Recently in Workflow Category

First off, thanks for the interest in these essays. I think your comments and discussion really make this whole thing more interesting, so keep them coming.

Just to clear up a few thoughts based on comments of the first section of this essay.  I don't believe that prime lenses are the end all be all for all photographers. I fully understand those who like the versatility of zooms for reportage, or travel,  or sports, or event photography.  Mostly I was talking to those people who have only ever shot with a zoom, and usually a mediocre consumer level one with a 3.5 maximum aperture at that.  Neither prime nor zoom is necessarily the only knife in the drawer, but drawers are big, and there is certainly room for both.

And Scott is right, there are downsides to switching lenses.  More dust in the body, missing the crucial moment, etc.  But to my mind, what's the point of having an SLR if you're only ever going to use one lens with it?

As for bang for your buck.  On the Canon side you can get the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 for much less than the cost of a single 24-70/2.8 zoom. To my eye, you don't need L level primes to compete with L level zooms.   When I first got my 24-70 a couple years ago, I thought of it as a bunch of really great f/2.8 primes, but haven't found that to be true.  A decent prime stopped down to 2.8 is going to be sharper, certainly at the edges, than a zoom wide open.

--------

OK, now that we've got that out of the way.  Some new thoughts.

I've got a confession to make.  I'm a pixel peeper.  The subject and the composition of the shot are all very important, and while I rarely enlarge bigger than 11x14, I want to be able to if I choose. I'm not sure if it's my equipment failing or if my eye is getting better, but lately I've been a bit disappointed with my lenses. I tend to work in low light and like short depth of field so I'm hooked on wide apertures. Stopping down to improve things really isn't an option.  And while if my focus is right on and the subject tends toward the center of the lens, I can get the sharpness I want, I can't alway guarantee those things.

When I shoot with my large format, or the 80mm on my Hasselblad, or the 50mm on my Leica, there is definitely a difference in the look of lenses. I'm certainly a pragmatist and a cynic, so I'm not one for mythology or nostalgia, but I've got to say that there is a difference to the look of photographs from those cameras.  For the large and medium format, some people say the difference is that the image is not reduced as much to fit on the film. The less manipulation the lens has to do, the more true the light is on the other side.  And that might be true, but it doesn't explain the 35mm Leica with a lens from 1955 mind you..  Theoretically, modern lenses should be better than old ones.  Computer designed, new aspherical lens elements, modern and more effective coatings to reduce glare and increase contrast.  But to me it seems that the pudding doesn't always bare out this proof.

Since I only use a handful of lenses, I figured I'd look into upgrade options.  The 28mm I use is the best Canon makes in that focal length.  If they made a f/1.4 L like they do at 24mm and 35mm I'd be all over it like Hillary Clinton on a superdelegate, but they don't so I think I'm stuck there. That leaves the 50mm which I tend to use a lot.  My 1.4 is a great lens, but is there better?  Canon makes a 1.2L but I've heard mixed things about it.  And for 6 times the cost of the 1.4, I'd need some serious kudos from other users before I took the plunge.

But if I like the old lenses so much, why don't I go that route?  Well that's exactly what I've been thinking.  I would certainly give up auto-focus and auto exposure control for image quality.  For the work I'd want these lenses for, that's a no brainer.  Plus manual focus and exposure is what separates the men from the men who use the green box mode.

Zeiss, the nearly mythical German company who make the lenses for the older Hasselblad and Contax cameras, have come out with modern SLR lenses in the past couple of years.  For the Nikon and Pentax mounts natively, but with a quality adapter they'll work on an EOS mount too.  And there area a lot of people on the forums of DP review and Fred Miranda's site, who swear by this route.  Saying how much better these Zeiss wide-angle primes are than what I'm using now.  Many of them also talk about how the old Zeiss lenses for a Contax SLR are also great for this purpose because you can get them for a song on the used market.  T* coating magic and all that implies for only a couple hundred bucks. Good thing my economic stimulus check should be here tomorrow.

The thing is, there are also people who have tried this route and say the people praising it are disillusioned and that the differences are not that apparent, and the usability costs great. I really wish there was an option that was very obviously the right way to go.

