How I Learned to Love Photoshop, and Then Some.

For me, trying to decide on whether or not to change the editing software I use was anticipated to be a huge headache. Even though I had narrowed down the choices considerably, the actual hands-on experience of comparing functions and features led to a lot of "WTF?" moments. 

The following account is not meant to be a review of various editing software. It's a personal explanation of the process I went through on making my decision. Such a process is more important, in my opinion, than what reviews have to say. You have do decide if you enjoy using a given editor, whether it does what you want it to do, and is it worth the cost. For me, the headache involved proved more than worth it.

So join me now for a few moments on the perilous journey of deciding on the best photo editing software to use. Be wary, traveler, as the sea of photo editing software is wide and deep and populated with denizens both benign and hostile. Much money and time can be invested in software that fails to do what a simple, free program can do for you. 

It all started because I recently had to re-install Windows 7. I decided that since my computer was making a clean start, I would reassess my habits regarding photo editing software (I even redid my watermark). I believe in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy regarding my editing software, mainly because I just don't enjoy trying to learn a new interface or figure out how to tweak settings in a new program to get the results I want. As a result of my conservative attitude, for the past three years my main programs for editing have been Adobe Lightroom for RAW conversion and Corel's Paint Shop Pro X4 Ultimate for final editing.

I stuck with the old version of Paint Shop Pro mainly because the newer versions didn't let some valued plug ins run. Nor did the promised improvements convince me during free trials to spend money on upgrading. The combo was getting the job done, and that was what mattered. 
Also, I found certain plug ins and tutorials for Paint Shop Pro to be offered for free, while similar ones for Photoshop required laying out some cash. Photoshop does have a much larger community in which people do offer free stuff, but you have to sort through an even larger amount of fee based offers to find what you are looking for.

With a pristine Win7 install, I decided to experiment. I had read a couple of favorable reviews regarding Corel's Aftershot Pro 2 so I downloaded the trial (I was not impressed by Aftershot Pro version 1 finding it lacked certain key features found in Lightroom, and didn't process .ORF files to my liking.) Certain features of the latest version really looked appealing, as well as having some features not found in Lightroom. A main strong point was reviews which pointed out how much faster the program is than Lightroom.

I found this to be true when I started processing files in Aftershot Pro 2. It was easier to open up folders and display all the photos. Applying settings to batches of photos was simpler and quicker. There were certain features built into Aftershot that required external editors in Lightroom. Export time was much shorter.

On the other hand, a few key features I had grown to depend on in Lightroom were missing. The spot adjustment brush. Noise reduction I could trust. (Aftershot Pro 2 offered two types of noise reduction, one for RAW and the other using Athene's "Perfectly Clear" technology, both of which failed to impress. The "Perfectly Clear" process was clunky to adjust and invariably smear details no matter how I tweaked it.)

Yet when all is said and one, it's the results that matter most. Aftershot Pro 2 just did not give me the results I liked from Lightroom. Granted, this could be as much a matter of not fully mastering the various options and tweaks. I was less than a week into the 30 day trial, so there was plenty of time left to learn more about the program.

Then Lightroom 6/Lightroom CC was released. The speed issues with that program disappeared. Features were added that were similar to some of the ones in Aftershot. Plus the results I wanted were easier, and now quicker, to achieve. Lightroom still has some foibles, but I also took some tutorials which led me to some "Oh, so THAT is how it's done" moments that relieved some of the niggles I had regarding the program.

 I wanted Aftershot Pro 2 to work in part because in the long run it will cost less. At $79.99 regular price it's a bargain, especially compared to paying $9.99 a month for my Adobe subscription. I'd heartily recommend the program to anyone who isn't already invested in Lightroom room. If I were to start from scratch, I probably would choose it over Lightroom and learn to love it.

Deciding to stick with Lightroom led to making the decision regarding my editing software easier. I have used, and loved, Paint Shop Pro for over fifteen years, since version 2 was released by originator Jasc. I preferred the interface, it was dirt cheap compared to Adobe Photoshop and more capable than the comparably priced Photoshop Elements. Yet ever since Corel bought out Jasc, the program has suffered from bugs I seldom had to deal with in the past.

