nYqLYCC_nJI/XXivCTxJQzI/AAAAAAAALg4/c3_tK9pxb-Eg2DHGL0-tgjj90hxJA878gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/circle%2Bof%2Bconfusion.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<h4>
<b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">The effect of magnification</span></b></h4>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Back to why medium and large format cameras have
smaller apertures. The circle of confusion is very different for different
formats. Usually one views an image from a distance that is about equal to the
image’s diagonal measurement (this isn’t always the case as landscape images
draw us in by their size and then invite us to minutely inspect the finer
details). The permissible circle of confusion is a visible phenomenon that is
interpreted by our eyes and brains. If we are viewing a print of 15x20cm (with
a diagonal of 25cm and therefore an optimal viewing distance of roughly 25cm),
the permissible circle of confusion is 1.45mm. Remember that to obtain a
15x20cm print the original image, if from a 35mm FF sensor must be magnified
6.25 times. Suddenly the permissible circle of confusion for the sensor is a
lot smaller, 0.23mm in fact. Make the image larger and the permissible circle
of confusion gets even smaller. It seems to be generally established that the
average person’s visual acuity resolves sees as blurred images where the circle
of confusion is less than 0.2mm. So the goal for your final print is really to
have a permissible circle of confusion of 0.2mm. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">So how does this technically define the print size
limits of our sensors or films? Let’s say that we want to print a roughly A2
sized image with its shortest side at 430mm in length. This gives us a diagonal
of approximately 775mm. If we were to view the image from 775cm away, using the
equation above, the circle of confusion that is required before things start
getting soft or blurry is 0.45mm. A 35mm piece of film needs to be magnified
17.9 times to achieve a print size of 645x430mm. So we need a circle of
confusion of .025 on the piece of film. Wonderful...we fall within our limits!
Unless you want to step in to look at closer detail that is. If we wanted to
obtain a circle of confusion of 0.2mm on the final print, we would have to have
a permissible circle of confusion of 0.011mm on the negative, well below the
achievable circle of confusion for a 35mm sensor. Hence why images go soft as
they are blown up larger. If we had used a 6x4.5 medium format camera on the
other hand things would be very different. The permissible circle of confusion
for this format is 0.043mm. The image would only need to be enlarged 9.5 times,
meaning that the circle of confusion for the final print is 0.41mm,
considerably larger than the required 0.2mm. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">So you can see that if you start off with a large
permissible circle of confusion such as that for medium format photography you
can enlarge your print to a larger size before the image starts to degrade in
quality through perceived blurring of the edges. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">We have now established that different formats have
different permissible circles of confusion. 35mm has a circle of confusion of
0.025mm (often rounded to 0.03mm), 6x4.5 circle of confusion is .04mm while
Nikon’s APS-C format has a circle of confusion of only 0.016mm. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">To maintain the same field of view the lens must be
in proportion to the actual format size. Thus when we use an 18mm lens on a
35mm FF sensor we have a very wide angle view. The same lens on a APS-C sensor
only shows the equivalent of a 28mm lens on the 35mm FF sensor. This is why we
get that crop effect when we use 35mm lenses on smaller frame digital cameras.
It is also why a 75mm lens on a 6x4.5 camera is the equivalent of a 50mm lens
on a 35mm camera and a 35mm lens on an APS-C camera. They all have the same field
of view, but have very different focal lengths. Wider focal lengths have more
depth of field. Thus, a 35mm camera with a 50mm set at f11 lens has more depth
of field than a medium format camera with a 75mm lens set at the same aperture.