I used to be in the audio recording world.  And while I was at school, other kids and I would be ogling over some piece of gear or another and I remember one of my teachers saying, "gear is gear".  A couple years out I realized that he is right.  Not that there aren't differences, but given a decent Canon setup and a decent Nikon setup..  it's the same 'stuff'. Just a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver.   For a while I was a gear hound in the photo world too.  But in the past couple of years now, it's been about the images above all else. I don't want to worry about my tools, I want to buy the best ones for what I use them for and then get on with taking pictures. Confident in the knowledge that any deficiencies in the photographs I'm taking are my own fault, and not the result of me now having the new 2008 Widget XLS.

So are there advantages to classic designs?  Or is it all in our heads?

Back in the days of film, there was a physical object, the film itself. And whether it was a positive slide and thus the end of the line, or a negative which could lead to prints, there was a tangible 'thing' that you could point to and say, "That is my photograph". In the days of digital, we seem to have lost that. Yes we have been the beneficiary of all of digitals advances, such as exact backup copies, cost per shot, maleability in post-production, etc. But I've got 46585 pictures in my Lightroom database. Looking at each one for 5 seconds, it would take you over 60 hours to look at them all. Now, how many of them exist as more than magnetic polarity on a couple of hard disks? How many of them do I have prints of?

Lately I've been reading books and news stories about ICP finding boxes of Capa's negatives, or about photographers in the 1920's purchasing prints from their old timers like Atget. Back then the print was the final product, a final work of art. Variations inherent in the analog photographic process guaranteed a uniqueness to each print. I realize that we're in a new age, and some could argue we're in it's infancy, but I think the subject of what is a photograph, bears some thought. I could sit here and print just one copy of one of my photographs and sell it. A unique work of art. But what if I went and printed 5 of them? Or 50, or 5000, or the extreme case I guess would be that that portrait in Time? Time has a circulation of almost 4 million. Why are each of those photographs worth less than if I had only printed one copy? Isn't art about getting an emotional response from the viewer? It's a portrait about communicating the subject to the viewer? Why does there being other pieces of art like it detract from someone's experience of the work. I guess that's a big question of Warhol and the people at Christie's, but I still think it's an interesting question.

Anyway, lately I've had a bit of a conservative streak in me. I want there to be a final product to my work, so finished photographs have started to get printed. Usually 8x12 or so on 11x14 paper. Then they get put in sheet protectors and into print boxes. I don't know why but it makes me feel better that there is a physical final product at the end of the creative line. Something to show for my work. I guess I've just moved the analog further down the line, but it's still there.

I also notice things, often things I want to change, in printed photographs that I don't on screen. And I've got a good screen and an excellent screen to printer workflow so the two are very close to one another visually. Somehow it's just different on paper. Some people say the difference is in that light is reflected off of the print, versus being backlit, and that are brains are just more used to processing that sort of visual information. Maybe. That would explain why people print out emails to read them, but I guess it doesn't explain why chromes look so good through a loupe on a light table. So it becomes an iterative process of print, edit, print. Not the best on ink usage, but it seems to lead to a more satisfying final image.

So prints have become current answer to this question of a final photograph in the digital age. But I'm more than willing to hear other people's thoughts on the subject, so please, comment away.

OK, listen up.  The most important component of your camera is the lens.  If there is a place to spend the money, it's on the glass. I'd take a 5 year old 20D with a good lens over a top of the line 1Ds MkIII with a crappy lens any day of the week.  I can't tell you the number of people I see who have this all wrong. Last year at the Grand Canyon, I saw a girl with a high-end Gitzo tripod, 5D body, and some crappy consumer level zoom lens on the front.  Honestly, I almost pushed her over the edge.

There is a lot of talk about the mega-pixel race in digital cameras. I remember my first little 2MP digital Elph, and how I bought my father a little Kodak digital camera that I think put out only a 640x480 image and still cost $199.  We've gone from 4MP to 22MP in about 8 years, that's pretty nuts. The problem is that the number of pixels on the sensor is meaningless if the light that gets to the sensor is crap. And that means quality lenses, or in the cool photographer parlance "glass".

You can cut up the subject of lenses along many different lines, but I've chosen to start this discussion by dividing prime lenses from zooms.  For the uninitiated, a 'prime' lens is one with a fixed focal length, while a 'zoom' has a continuously variable focal length within a certain range.  So for example a prime might have a focal length of 50mm and a zoom 24mm to 70mm.