That was one of the reasons I was still using version 4. I tried versions 5 and 6 and both failed to impress me, as well has being buggy in ways version 4 no longer was. They also didn't support a couple of plug ins that I had come to use regularly in my standard workflow.

Since I was determined to make a fresh start of things, I downloaded the trial of Paint Shop Pro X7. It being 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit meant my older plugins didn't work (not a good sign at a programming level). While it had the same interface I was so familiar with, it did have some functional improvements (and the speed increase from being 64 bit) that I enjoyed. If I had decided on Aftershot Pro 2, or if I were using the standalone version of Lightroom, I would have gone with Paint Shop Pro 7 Ultimate.

However.

The $9.99 a month I was paying Adobe included Photoshop CC, but I hadn't been using it because I was familiar with Paint Shop Pro. My attempts to do some of the same things in Photoshop proved annoying because I was unfamiliar with the interface. Plus, Photoshop didn't support those same plug ins I relied on.

That said, I decided that since I was paying for it, I might as well learn how to use Photoshop. So I dove into some tutorial videos relating to key functions I could easily do in Paint Shop Pro and discovered something: once I learned how to do certain things, Photoshop was so much nicer to use than Paint Shop Pro. I even found ways to do things to make up for the missing plug ins, and in fact do them with more control and better final results. 

Previously, I had simply found trying to adapt to the differences in interface between Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop to be more trouble than it was worth. In retrospect that was a mistake. A little education (and willingness to relearn certain things) goes a long way, making Photoshop CC the clear winner, for me at least.

Let me explain that I am stating the above from a professional photographer's point of view. Things such as selective curves adjustment, choosing specific types of layers, a more sophisticated set of selection and cloning tools, and even a much better action for watermarking photos, are all things that the average person might not need to use, or at least not use them to the depth that I do. Frankly, the average person doesn't need Photoshop CC and can get along fine with Photoshop Elements or Paint Shop Pro 7. 

For that matter there are even some free editors worth trying out, such as Lightzone, Picasa or GIMP, as well as a number of online photo editing sites that allow basic editing at no cost. Deciding on where to start looking at software, downloading trials and making a final decision depends on several factors.

Skill level: How much do you already know about editing? How much time and effort do you have to learn?  True enough that something like Photoshop may offer a plethora of options and considerable control over functions, but if all you really want is something to add the occasional vignette or clear up a photos, simple and low cost (or free) will do.

RAW or .JPEG: If you shoot RAW, you need to be more careful about what software you use because not all RAW converters are created equal. Some of the open source ones work great with Canon and Nikon files, but are a disaster if you shoot RAW with other brands of camera. If you don't shoot RAW (and frankly, the average person doesn't really need to) then options are much wider and friendlier.

How creative do you want to be? Instagram has made the quick and easy preset special effect or tweak the de facto standard that a lot of people use to enhance photos. Nearly all editors come with a menu of preset effects, so all you need to do is click on an icon and the "OK" button. Some programs offer very little options in tweaking these presets, while others can have pretty in depth-and daunting-advanced adjustments. Whether you want a lot of control or just simple and easy plays a big part in choosing an editor.

Plug ins and add ons: Some programs, like Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, have a huge variety of plug ins available for a dizzying variety of image effects and tweaks. Others are more limited. If there is an effect you especially like and want to apply to your photos, research how that effect is done and determine whether the build in function or plug in is available for a given editor you are considering. It can be frustrating to learn to use GIMP, then discover that some cool plug in you just have to have isn't compatible.

How will your photos be displayed? Most people upload their photos online. As such, there doesn't need to be as much emphasis on resolution, dynamic range and other aspects of image quality as is needed by a professional on assignment, or for photos that are going to be printed at larger sizes (8x10 or larger). Simple editors with a lot of presents and minimal tweaking can do just fine for web use.

Support: Some companies do much to support their products, coming out with regular updates and having solid tech support to help with issues. With others, you are pretty much on your own to scour user groups in hopes of finding support. Usually the cheaper the software the less company support is offered. With open source programs such as Lightzone or GIMP, you pretty much have to rely on user groups for help.

