Scroll down for previous photography blog posts. For latest posts please click here: Latest Blog Posts
04/12/2016
Is It Wrong To Use Auto?
As a photography enthusiast, do you feel guilty when you use your camera’s ‘Auto’ setting? It seems to me this is a reasonable emotion but, nevertheless, unfounded. After all, in many instances the camera’s computer can think more quickly, and make adjustments more rapidly, than the person operating it.
Of course, that computer can’t always work out what you’re trying to do. If you are aiming to keep the noise down in dim conditions, Auto may not realise that and up the ISO to compensate for low levels of light hitting the sensor. Similarly, if you are trying to capture rapid action, the Auto function may not set the shutter speed fast enough.
Most times, however, chances are Auto will do a pretty good job of capturing the image – but it will restrict your creative interpretation of the scene before you.
Controlling depth of field, freezing action, creative blur and obtaining the best possible image quality etc. may all send you in the direction of aperture, shutter priority or manual.
I don’t regard myself as the world’s best photographer, some of the images I capture are ‘grab and go’ (or point & shoot) I’m human and I make mistakes. Most of what I am shooting is not moving that fast and mostly I want the best image quality I can get from whatever camera I am using at the time.
I’ll often take a couple of shots in Auto mode for ‘safety’ before, typically, switching to aperture priority, bracketing shots and checking my ISO stays low.
Bearing this in mind, I re-set my camera to Auto at the end of each photo session and also check I have dialled exposure compensation back to zero. That way I’m ready to grab the next picture opportunity that might not give me the luxury of time to adjust camera settings. If Auto gets the image I would otherwise have missed, that’s just fine by me.
mf image
20/11/2016
Is Camera Size Perception An Issue?
A recent comment on Fstoppers.com – one of the informative communities which I visit quite regularly – on the size of cameras used by professionals and their impact on client perceptions prompted considerable online discussion. It also reminded me that the idea that ‘big is best’ has been around in photography circles for a very long time.
The Fstoppers discussion centred on the thought that a small mirrorless camera, despite its quality, might be seen by some as less ‘professional’ than a larger DSLR. The actual situation is, probably, that every camera has its pros and cons and its selection or otherwise will be largely a matter of the nature of the task and the preferences of the individual photographer.
I have worked with professional photographers for many years and confess that I have, in the past, made judgements based on size or type of equipment. I once questioned a photographer who turned up with a low end consumer flashgun – but there was nothing at all wrong with his pictures and he was employed by a leading news agency. Whilst many of those I worked with ‘in the field’ primarily used 35mm cameras and produced excellent images, there was always something enviable about the photographer who arrived with the legendary medium format Hasselblad.
A good few years back, I had a conversation with a much trusted photographer and videographer who commented on the occasional need to hire a bulky ‘familiar’ broadcast camera, when clients were expected on a shoot, because they tended to doubt his professionalism if he used his much smaller camera – even though it was capable of producing equally good footage.
It is, however, interesting to note that many of the tools we use in life tend to get smaller over time. Not many people today would envy the city high-flier toting one of the brick-like mobile phones which once classed as a status symbol. You no longer need to train with weights in the gym in order to carry a broadcast camera the size of a suitcase (they’re just a tad smaller now.) An ultra-slim tablet or laptop packs a lot more punch than the desktop of yesteryear. Turn up with a hefty old ‘phone, a massive video camera or an ancient, barely portable ‘laptop’ and you may feel uncomfortable in the company of others with more up to date, compact equipment.
Of course, there is a point at which miniaturisation becomes counter-productive. I recall being a little envious of a colleague who had a credit card sized mobile phone. You don’t see many of those today. They were too small to be practical – and perhaps there’s a point here. The products we use seem to reach a size equilibrium over time. Not too large, not too small, just right for the task at hand.
Is that a DSLR, a mirrorless camera, or actually both. It will be interesting to re-visit this, say, five years from now.
mfimage
28/10/2016
What’s The Difference Between A Photograph & An Image?
How much can a photograph be manipulated before it ceases to be a ‘photograph’? I suspect there is no definitive answer to this question. It rather depends on your point of view. Some news/photo agencies set clear guidelines restricting the amount of allowable adjustments expected in the pictures they use and sell – but what about pictures taken for commercial purposes or purely for personal use?