In the beginning, there were only primes.  Large format cameras only use fixed focal length lenses, as are most medium format lenses as well.  For decades, this extended into the 35mm world as well.  Through the rangefinder age (Leica, yum) and into the SLR revolution of the 70's.  While zooms had been invented and in use since the 1920's, it wasn't until their prices came down to earth and their performance improved that they invaded the photographic world.  I attribute that shift to the use of computers in their design. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 zoom for example has 16 glass elements in 13 groups, which all have to remain in alignment and perform well from wide angle to portrait and macro to infinity. I'm not sure about you but designing something like that without a computer sounds near impossible (cut to me getting screaming emails from optical engineers). Prime lenses are much simpler. Even the high-end 50mm/1.2 only has 8 elements, and all things being equal, the fewer elements that bend my light it's way to the sensor, the better.

In the recent past and for most people in the world, zoom lenses have been their bread and butter. In fact, many SLR owners only have one lens, it's a zoom, and it stays on the body at all times. This is fine for the parent who bought a digital rebel with a kit lens to take pictures of their newborn and whatnot, but you're not getting the most out of that camera.

So people may talk about the latest 22MP Canon monster (which I'm totally salivating over) or the fabled 24MP Sony sensor that's in the wings.  However, all these sensors are going to show is the limitations of most of the lenses you put in front of them.  Now, I'm not one of those people who says that the 22MP sensor 'out-resolves' the available lenses.  It probably bests some of the lower-end and consumer glass, but it will certainly show weaknesses that got lost in the past.  Camera shake, inaccurate focusing, vignetting, and yes, at wide apertures, especially on zooms, they will not be sharp enough.

So what's the answer.  Well, first, better technique.  Second, Primes.

As a Canon user I've got all the good zooms.. 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L (and I had the 24-105L for a time).  But you know what?  I rarely use them anymore. What I do use are my primes. A 28mm, a 50mm, and a 100mm (the last occasionally). They're simpler, smaller, lighter, sharper, require less light,  are more contrasty, and by using them I've gotten much better at visualizing shots before I ever bring the camera to my eye.  Less versatile? Perhaps, but if you need to zoom, zoom with your feet.

If you only have zooms, do yourself a favor and go buy or borrow a decent prime lens.  Canon makes a 50mm 1.8 that's less than $100 and other companies have good deals as well so you've got no excuses.  If you own primes but have fallen into the habit of using your zooms all the time, take another look.  Your pictures will be sharper with more contrast, your viewfinder will be brighter, and you will be less likely to hurt your back from carrying it around.

More thoughts on "glass" to come...

So I'm in the mental market for a new camera.  That means that I don't have my credit card out, but I'm doing pros and cons in my head.  My scrappy 5D which has been my faithful companion for over two years is getting a bit long in the tooth.  I love that camera, it's like a good friend. Just think about all the photos I've shot with it, including at least 330 of the 365 Portraits last year. All the places it's been in Europe and across America and the people I've met with it, like my hero James Burke.  <sigh>

I added it up and estimated that I shot about 100,000 frames last year, plus what I shot before 365 and after, and that's on a camera who's shutter is rated for 100,000 cycles.  So I'm working on borrowed time here and I can't afford to have it break down on my on the job.

So, basically it comes down to 3.5 options.  Buy a 1Ds Mark III ($8K), switch to a Nikon D3 ($5k) to get the supposedly great high iso performance, or wait for Canon to release their new 5D ($3-4k).

First the Canon/Nikon question.  I've used Canon since my first SLR, in fact it was an Elan7 film body.  And I've got a half dozen Canon lenses in my kit, so I lean towards sticking with Canon.  But that's not my only problem with switching to the D3.

First off it's 12MP so, I'd pay $5k to get no upgrade in resolution, which seems a bit silly.  I never shoot continuous so more frames per second are of no use.  I'd like the high iso capability but I'm not sure it's worth switching just for that.  Plus there is the lenses.