Cost: For me, $9.99 a month for Lightroom and Photoshop is worth it. I make great use of a wide variety of features in both programs, and I like and depend on the predictable results. Knowing I can quickly get images ready for a client that meet certain standards is worth the extra cost compared buying cheaper stand-alone programs such as Aftershot Pro and Paint Shop Pro. However, your budget and your goals are different, and in many cases you will find you can get away with less expensive options with complete confidence and satisfaction. The fact is, probably 50% of what Lightroom does, and 80% of what Photoshop is capable of doing, are of little or no use to the average person.

My one bit of advice bears repeating: take advantage of all the free trial offers and choose editing software based on what you end up liking. For most people, the end results are so indistinguishable as to not be a factor. How the program feels to you, the features, and the cost are the main things you should be looking at in choosing photo editing software.

Love the Camera You're With.

I recently started working for a company called LifeTouch. They operate quality portrait studios in J.C. Penney, Target and as stand alone studios in malls. The company has tens of thousands of employees and  over a billion dollars in annual revenue. They are a model of a successful and profitable portrait business. They could afford the latest gear. So what camera is the "standard issue"?

A Nikon D2X.

Why does an industry-leading organization rely on a camera that is nearly 10 years old, one that some would say is mournfully obsolete? In this age when the camera manufacturers want you to upgrade on a 2 year cycle, and lots of enthusiasts claim they know what "pros demand", the reality is for a lot of professionals, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a  solid business guideline.

That is what is important to keep in mind: pros are in business. Businesses must make a profit. Part of making a profit is to keep costs to a minimum. If a 10 year old camera can still produce 16 X 20 inch prints that customers will pay upwards of $100 dollars for (depending on the package) then why spends hundreds of thousands of dollars replacing the cameras with something newer?

As a professional photographer, I am regularly asked about my gear. It's interesting that when I tell people on forums of "enthusiasts" what gear I personally own and use for my concert photos, many of them scoff. I then question the scoffers as to how many photos they sell, what client(s) they satisfy, etc. This querie is usually greeted by silence.

By contrast, when I am on forums frequented by genuine working photographers, the prevalent attitude is while it's nice to own the latest gear, there better be a sound business reason for investing in it: unless your business is excessively profitable. A couple of new pro-grade bodies can be an investment approaching $20,000. Sure, that investment ends up being spread out over several years, but coming up with the $20,000 in an age where "pros" are advertising wedding packages for $100 dollars on Craigslist can be problematic.

So what does this have to do with my usual focus of this blog, which is to give (hopefully) helpful bits of advice to the average person using a camera (or smartphone)? It's setting the stage for one of the best bits of advice regarding buying gear I can think of:

Relax. The camera you have right now is probably all the camera you need for the foreseeable future, unless you plan on "upping your game" by delving into enthusiast level photography or going pro.

Yes, the marketing hype-and a lot of gearocentric enthusiasts-will speak volumes about how a camera with more megapixels or faster autofocus or a higher burst rate will improve your photography. Such a purchase may improve the technical aspects of your photography, but not necessarily produce photos that you really like better than what you are producing with your presumably old and outdated camera.

Even the legendary Henri Cartier-Bresson addressed the idea that a camera upgrade will improve photos. He basically mocked those who said "if only I had a better camera, I would take better photos" as the litany of people who in all likelihood hadn't learned to take the best photos possible with the camera they already have.

To improve your photography you may find it's better to invest some funds in books or photography courses first, then see if that results in your current gear limiting your enjoyment of photography or the quality of your results. I know of lots of people who invest hundreds or even thousand of dollars in new gear, only to show up on a forum complaining about or asking why their photos aren't as good as the marketing hype claimed they would be.

I'm a firm believer in pushing current gear to the limit before thinking about buying new gear. Yes, it is nice to purchase new toys, but doing so can also lead to the frustration of always thinking your photos aren't good enough because you don't have the latest gear. Pushing the envelope of your current gear first, to get an idea of what you really need in the way of new gear, is a much less frustrating option than spending a chunk of hard-earned money on new gear only to find out your photos are no better for the expense. That is one way to help expensive camera gear end up spending a lot of time in a closet, because you become frustrated with the lack of enjoyable results you expected when you took the bait and bought the latest and greatest camera.

