PhotoWalkPro

So what do I mean by this?  Well let me try and explain.  This weekend I was doing some research at one of my favorite places, my local Borders book store.  As per my norm, I started at the Photoshop section and then on to the Photography section.  I was looking for books that dealt with photography, more specific, digital photography.  But here’s the funny thing, every book that I opened had about half of its content dealing with cameras and photo taking and the other half on processing the images in Photoshop.  Sometimes it was more like 30/70 with Photoshop taking up the lions share of the information.  Now don’t get me wrong, I am sure these are all great books (which is why I don’t want to use any title names here), but these books should be titled Digital Image Processing, not digital photography.

This kind of reminds me of when I took a college class called the History of Photography.  I thought “This is great, I’ll learn all about the development of cameras and such.”  Wrong!  What I got was the history of photographers, not photography.  Okay, so I did learn something from this class but not what I was expecting.

When I pick up a book about how to take great digital photographs, I want camera techniques, exposure advice, even a little science to back things up.  The last thing I want is a Photoshop book disguised as a photography book.  Also puzzling is why Scott Kelby’s Digital Photography books are always filed among the Photoshop books.  They deserve to be in the Photography section more so than any of these other books I was looking at.  They are all about camera and flash and exposure and not image processing.

Now before everyone starts firing off comments about how digital processing is part of the photographic process now, let me say that I don’t totally disagree.  On the other hand, it is not part of the photography process.  The number of people that actually do their own Photoshop processing is very low.  I would hazard a guess that the majority of people using digital cameras are taking their cards to Costco or sending their images to Mpix and not doing their own post-processing.  So does this mean that they aren’t really doing digital photography?

So that’s my 2¢, feel free to give me yours.

I just love getting comments and questions on my posts because so often they lead to new posts.  Trust me when I tell you that writing original material every day is not an easy thing.  Today it was made easier by frequent blog commenter, Roger Tregellies.  Roger had commented on my color IR images and was curious at what I used to take those images.  I answered his question but thought I would also share it with you.

First of all, the color IR images started life as standard digital IR.  They were taken with a Nikon D70 that was converted for IR by LifePixel.  Lifepixel will sell you the conversion filter that basically requires you to remove the IR blocking filter (sometimes referred to as a hot mirror) that is factory installed in front of the image sensor and replace it with a special filter that allows more IR and less visible wavelengths to hit the sensor.  If you are a daring soul, you can convert your own camera by buying the filter and then following the directions provided by LifePixel.  For those that are a little nervous about tearing into your camera, you can have LifePixel do the installation for a fee.

It’s not necessary to go through a conversion to capture IR with your digital camera.  Although there is a blocking filter installed, it doesn’t completely block all of the IR.  To take advantage of this, you can use infrared filters in front of your lens to block the visible light and only allow the IR wavelengths to pass through to the filter.  There are drawbacks to this method.  First of all, because there is a blocking filter in the camera, the exposures will be longer than normal and require the use of a tripod.  Also, since the IR filter blocks visible light, you won’t be able to see through the lens to focus or compose your image so you will have to do all of this first and then screw the filter on the camera and then take the image.

Nikon D200 using #89 IR Filter

After using both methods, I can tell you that you will discover much more photographic freedom using a converted camera.  Since the filter rests in front of the sensor but behind the mirror, you are free to compose and focus at will.  Also, because there is no longer an IR blocking filter, the camera is much more sensitive to IR and allows for “normal” exposures without the use of a tripod.

Image taken with converted Nikon D70

As with all IR photography, you will require a good infrared light source  for your image exposures.  There is no better source around than the sun. When shooting, the best time of day is when you can work with full sun light.  Unlike regular photography, you want to stay away from the first and last hours of the day as well as heavy shadows or cloudy days.

D70 IR image with color conversion in Photoshop

As for the cost of shooting IR, it will probably run you anywhere from $100 to  $500 depending on the method you choose and the camera you use.  If you want to try out the filter on your regular digital camera you will probable end up spending between $100 – $150 on a good IR filter like a #87.  If you want to get your camera converted, you can purchase the filter from LifePixel for $150 – $200 dollars depending on which filter you wish to use (they offer 3 different filters for different effects).  If you would like them to convert your camera, you will spend between $300 – $600.  The price is dependent upon what type of camera you want converted as well as the type of filter you want installed.  And don’t think that you have to use a dSLR for IR.  LifePixel will take many older point-n-shoot cameras like a Nikon CoolPix 950 or a Canon G3 and convert them for IR use as well (see the site for a list of cameras and costs).

No matter which method you choose, I think you will find that shooting with the IR spectrum opens up a whole new world of possibilities for your photography.