I've found myself using 2 primes lenses for a lot of my work.  A 50mm and a 28mm.  And the 28mm is the problem.  Nikon doesn't sell a good one anymore.  They did, about 5 years ago, but for some reason they took it off the market.  It was fast too f/1.4, and from all accounts had exceptional image quality.  It's so good in fact that used ones on Ebay go for $4000.  I wonder why they stopped selling it, but that's another question for another day.  Anyway, I'm not going to spend four grand on a used prime lens on top of the five grand for the camera. And then still be at 12MP, that's just silly.  If I was a Nikon user, it's a no brainer, the D3 is the first camera they've put out that really competes. It's a winner.

Ok, so that leaves us back in the Canon court. And I've been waiting for the new 5D successor (probably called the 5D Mark II) for a long time now.  Rumors say it'll be 16MP, better high iso performance (which is already pretty good on the 5D), 14bit Raw files, and maybe even weather sealed.  Nearly perfect for my needs. But how long can I wait?  I need a backup body and my current 5D would be great for that role.

Plus there are a few things that I'd love to have the 1Ds for.  First off it's 21 megapixels, which is just crazy stupid.  Enough to crop half the image away and still have a 10MP photo.  It's also, however enough pixels that focus and lens quality become CRITICAL to getting high quality photographs. Not to mention the fact that it's built like a brick; as one review said 'if you need a camera that you can drive nails with, this is it'.  However, the big thing that draws me even more than the resolution is the viewfinder.  It's huge and bright and it shows 100% of the image you're going to take.  Something I've gotten addicted to on my Leica (even seeing beyond the framelines on the rangefinder).

The other half option is to just buy a cheap or even used Rebel XTi for $400 or so and use that as a backup on the off chance my 5D fails.  And then just wait and see how good the new 5D Mark II body is.

So many choices, so little time.  It may sound like I've just got a camera fetish and that I'm a gear whore.  But I don't think anybody can claim that I don't use my cameras.  I really am looking for the tool that'll be in my hands for the next couple years of my life.  It's a big decision and a lot of money, and I thought that putting it on paper might help clear away the cobwebs in my head. If anyone's got anything to add to the conversation, comment away.

I wanted to update you all on what worked and what didn't during last Friday's shoot outside at 1 in the afternoon. To review, I suggested 3 ways to deal with the sun: #1 Get out of it,  #2 Overpower it, or #3 Diffuse it. Let's see how they did...

#1 Get out of it
This ended up being the big winner. I ended up using a big tent like canopy to block the direct light.  With so much light coming in from behind him on the edge of the shadow, I ended up with a nice backlit blown out which wrapped the light around his head.  And then later in the shoot we were working in the shadow of a building against a very nicely colored brick wall.  Shooting RAW made the kind of pictures I wanted possible, because there was enough latitude to save both the shadows and the highlights in post.

#2 Overpower it
Hmm.. not so much.  My Canon 550EX Speedlight at full power and a few feet away couldn't overcome the big hot light in the sky, which was 93 million miles away.  Maybe if it was bare bulbed it would have worked, but not with any sort of diffusion.  And a bare strobe was not the look I was going for.  I'm sure if I had a more powerful light this would have worked better. Perhaps one of those Quantum systems, or certainly a studio strobe with battery pack, but we didn't have time for that kind of thing.

#3 Diffuse it
This one worked some of the time.  However in the middle of the day with the sun coming almost straight down on the subject, it's hard to get the diffuser in position and keep the assistant out of the shot.  Also, the sun was so bright that while testing, I found that I had to stack two diffusers on top of each other to get the light as soft as I wanted.  So this one worked, but was not the most convenient.

In the end, trying to modify the terrible light was more trouble than it's worth, especially when you have the option of just getting out of it in the first place. 

I've got a gig tomorrow... no, that's what it's called when you're a musician.  I've got a job tomorrow...  no, that sounds like I'm a hitman for the mob.  Ok, someone is paying me to take pictures of someone else tomorrow... damn, no that makes me sound like a pulp fiction private investigator.

At any rate, I've got to take some portraits. And it's notable in that  I've got to shoot  this guy outside by the river at 1 o'clock in the afternoon.  Now, as any visual person can tell you, the middle of the day is generally considered the worst light of the day.  It's direct and it's hard and leads to ugly shadows and causes the subject to squint and a whole host of other annoying problems. 

Now, not that good pictures haven't been taken in the middle of the day, but for a guy who likes soft flattering lighting and has a small fetish for a subjects eyes it's definately cause for some thought.  (I'm talking about me here in case you were wondering)

There are a few ways to deal with bad light. 