The advantage for the landscape photographer with an APS-C sized sensor is that
there is a full stop more depth of field in the smaller frame than in the 35mm
sensor. Essentially a setting of f11 will give the same perceived depth of
field as would f16 if we are using equivalent lenses on the two different
formats. The disadvantage is that we cannot print as large with the smaller
frame sensor. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<h4>
<b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Summary</span></b></h4>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">Although fairly long-winded I have attempted to
condense a very large amount of mathematical equations into something a little
simpler to understand. What we basically have above is an understanding that
depth of field and perceived sharpness within the image are related to sensor
size, circle of confusion, aperture choice and focal length. The equation given
to obtain hyperfocal distance is the easiest I have come across so far in
accurately calculating the hyperfocal focusing point for a zoom lens. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<h4>
<b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">References</span></b></h4>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">If you would like to read more about depth of field
and circles of confusion you can access the same texts that I have used in my
pursuit of understanding this phenomenon.</span></div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">‘Focal encyclopaedia of Photography, third edition’ (1993) by
Richard Zakia and Leslie Stroebel (eds). Focal Press: Coston & London</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">‘Creative Landscape Photography’ (2003) by Niall Benvie. David
& Charles: London </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">‘How to Select the F-stop’ by Q.Tuan Luong for Large format
Photography (</span><span lang="EN-ZA"><a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html"><span style="color: blue; font-size: 12.0pt;">http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html</span></a></span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">) </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">‘Depth of Field’ by in Wikipedia (</span><span lang="EN-ZA"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field"><span style="color: blue; font-size: 12.0pt;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field</span></a></span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">)</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">'An Introduction to Depth of Field’ (2004) by Jeff Conrad (</span><span lang="EN-ZA"><a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/IntroToDoF.pdf"><span style="color: blue; font-size: 12.0pt;">http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/IntroToDoF.pdf</span></a></span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-ZA;">) </span></li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Header Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
tab-stops:center 225.65pt right 451.3pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.HeaderChar
{mso-style-name:"Header Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:Header;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1545023315;
mso-list-template-ids:-1617812364;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
</style>
-->Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5084915060092128647.post-34064867308267521752019-07-31T12:02:00.001+02:002019-08-06T13:24:14.088+02:00An Obsession With Decay<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gklfUMQJoNA/XUFBwDX9kKI/AAAAAAAALe8/YBoZdWh-plIBRNUN3xZVSZWGMRoAsqV2ACLcBGAs/s1600/1411-08-110-EVM-Edit.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="586" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gklfUMQJoNA/XUFBwDX9kKI/AAAAAAAALe8/YBoZdWh-plIBRNUN3xZVSZWGMRoAsqV2ACLcBGAs/s1600/1411-08-110-EVM-Edit.JPG" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Photographers have a strange affinity with ruins. Some of the earliest daguerreotypes are of some of what we consider famous ruins now - the likes of the Parthenon - or of decrepit farm houses. Early photographs were used as a historical status quo image, creating a record of historical architecture, as was the case with the 1851 ‘Heliographic Mission’. This was an official mission to record historical buildings, many of which were in a state of ruin and which were earmarked for restoration or were in the actual process of restoration. Prominent photographers of the day, Hippolyte Bayard, Gustave le Gray, Edourad Baldus and Mestral were involved in this technical exercise. At this point the definition of “photography as art” was still in its nascent stages. This would form more thoroughly as the Calotype became more prominent in use.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