My own cameras are over five years old. They fall short of the ideal specs for concert photography in many ways. I'm saving up to upgrade for the very reason that I have pushed my cameras as far as they are capable of producing images and functionally. New bodies really will let me produce better images both technically and aesthetically. But I am still producing marketable images with what I have.

There are times when you will reach the limit of what your current camera can do for you. That said, no one else can decide that for you. Some may try, but the reality of it is you are the one operating the camera and producing the photos, so only you can decide with any finality whether the camera you currently have is holding you back, or whether it's actually a lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge can be remedied much more cheaply than buying new gear.

This relates back to some of my previous articles about composition and aesthetics. Pros really don't put as much stock on high ISO performance or uber-resolution from the latest high MP count sensor, except when doing work for which such capabilities are specifically required (such as concert photography or commercial work). If that's not the case, we are often content to use 10 year old cameras as long as customers keep paying for the photos we produce. It can actually lead to being less concerned about whether the camera is performing adequately and more able to concentrate on capturing quality, eye catching images. That is what photography at any level is really about.

Square for Art, Thou Romeo?

A square (1:1) crop of this image enhances the lines and

directs attention back to singer Pokey LaFarge's face, without any 

wasted space or dead areas.

Instagram has a feature many consider quite annoying: they only accept square (1:1) format photos. You would think this would inhibit people from using the service, but that has not been the case. Though there are some technical reasons for the requirement I won't go into, I do have to say that the feature may also be responsible for helping millions of people improve the quality of their photos. Granted, many people overdo the various effects Instagram offers, but even working pros do that.

I'm talking about the aesthetic value of the square format. For many years, when medium format cameras tended to dominate advanced and professional photography, the most common format was 1:1, or in terms of negative size 2 ¼ inches square. For decades, until the 35mm SLR* took over, thousands of photographers used Hasselblads or Rollei TLRs** both in the studio and as their walk around cameras.

Many people still prefer the square format. In addition to it being a preset option in most editors, many digital cameras offer the option of setting the capture format to 1:1. In the case of cameras using an electronic viewfinder (such as mirrorless) the square format is what is seen in the viewfinder.

What is the advantage of square format if nearly all cameras are made with a default rectangular format, either 3:2 or 4:2? Or, in the case of many smart phones, the format is even “wide screen” 16:9.

Funny you should ask.

For years, Hasselblad advertised the 2 ¼ inch format their cameras used as the “Ideal Format”. Mainly this was technical, having to do with more efficient lens designs. It was also practical: square format cameras could be used in only 1 orientation, so the ability to turn the camera 90 degrees and still use it was not a design concern. All this was stuff for engineers to talk about: for most photographers, the “ideal” part of the format was, and is, the flexibility it offers. It's also a challenging format, because if not careful, you can produce very static, boring images with it.

At the time of capture, I already had this final image in mind.

Centering a subject like this actually works well with square format,

if done right.

First off, people who try shooting in 1:1 format will find it lends itself easily to portraiture. With a square image, centering a person in the frame is no longer a matter of having too much extra space or a static image. Square portraits often are more appealing because they are so static: the eye can stay pretty much focused on the subject, without wandering around to parts of the image that really don't matter, as can happen with portraits in other formats. Some portrait photographers love 1:1 so much that is all they use.

Portraits in 1:1 format can have a "mysterious" feel to them (at least for some people) even when it's not intended. I think part of the reason for this is, for various reasons, square portraits tend to make people focus more on the subject and pay less attention to aspects of composition. This is a subtle, subconscious aspect that doesn't affect all people. When it does occur, it results in portraits of a particularly personal nature.

Originally shot in portrait orientation, this 1:1 crop eliminates some

unnecessary space at the top and distracting elements at the bottom.

The result is a simpler composition that draws attention to the face.

What about other subjects?

That depends a lot on the subject. In many cases, a rectangular format is going to be preferable (that idea brings up how a simple change in format can turn a boring shot into an eye catcher, which I will discuss in another article). Our field of vision is wider than it is tall, so rectangle formats feel more “natural” to us. Since we don't like a lot of wasted, dead space in many photos, turning a camera 90 degrees to capture someone standing, or a building or tree, is usually for the best.