#1 Get out of it.
Go find some shade.  Under a tree or around the corner of a building or in a doorway. Or go inside and use the outside light coming into the window to good effect. 

#2 Overpower it.
Use a light or a strobe to overwhelm the bad ambient light. The low end of this is a boring old on-camera fill flash or even using a reflector to fill the shadows.  The hard part here is getting the right ratio between the flash and the sun.  Too little and it doesn't help, too much and you might as well have taken the shot in the dark (some people go for this look).When possible, getting the flash off axis from the camera is a good idea.  It leads to more natural light (and less red-eye).  Diffusing the flash is also a good idea..  Something like one of those Sto-fen things that clicks onto the flash, I use a Lightsphere which does a pretty good job.

#3 Diffuse it.
Speaking of diffusers, my prefered solution is to soften the light. Do the best with what you've got.  A 32" foldable diffuser is a great tool.  Just stick it between the sun and your subject and ta-da! instant softbox.  And if that isn't be enough, they make them 4x6 feet too, to cover a whole body.  The main problem with using diffusers outside, especially the big ones, is that they're essentially a big white sail, so if there is any wind they can become a handful, or two if you catch my drift as well as the wind will catch the diffuser.

Tomorrow I'm going to be using  all of these and in combination to hopefully get what I want.  I've only got a 30 minute window so there are more variables involved than I like, but problem solving is part of the fun right?  (or so I keep telling myself).

I'll let you know how it goes.

I'm of the belief that photographs have a natural print size. Some photos are meant to be 4x6 and look silly blown up, and some don't feel like they can breathe unless they're 20x30". Sometimes a little print just doesn't cut it.

When I print in the studio I use an HP B9180, which I like a lot, but I'll write about that some other time. The problem is that the maximum print width is 13". With a 13x19" print being about the maximum you're going to get out of it. If I want to go bigger, I send them out.

A quick aside to those who don't think there pictures will look good at 20x30" because it won't be 300dpi like you're supposed to have... Don't worry, if it's a sharp photo with good color, it'll look great. Modern cameras, especially in the 10-12MP range up-res quite nicely. Plus you're not looking at a poster with a loupe anyway, you're standing a couple feet away usually.

Hell, billboards are only 10-20dpi. So taking the long dimension of my 5D 4368px/10dpi/12inchesperfoot = a perfectly nice looking 36FT billboard.

I've done up to 24x36" from a 5D file taken handheld with a 24-105L zoom lens and they look great.

www.elcocolor.com/poster_special.htm

Ok, I'm probably going to start a flame war here, but can a fan of Fuji film (I'm talking C41 color here, not the instant stuff) explain to me why it's good?

I remember a few years ago I shot a few rolls of NPH on the recommendation of a photo finishing place.  She had said she had a customer who swore by NPH.  Shooting it and getting it developed within hours (apparently that was the trick).

Well in the intervening few years, as I've gotten more into photography, I've become a fan of the Kodak Portra films.  On both 35mm and 120, I shoot usually the 160NC, 400NC, or 800 and I've found it to be very consistent, fine grained, pushable, etc.   Maybe I've become spoiled.

A few weeks ago I was at Calumet (it was a Sat, so I couldn't go to any of the usual photo stores in NYC) and they were sold out of the 400NC I was looking for.  So I asked about the Fuji Pro 400H, and the guy behind the counter said, it was OK, but most people preferred the Kodak.  Since they didn't have what I wanted but I needed some film, I said, "Ok, give me a couple rolls and I'll try it out".

Now, this isn't an ad for Kodak or anything, but I've shot both of the rolls in my Leica and I've got to tell you, I'm very underwhelmed.  The colors are washed out, the contrast is "eh", and it's really grainy.  Well lit stuff shot at f/11 and 1/250 look soft and with grain that looks as if the film has been pushed a stop or two.  Look at the photo of the lamp in the next post down.  Look at the amount of grain near the lightbulb.  And this was a well exposed, correctly scanned picture shot in the middle of the day.

When it comes to chrome, I've been shooting Kodak lately too, I like the 100G stock, especially in my hasselblad when I travel. I have however had good experiences with Provia (and occasionally Velvia when I'm feeling saucy) on medium format, and Provia on the 4x5 comes out gorgeous.