The real advent of ruin photography was possibly brought about with the images that began to emerge from Egypt. Again, the images were predominantly created via Calotype and almost exclusively conveyed what can only be described as a romantic view of the famous Egyptian ruins. Due to the long exposure times required for the images the scenes are presented as deserted, creating an ‘imaginary journey into timeless antiquity’ (Claire Bustarret in ‘A New History of Photography’ - pg 76; 1998). Importantly this is an aesthetic style that has remained to this day; scenes of decay and ruin, completely void of people.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3PXSISm07Hs/XUFBxW5qv5I/AAAAAAAALfM/b0bHkOIPDzQJaoEkERK-C0Ebs0AVxzo9gCLcBGAs/s1600/G329%2B-Tintern%2BAbbey%2Btower-Wales-1999%2B-%2Bexhibition%2Bprint.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3PXSISm07Hs/XUFBxW5qv5I/AAAAAAAALfM/b0bHkOIPDzQJaoEkERK-C0Ebs0AVxzo9gCLcBGAs/s1600/G329%2B-Tintern%2BAbbey%2Btower-Wales-1999%2B-%2Bexhibition%2Bprint.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of the first ruins that I ever photographed was Tintern Abbey twenty years ago. Then as now I was attracted to photographing these derelict edifices if our past, fascinated by the story attached to them.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
Ruins around the world draw travelers in their hundreds of thousands, if not millions, every year. Think of famous sites like Stonehenge, Angkor Wat, Machu Piccu or Chichen Itza. All of these sites are carefully manicured to portray what we feel ruins really should look like. Our own ideas of what ruins should look like are built on the foundations created by the photographers and painters who first documented the Egyptian ruins in the mid 19th century. Michael Freeman even - cynically - catalogues how ruins should be photographed if they are to be presented at their ‘best’ (The Photographer’s Mind 34:2011): </div>
<ul>
<li>partly buried, but also partly clear</li>
<li>Important aspects unobscured by secondary growth</li>
<li>There must be some obvious collapse, but with key parts still recognizable (think the head of statue fallen to the floor, but still recognizable and noble)</li>
<li>Continuing on this theme; other forms of hand-crafted elements or traces of artistry</li>
<li>Either no people, or if people very few to show scale and preferably local in the sense that they belong to the scene (robed monks in Angkor, but definitely not road workers at Stonehenge) with a definite avoidance of other tourists. </li>
<li>Sombre or atmospheric lighting, potential black and white treatment - with the idea of creating a timeless (and romantic) portrait of ‘place’ in decay, but retaining nobility. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lM6DU8Qhjsc/XUFBwuDNm0I/AAAAAAAALfE/nhhWhV0IgmYi6G6_sjr2HeX3LTZ2qrPwACLcBGAs/s1600/6575.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="503" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lM6DU8Qhjsc/XUFBwuDNm0I/AAAAAAAALfE/nhhWhV0IgmYi6G6_sjr2HeX3LTZ2qrPwACLcBGAs/s1600/6575.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The cliched image of a 'local' in appropriate guise, found in the midst of ancient ruins</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More recently the the photographic eye has turned with intent towards the more recently ruined. The increased interest even led to the photographic genre being derisively nicknamed ‘ruin-porn’. In fact, the title ‘ruin photography’ now specifically refers to the photography of “urban decay and decline in the post industrial zones of the world” (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_photography" target="_blank">link</a>). In John Patrick Leary’s article ‘Detrotism’ (<a href="https://www.guernicamag.com/leary_1_15_11/" target="_blank">link</a>) he explains that, ‘ruin photography, in particular, has been criticized for its “pornographic” sensationalism’. The criticism is that ruin photography aestheticises poverty and decay without questioning the origin, much in the same way that ‘poverty-porn’ aestheticises poverty and ethnic otherness without any introspection as to the foundation of that poverty or our understanding of otherness. I personally find this surprising as the aesthetic style behind more recent ‘ruin photography’ is akin to the romanticised photography of ancient ruins. <br />
<br />
Nowadays though, there is a younger cohort of DSLR toting photographers who call themselves ‘urban explorers’. These individuals (and groups) seek out the derelict corners of cities, more points awarded through social media should those derelict spaces be off-limits to the general public (see for example <a href="https://www.boredpanda.com/abandoned-soviet-space-shuttle-program-buran-baikonur-cosmodrome-kazakhstan-ralph-mirebs/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic" target="_blank">Ralph Mirebs images of an abandoned hangar of the Russian Soyez program</a>). <br />
<br />
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f_568kndxJ0/XUFBviiz9pI/AAAAAAAALe4/ZSUjec69v2oYlkxWZ2Eu__BXSVAVJnQ0wCLcBGAs/s1600/1311-07-081-EvM.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f_568kndxJ0/XUFBviiz9pI/AAAAAAAALe4/ZSUjec69v2oYlkxWZ2Eu__BXSVAVJnQ0wCLcBGAs/s1600/1311-07-081-EvM.