There are times, however, where a square format is what works best. When I end up going square, it can be with forethought (at the time I make the capture I have already visualized the image as a square crop) or it can be a “save”. 1:1 cropping was the only way I could get an image to turn out well.

All those “rules of composition” such as the “rule of thirds” and “S Curves” and “Diagonal lines” still apply to square format. In fact, they can be even more important because the format itself is so static. Done right, applying these composition techniques within a square frame can produce a photo with more impact than if the same subject were presented in a rectangular format. It can have the viewer saying “Wow” when otherwise they might just nod a bit. They might not even know why they find the image so impressive, because the last thing people notice about a photo is the format/aspect ratio.

Going square with this image allowed me to eliminate some

distracting elements, as well as create better balance between

the grave markers.

That all sounds good, but what about landscapes?

Landscapes, by nature, are assumed to be best photographed and presented in as wide a format as possible. That's been the case since painting became formalized, and a 3 foot wide by 2 foot tall canvas was said to be in “landscape orientation.” As I mentioned above, our normal field of vision is much wider than it is tall, so we tend to see the world in wide vistas. With only a few exceptions, portrait oriented photos of landscapes feel very unnatural to most people.

Square format offers a unique compromise when it comes to landscapes. Psychologically, the 1:1 ratio is “neutral” enough so that a photo what would seem odd in portrait orientation is acceptable as a square format. In fact, for certain types of landscape composition, square offers a composition advantage, similar to as with portraits. Square landscapes certain set themselves apart at photo competitions where 90% of the entries are in landscape orientation.

They key to going square with landscapes is to understand that while many landscapes are about capturing broad vistas and great subject depth, a square format landscape usually presents a closer, more detailed view of a scene. Think of capturing a few of the trees, instead of the entire forest. At times, square is the only way to do that effectively.

The image on the left is the original capture. Notice how your eye tends to move between the sign and the background, almost as though they are competing for attention? The square version conveys the same narrative, but makes the sign more dominant as the main subject.

So now is the time to stop complaining about how Instagram causes you to fret over how to square crop all those great photos you upload, and start exploring square as a creative tool. You can do this a couple of ways. One is “in camera” at the time of capture.

If you are using a smart phone, you can find apps for both Android and iPhone that project square format lines, or even just show a square image, in your camera app. With mirrorless or compact digital cameras, there are often 1:1 formats available in the menu options which will likewise show either format lines or just a 1:1 image in the viewfinder.

DSLRs are more problematic. Their eye level finders will not display any sort of guidelines showing how 1:1 looks. Some DSLRs will let you select 1:1 as a format option, and display it on the LCD during live view or when reviewing the photo. Don't view this as a a problem: view it as an opportunity to exercise your ability to pre-visualize a seen, something the best photographers have learned to do automatically.

The other way of going square is in post processing. Often this is the easier approach because you can move the crop around a bit until it's just right. Doing so does coast you some image real estate, but not usually enough to noticeably degrade the image. In fact, editing is a good place to start going square. Go through your stored images and experiment. Does cropping 1:1 make a good image better or worse? Does it take a so so image and give it new life? Spend some time working with square format, and you will find it improves your photography overall, not only by broadening the way in which you capture and present photos, but also in how you assess all your images, even the ones that are still best presented in a rectangular format.

Eventually you'll discover that it is hip to be square.

*Single lens reflex. A camera that uses a single lens, and a rapid-return mirror to reflect the image into the viewfinder. This as opposed to a **Twin lens reflex, a camera that uses one lens for exposing the negative and a second lens to project the image into a viewfinder. The mirror in a TLR doesn't move, making for a very quiet camera.

Will a New Camera Make Your Photos Better?

This photo has both technical and aesthetic merit, 

but most importantly, I like it a lot.

Modern digital cameras are image-producing marvels. Technical hurdles such as calculating exposure, accurate focus and what combination of shutter speed and aperture to use can all be decided by the camera. Even things which used to depend on the film, such as color rendition and contrast range can be changed by simply choosing the right picture mode or adjusting a slider. Smart phones and digital cameras- especially DSLRs and mirrorless cameras - allow almost anyone to pick one up and take photos of a quality that was once limited to those with professional or enthusiast level ability and high end gear.