So I feel like I'm missing something with their normal color film.  Let me know if I'm wrong or I got a bad batch, but from what I've seen both literally and figuratively, I don't get it.

For those who don't know, RAW is a file format where your camera takes all the information that the sensor captures and writes it to the flash card without turning it into an image.  This allows you to have much more control over turning that data into an pretty picture, in your computer when you get home, instead of having you're camera just turn it into a jpeg. I shoot RAW almost exclusively.  As my 'look' is largely created in post processing, having the extra information that a raw file contains (12 or 14 bits per channel instead of 8) gives me much more headroom for manipulation.  It's also saved my ass more than a few times due to mistakes in exposure and white balance.

Canon and Nikon cameras save raw files in their proprietary .CR2 and .NEF formats, respectfully. While Lightroom and Photoshop and Aperture and all the rest of the aftermarket raw converters can currently open these formats perfectly well (sometimes you've got to wait a month or so for them to add support for new cameras).  Will that be true in 10 years?  If Canon goes and changes their format, is Adobe going to continue to support RAW files from the original Digital Rebel from 2004?  And wouldn't it be better to have them in some publically documented format that a number of different companies support?

Well, DNG is an open raw file format that Adobe has come up with.  DNG, as in Digital NeGative. A handful of cameras use it as their default RAW format, such as the sexy Leica M8.

Some people think Adobe's DNG format is the answer.  There are free converters available that will turn your .CR2 or .NEF files into .DNG files.  With a few practical upshots that I've found. For one, Lightroom no longer has to keep metadata in additional .xmp 'sidecar' files.  So my hard drive has less crap all over the place.  One file per image instead of two.  And secondly, Adobe has included lossless compression of the raw data so it takes up less space on your hard drive without losing any data.

Anyway, I took the plunge this week and had Lightroom convert all 26,000 or so CR2 files in to the DNG format. In the process I gained back 100GB of drive space, I assume, due to the lossless compression.

Some people claim that upon conversion, you're losing additional undocumented metadata that the camera added to the images.  I'd really like to know what kind of data they're talking about because I haven't noticed anything missing. As long as it keeps the date, iso, exposure settings, and copyright, I'm not sure what else I could really need.  Either way it's too late for me, I've jumped in with both feet.

So, if you've got any thoughts, comment, questions, or rants on the subject, we're all ears.

Feel free to tell me that I'm crazy and a fool if you like.  I'm used to it.  ;-)

As a short addendum to yesterdays hard drive rant I wanted to talk a tiny bit about offsite backup.  RAID 1, and physical prints, and the original negatives are all well and good until your house or, in my case, apartment burns down.  I'd rather not lose everything I've ever shot, so I've been looking for off site backup solutions.

Of course, I'm not going to backup 500GB of data over the net, but I can save full resolution jpegs of my final work as a last-ditch lifeboat.  So when I'm done working on an image, I've started saving these jpegs into a folder called 'Ark', as in Noah's.  Then it's just a matter of where to put them.

I could just buy more space on my webserver and ftp them up there, but that seemed clunky.

For a while during the 365 portraits project I was using Mozy to back-up final jpegs just in case.  You install this little app that runs in the background and keeps an eye on certain folders you designate, uploading any changes to the mozy servers.  This system is great and at $5 a month for unlimited space, seemed pretty good.  But I decided to do a little more research...

And I found an app called Jungle Disk, which is a front-end for Amazon's S3 (simple storage service).  Now, S3 is really designed for developers and such, but Jungle Disk makes it easy and it works just like Mozy does. 

So why is it better?  Cost and Longevity.  First, you pay for each GB of storage and transfer, but the costs are so low.. 15 cents a GB/mo that unless you're putting TONS of stuff up there, it'll be cheaper than Mozy.  I've transfered a few GB up there already and so far my bill is 38 cents.

And I'm sure the Mozy people are secure and what-have-you, but I'd bet on Amazon being around in 10 years more than them..  but maybe that's my own bias.  According to what I've read, Amazon keeps redundant copies at multiple data centers, and jungle disk encrypts the data between you and the server, so it's secure.  Oh, and they're both cross platform, so the can be used on both Mac and Windows.

I've only been using it for a couple of days, but it looks pretty good so far.