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Open doorways in one of the buildings of Namibia's abandoned diamond town of Kolmanskop</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cliched as they are, abandoned urban spaces do seem to draw us. Maybe it has something to do with the creative depiction of an age past. One of the first serious projects I was involved in was to document an industrial site in Johannesburg prior to its demolition (<a href="http://www.photowriting.co.za/2011/01/book-building.html" target="_blank">see the book project on this link</a>). That was almost a decade ago and I certainly didn’t have any of the knowledge around ‘ruin porn’ and ‘ruin photography’ that has now become common photographic parlance. To me, photographing the abandoned warehouses needed to convey a sense of time past, of empty spaces that were once teeming, to draw attention to architectural detail. Possibly there was a sombre sense of time lost, but this seems to be the case with many ruin images, both of the more modern post-industrial decay, and of archaic sites of ruin. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LVEEs7gtRtU/XUFmUXmTAwI/AAAAAAAALfw/Og79uZl1Ins7Tp-KajDzVZ6FSO_8QqncgCLcBGAs/s1600/94.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LVEEs7gtRtU/XUFmUXmTAwI/AAAAAAAALfw/Og79uZl1Ins7Tp-KajDzVZ6FSO_8QqncgCLcBGAs/s1600/94.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">An excerpt from the book I shot for Standard Bank in 2010 documenting old warehouses (the oldest industrial site in South Africa at the time) before they were torn down</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9gDrzAKvzp4/XUFmUv63sSI/AAAAAAAALf0/xGPNxT79b50IJfbyYIjDcHUsCvC7TwkxwCLcBGAs/s1600/33_1009-02-663.JPG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="596" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9gDrzAKvzp4/XUFmUv63sSI/AAAAAAAALf0/xGPNxT79b50IJfbyYIjDcHUsCvC7TwkxwCLcBGAs/s640/33_1009-02-663.JPG" width="422" /></a>Maybe it’s a longing for the past that keeps us picturing decay as something pictorial. I always notice a sense of wistfulnesss mingling with curiosity as I wander through the abandoned homes and halls of Kolmanskop which is being inexorably swallowed by the desert. Or at least that’s the impression that is given, and carefully maintained by the curators of the small village. Kolmanskop, like other tourist ruins is an example of a manicured ruin - allowing images in the same vein as described by Michael Freeman above. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The famous ruins of Angkor Wat and Macchu Piccu are both examples of carefully manicured decay. Trekking the alternative ‘Inca Route’ in 2004, Jackie and I were surprised to discover that in the depth of the rain forest we were stumbling over tumbledown boulders fashioned like the tell-take Inca style of building. Over thick jungle foliage we could barely make out the fact that we were walking through a set of ruins that, according to our guide book by Peter Frost, was as large and impressive as Machu Piccu on the opposite peak. Macchu Piccu is impressive because it has been cleared and restored. Similarly Angkor Wat was cleared and shored up (with carefully concealed concrete beams) by the French authorities who were the then administrators of Cambodia. Still in Peru, we were fortunate to visit Choquequirau, which was still quite out of each for the average tourist. At that point in 2004 only a small section had been cleared, so we were able to see the difference between the cleared ideal of a ruin, and the realistic jumble that wouldn’t attract the gaze of the lens. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9m7DZWOb6gE/XUFBxAJ6GiI/AAAAAAAALfI/JvdaJysprxMh5FlPr8m3QHlf4DmvchIagCLcBGAs/s1600/G182_Chequequirau_Peru_2004_copyforblog.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="900" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9m7DZWOb6gE/XUFBxAJ6GiI/AAAAAAAALfI/JvdaJysprxMh5FlPr8m3QHlf4DmvchIagCLcBGAs/s1600/G182_Chequequirau_Peru_2004_copyforblog.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The ruins - cleared and propped up as a tourist attraction - of Choquequirau in the mountains of Peru</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
So we remain drawn to decay, so long as it is tugs at our aesthetic judgement of the past. It is something flawed, but by its flaw attracts us. Again from Leary (where the fixation with Detroit’s ruins can be replaced with other ruins): “For media workers from more prosperous cities, Detroit’s spaces of ruination appear to tell a history, or at least evoke a vague sense of historical pathos, absent in those other, wealthier cities”. Possibly the pathos that we feel is tinged with a odd appreciation for that which has broken apart or come to an end. The Japanese concept of wabi-sabi comes to mind here. Although not specifically related to things that are broken, or decrepit, the concept is concerned with an appreciation for imperfection or impermanence. So important is wabi-sabi as a way of appreciating beauty that it can be set in almost diametrical contrast to the traditional Greek and therefore western concepts of beauty derived through perfection. <br />
<br />
Perhaps I am naive in my understanding of wanting to photograph ruins; the empty hallways that once bustled with life. I prefer to see the images not as a bleak dystopian expression as viewed through the current trope of ‘ruin photography’. Neither do I see ruins as something to be romantically imaged. Maybe wabi-sabi is how I personally look at ruins. The hint of impermanence, the pathos of time past, of lives lived, of the impermanence of our own presence. There is a beauty in that, even though it is broken down and devoured by the sands of time. </div>
Emil von Maltitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09411255595370940085noreply@blogger.com0