The result of this is that all that is needed to take “great photos” is to slip in a memory card, charge up the battery and select the right mode. In a dazzling variety of situations, almost any currently available camera can produce technically excellent photos that would have been a challenge to capture a generation ago. Some even have the ability to detect not only a person's face, but his smile. Depending on the control setting, the camera may not even let you take a photo if the subject isn't smiling. Some smart phones will even select the best composition out of a series of photos. (This technology hasn't quite made it into DSLRs or MILCs yet, but it probably will soon.)

Many people buy entry- or even mid - level DSLRs and MILCs, often based on the recommendation of an “enthusiast” friend or an “expert” sales person. Or, they read online forums and blogs and decide that to get the best possible photos, they need a given camera with lots of megapixels and interchangeable lenses. Camera buyers can be confronted with a mind-boggling assortment of lab tests and specifications which all supposedly support that cameras with the most up to date features are going to give the best photos.

So you buy the camera your enthusiast friend recommends and start taking photos. Are they really better than what you were producing with your smart phone? Are they even good?

Enthusiasts will often declare that yes, your photos will be “better” if you buy a current technology camera with, say, a 24 megapixel sensor and other cutting edge features than if you stick with your iPhone or Android phone, buy a lower end “bridge camera” or an older, less expensive DSLR or MILC. More pixels, more powerful and sophisticated metering and focusing ability, better quality lenses all ensure better photos, right?

Taken with my Samsung Galaxy S3. I could pick apart the technical 

flaws, but why?

One problem with this thinking, however, is that for many enthusiasts, “better” refers to the technical aspects of the photo. I've seen plenty of dreadfully uninspired, even boring, photos that were declared “good” because of technical quality. Sure, they were sharp, colorful and well-exposed, but I wouldn't post one online or hang a print on my wall. The reason for this is some enthusiasts have unique criteria for determining whether a photo is good or not.

Ever hear the term “pixel peeping”? It's an exercise in which you zoom into a photo to examine how it looks at the pixel level. You would never view a photo that closely under normal circumstances on Facebook, Flickr or some other online gallery. If a photograph was hanging on a wall, you probably would not press your nose against it to examine it. Essentially, that is what pixel peeping is.

Two of the things that pixel peeping seek to reveal are sharpness and the presence of the Dread Nemesis of many an “enthusiast”, digital noise (the presence of pixel sized light or off color areas within a photo. We called it “grain” during the film era). For some, utmost sharpness is important even if it reveals every wrinkle and flaw of their wives' faces when they take a portrait. Noise is to be suppressed even if it makes the subject of the photo look like a mannequin or made of plastic. No matter how endearing the portrait, no matter how spectacular the landscape, some will deem the photo inferior if standards of sharpness and noise levels are not met.

A pixel-peep test sample of one of the sharpest, lowest noise DSLRs

available. Exciting, isn't it?

My advice is: don't worry about such things. As I stated at the outset, modern digital cameras can make probably 90% of the photos you take as technically good as any professional could produce during the film era applying all his skill and know how. Such technical aspects can matter, but are really only noticed when they are obviously not met. Even then, the aesthetic value of an image can be such that any technical flaws are set aside.

In my opinion, there are two other criteria in assessing photos that are of much greater value than technical quality*. One is aesthetic quality. The other is personal value.

Aesthetic quality involves a lot of elements of composition, lighting, color and subject matter that can be very subjective. Discussing it would also take several articles. I've written in the past about some composition techniques that you can review here if you would like. To sum it up for this article, aesthetic quality is addressed by the question “Do I like the way this photo looks?”

The first thing that grabs your attention in a photo (assuming your are not a pixel peeping enthusiast type) is the “eye candy” quality. The colors, light and shadow, subject matter, overall composition all get, or lose, your attention within the first 3 to 5 seconds of viewing a photograph. Most of the time, you probably won't go deeper into analyzing a photo than whether you like how it looks or not.

This photo of John McCutcheon combines aesthetics and

technical merit. It was taken with a 5 year old, low MP 

count camera that has prominent high ISO noise. 