I picked up the latest Popular Photography at the airport yesterday and got as far as the Letters to the Editor section when I saw something that kind of surprised me. The first two letters were from readers that were seriously angry about RAW and didn’t see why they should use it instead of JPEG. Apparently Debbie Grossman wrote an article in the November issue entitled “Why RAW Works”. Now truth be told, I have not read this article but then again, I know why it works. I am still amazed though at how little awareness there is by camera owners at the power and importance of shooting in a RAW format. The big complaints seemed to be as follows; no way to open and work with their RAW formatted images, larger file sizes, waiting for images to write to the memory card, less capacity on the memory card, longer download times, and, well, you get the idea.

I am just going to take a stab at this and guess that the folks that are having issues understanding the RAW format are those that have recently moved up to a DSLR camera and have previously been shooting strictly JPEG images. So let me start off with a few comments about JPEG. First, there is nothing wrong with JPEG if you are just taking happy snaps. Why go through the process of adjusting RAW images of the kids opening presents when you are just going to email them to Grandma. Then there are the journalists and sports photographers that are shooting 9 frames a second and need to transmit their images across the wire. Once again JPEG is just fine. So what is wrong with JPEG? Absolutely nothing, that is unless you care about having complete creative control over all of your image data as opposed to what an algorithm thinks is important.

First of all, did you know that JPEG is not an image format? It is actually a compression standard and compression is where things go bad. When you have your camera set to JPEG, whether it is Fine, Normal, or Basic, you are telling the camera to process the image however it sees fit and then throw away enough image data to make it shrink into a smaller space. But in doing so, you give up subtle image details that you will never get back in post-processing. Now that is an awfully simplified statement but still fairly accurate.

So what does RAW have to offer?

Well, first and foremost, RAW images are not compressed (there are some cameras that have a compressed RAW format but it is lossless compression which means there is no loss of actual image data).

RAW images also have a greater dynamic range than JPEG processed images. This means that you can recover image detail in the highlights and shadows that just aren’t available in JPEG processed images.

There is more color information in a RAW image because it is typically a 12, 14, or 16-bit image which means it contains more color information than a JPEG which is almost always 8-bits. More color information means more to work with and smoother changes. Kind of like the difference between performing surgery with a scalpel as opposed to a butcher’s knife. They’ll both get the job done but one will do less damage.

Sharpening a RAW image is more controlled because you are the one that is applying the setting according to the result you want to achieve. Once again, JPEG processing applies a standard amount of sharpening that you can not change after the fact. Once it is done, it’s done.

And that brings me to my final and possibly most important fact. A RAW file is your negative. No matter what you do to it, you won’t change it unless you save your file in a different format. This means that you can come back to that same file and try different processing settings to achieve differing results and never harm the original image. Make a change to your JPEG and accidentally save the file and guess what, you have a new original file and you will not ever get back to that first image. That alone should make you sit up and take notice.

Final advice for new RAW shooters

Don’t give up on shooting RAW just because it means more work. Hey, if it takes up more space on your card, buy bigger cards or more smaller ones. Will it take more time to download, yes, but good things come to those that wait. Many programs like Lightroom let you start working with your images while they are downloading. If you don’t understand the process, find a book or even better, a friend that knows how to work with RAW. Read your owners manual about your camera’s particular format. The chances are that it actually came with some RAW processing software that you weren’t aware of. Move away from the amateur mindset of JPEG and think about how much better your images could be if you took complete control of them instead of handing that over to some algorithm. After all, you took the photograph; shouldn’t you be the one to decide how it looks in the end?

I have heard numerous times that if Ansel Adams were alive and shooting today, he would be shooting digital. I have no doubt about this but I also bet he would be using RAW, not JPEG.

Ok, so these will never be on the Oprah Winfrey “must read” book list but they are on mine. If you’re trying to figure out how to use that Barnes & Noble gift card next week, consider one of these selections to take your photography to a new level.

Here are ten off the top of my head, but not in any particular order:

Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera (Updated Edition) by Bryan Peterson – To many people press that shutter button without really know what the camera is doing. If you want to get great shots, you need to understand what the camera is doing and why you might want to change things for the better. This book will get you on the right track to adjusting your images for the better.

The Digital Photography Book by Scott Kelby – The first book in Scott’s Digital Photography series isn’t the #1 photography book for no reason. This thing is packed full of tips and hints that even a seasoned photographer can use. If you are just starting out, forgetaboutit! You need this book, plain and simple.

The Digital Photography Book, Volume 2 by Scott Kelby – Picking up right where he left off with the first volume, Scott dives deeper in to the photographic process with more of those great one page tips for thing like basic lighting with flash, how to use a hair light, setting up a home studio, using relfectors, and more. And since I actually make an appearance in the book, you just know I had to include this one on my list.

Monte Zucker’s Portrait Photography Handbook by Monte Zucker – Monte Zucker presents page after page of essential photographic lessons to enable photographers to achieve and exceed their financial and artistic goals.