My take, for what it is worth, is that a photograph is a record of a place, person(s), object(s) or event at a particular time. Post processing may well be used to enhance the impact of the picture and reflect how the photographer envisaged it when taken. The light, colour etc. may not be quite as originally seen but the key elements of the scene captured will be substantially unchanged and the picture will remain essentially ‘real’.
However, if light, colour and saturation are adjusted to ‘extremes’ so that the picture can no longer possibly be regarded as ‘real’ or key elements of the composition are substantially moved, or supplemented, then this, I think, becomes an ‘image’, not a photograph.
Is a stunning photograph better than a stunning image? I do not believe this is a valid question. The point, surely, is that the picture creates a meaningful, dramatic and memorable imprint on the mind’s eye within the context in which it is presented.
mfimage
14/10/2016
My Biggest Photography Influence?
Photographers often like to talk about those image makers that influence them most. Names like Adams, Strand, Cartier-Bresson commonly feature.
I guess we are all influenced consciously or, more likely, sub-consciously by such luminaries and also by the thousands of images we see every week from a diverse range of professional and amateur photographers.
This got me thinking about what might have been the biggest influence on me. It might just have been a guide to photography published a few years ago by, I think, the Guardian newspaper (or possibly the Observer). I kept the slim, grey covered volume for ages but eventually decided it had done its job and recycled it. A shame, actually, because I think I owe the author quite a lot.
In any event, it contained a summary of the best cameras at the time for different types and levels of photographer. Among them was Sony’s RX100. I was really attracted to the idea of a camera producing great image quality that fits in your pocket. I didn’t instantly go out and buy one but that is what started me off researching the right camera(s) for me.
To be frank, I always longed for a Nikon or possibly a Canon. There’s no doubting their quality and current dominance in the professional world. Yet, the more I read, the more I was convinced that it was Sony that ticked the right boxes for me and that remains the case today. I eventually picked up a second hand RX100 (Mark 1), as my first Sony acquisition. It’s no longer my only Sony camera but it is still the one that’s in my pocket pretty much every day and that frequently gives me cause to smile.
mfimage
04/10/2016
Landscape Photography – What’s The Point?
What is the point of landscape photography? What happens to all those hundreds of thousands of stunning images? Who looks at them? Who buys them? How can the best be bettered? Now I’ve seen them, I’m convinced I’ll never be that good?
Are any of these familiar thoughts?
When I first had a little more time for photography I reckoned landscape photography was the direction I would head. I envisaged a website with perhaps 20 or 30 stunning images for sale and lucrative pricing.
Then reality dawned. The web is full of images of far-away locations, extraordinarily beautiful places captured by photographers vastly more skilled than I, with many more resources and established reputations for excellence. That’s why I decided to concentrate on, and get to know better, the place where I actually live. Paradoxically, it is also what got me thinking about the purpose of landscape photography.
Personal
There can be few better ways of spending time than being out in nature, exploring new places or recording locations that have special meaning for us.
The therapeutic benefits alone make this a more than worthwhile pastime – and all that walking is going to make you fit.
Technical
Getting to know one’s gear and really understanding light are clearly fundamental to landscape success. That’s a learning process that is likely to bring rewards across different photographic disciplines.
Environmental
Photographers tend to want to protect and preserve the environments in which they work. Through their images they can also help others appreciate the importance of the world’s wilder places.
Education
We may never have the opportunity to visit the locations pictured but, through images, we can come to know something of these ‘other’ environments.
Promotion
How many people were first inspired to travel to a particular place by great images that fired the imagination? (I have never been to Iceland but some of the photographs recently emerging from that country have certainly led me to believe I must make the trip one day.)
Economic
If images inspire us to visit a place, then those images are making a very positive contribution to the economy of the country in which it is to be found. (As long as tourism is controlled properly, particularly in more sensitive areas.)
Conclusion
Landscape photography has a very real purpose, with truly tangible outcomes – it’s not just about creating great photographs. It can bring very real rewards even if you’re not the best photographer in the world and never make a bean from your images. On the other hand, to generate an income from it you had better be very, very good at your chosen speciality.
mfimage