Mastering Landscape Photography: The Luminous Landscape Essays by Alain Briot – From the folks that bring you the great Luminous Lanscape photography blog comes this great instrument for improving your landscape photography. This book starts with the technical aspects of photography; how to see, compose, find the right light, and select the best lens for a specific shot. It continues by focusing on the artistic aspects of photography with chapters on how to select your best work, how to create a portfolio, and finally concludes with two chapters on how to be an artist in business.

Ansel Adams: 400 Photographs by Ansel Adams and Andrea G. Stillman – If you want to improve your photography, spend some quality time looking at images created by the master himself. If this book doesn’t inspire you, nothing will.

Rick Sammon’s Travel and Nature Photography by Rick Sammon – I have had the pleasure of attending classes taught by Rick Sammon and his books are no less instructional and inspiring. If you are in to travel photography this book will help you improve upon what you are already doing as well as help you see new ways to look at the world through your lens.

Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace by Dan Margulis – I bought this book on the recommendation of a friend and I have to say that it is one of those books that I turn to over and over and over again. Dan is the Father of Lab color and his insights into this world have broken more ground in the world of color correction than probably anyone in the imaging business. It’s not something that you will ready from cover to cover in one sitting but you will definitely find value in all the pages.

The Photoshop Channels Book by Scott Kelby – Not necessarily a photography book but then again, Photoshop is so much a part of the process that the more you know about it, the better you will be able to apply it to finishing off your images. That being said, this is one fantastic book for utilizing one of the most powerful and least used portions of Photoshop, the channels. Scott does a fantastic job of demistifying channels and shows how to put them to use in your workflow.

The Moment It Clicks: Photography secrets from one of the world’s top shooters by Joe McNally – I know, this one isn’t even out yet and I haven’t read a single page. What I do know is what a fantastic photographer Joe is. I have also had the pleasure of seeing him teach and the man is just incredible. With Joe, it’s not just the technical aspect but the thought process that goes into creating iconic images. I have this one one pre-order and so should you.

So that’s it for my list. I know that as soon as I hit the publish button I will think of a dozen more that I should have included (which is why I limited myself to just 10). So I hope you take some time this holiday season to curl up with a good book in front of your fireplace and get a little smarter or a little more inspired. If you have any that you would like to add to the list, send me a comment and let others share from your recommendations.

Recently I gave a presentation at work to educate my fellow employees on how to go about purchasing a digital camera.  One of the main points of emphasis was not to get caught up in the race for more pixels.  This is especially true for those that are buying point-n-shoot cameras.  Being a techno-geeky sort of guy I can understand how easy it is to get caught up in new technology.  I swap out camera bodies about once every year and a half, but hopefully for the right reasons.  One of the key points I made during my presentation was to know what you plan on doing with all of those pixels.  So many people never make anything larger than a 4×6 print with the majority of images being sent in emails to GrandMa.   Do you really need an 8 megapixel camera for a 4×6?  I would think you could get by on 3.2 or less.

The other day I read an article about photographer  Gary Land who swears buy printing at 150 dpi.  So if you do the math, that equals about 540,000 pixels or a .5 megapixel camera sensor.  Ok, I know that’s not realistic but it is close to the truth.  When I was trekking around Cambodia, the only camera I carried was a Nikon D70s with a whopping 6 megapixels.  I have made numerous prints from those images, many at sizes up to 13″x19″ and they kick butt!  This was why I was so excited to see that the new Nikon D3 didn’t cram more pixels into their array, rather they made their pixels larger and better.  This is what has been missing in the point-n-shoot world.  Squeezing more pixels into a fingernail sized sensor can actually lead to decreased image quality, less sensitivity, and lower dynamic range.  The only reason I can see for anyone to upgrade their camera these days is to take advantage of improved technology in the cameras, not more pixels behind the lens.

Chris MacAskill, chief executive of SmugMug, a Web site that hosts photos and lets users print them said “The word ‘megapixel’ is a marketer’s dream. Every consumer believes more is better,”  “The trouble is megapixels stopped mattering once we passed 6 of them,” “One in a million shots would benefit from more than 6 megapixels, while every indoor shot would benefit from less noise.”  I couldn’t agree more with Chris.  Unfortunately digital cameras have gone down the same road as the megahertz race in computer processors and bigger high-def TV screens.   Most manufacturers claim better quality but still feed the frenzy with ever larger pixel counts.  You think there’s a reason they put those big stickers on the front of a camera that boasts how many pixels it has?  Funny how improved image processors always gets 2nd or 3rd billing.  Who wants to brag about their digic III processor when they can show off their 12 megapixel sticker?   My hope is that consumers will someday realize that they won’t need more pixels to improve their photos and that they should concentrate on the features like image stabilization and face recognition that will ultimately improve their photography.