Who cares? It works, and I like it.

That's perfectly acceptable, despite what some enthusiasts will insist is the necessity to determine a photo's worth via close scrutiny for things like sharpness and noise levels. I can tell you from professional experience that paying clients are usually just like you when it comes to assessing photos: the aesthetic quality almost always overrides any technical shortcomings. Granted, part of what I do when editing photos for clients is to eliminate technical flaws, but unless you are offering photos to paying clients you may not have to be nearly as concerned with that aspect as some would say.

The other criteria is personal value. That's exactly what you think it is. A photo of a loved one or that captures a moment in time during a special event or vacation is indeed priceless. Any other criteria is secondary to the personal worth of your photos. Some may dismiss a slightly blurry, noisy photo of your partner standing in front of the Eiffel Tower as a bad photo, but pay them no mind. You caught that moment when his or her smile was just right, that instant in time that will enrich the rest of your life every time you look at that image.

There are all sorts of things wrong with this photo,

if I wanted to get picky. I don't care: it's a photo

that captures my daughter in a way that I like.

I'll let you in on a secret: nearly every iconic photograph taken by any master of photography meets that personal value criteria more than any other criteria in the mind of the photographer. That's why those masters became photographers, and worked to master the craft. They did so in order to capture special moments in time, valued subjects and scenes, in ways that met their personal goals and values. Granted, when producing photos for someone else, the client's values are imposed upon the photographer. However, much of the time, the photographer is hired because of his or her personal style, which in turn reflects what he or she values when making photographs. Even something as staid as product photography can still involve both personal style and personal satisfaction with the final image.

The bottom line is that unless you are entering contests or working for clients, whether you like a photo you make is more important than whether someone else thinks it's good technically or aesthetically. To that end a given camera may or may not make for better photos. If you want your photos to be sharper, better exposed and with certain image aspects best offered by a DSLR or MILC, by all means buy one. Never forget, however, that what matters most is whether you are enjoying making photos with your camera, and do you like the images that result. Another person's opinion should be given far less weight than your own. It's your photograph, and you will probably look at it far more than anyone else, so you are the final judge.

Technically, this is a disaster, and a number of people have reminded

me of that. Aesthetically, it does exactly what I want it to do, and 

people have pointed that out as well. Plus, I like it.

There's an old saying that the best camera is the camera you have with you. A similar one would be that the best photographs you take are the ones you enjoy looking at time after time.


*This is relating to personal use photos. For those of us producing photos for professional use, technical merit is of equal importance to aesthetics.

Improving Your Photos in One Day or One Lifetime.

"The Hall of Ingress" from personal project "The Commonwealth".

One way to improve your photography, both technically and artistically, is to pursue special projects. Pro photographers often list them on their websites as "Personal Projects". They are the photos they take for either the pure enjoyment of photography, or to develop certain skills, or simply because it's a subject that interests them. Far from being "snapshots", Personal Projects involve the same level of planning and careful execution as paid work.

At times, Personal Projects involve subjects that the photographer might not normally photograph. This includes not only subjects that fall outside the pro's paid work, but also things he may not be naturally inclined to photograph in his spare time. That's how such projects end up improving technique: by forcing yourself to find ways to make effective photos of something that normally you wouldn't take a photos of, you have to think more about what you are doing. You end up really looking at things from a new perspective. What is nice about this is the "AHA" moments where you realize you are seeing something in a new way that works photographically and now you are excited about a whole new aspect of the world.

For instance: one of my ongoing (four years so far) projects is to photograph the apartment building in which I live, The Commonwealth. It used to be an upscale hotel, built around the beginning of the 20th Century. It has lots of interesting architecture and decor, as well as some aspects of age and decay that make for visual interest. The thing is, I normally am not much for architectural photography, so at times it's been a stretch to come up with photos that I find interesting enough to publish. When I do, it's quite rewarding.

"Steam Heat #2" from "The Commonwealth"

Of course, you don't have to pick a subject that you might not otherwise photograph. It's perfectly fine to pick a subject or theme you already love, but attempt to photograph it differently than you normally would. I love to attend powwows, and one of the ways I stretch myself is to try to capture behind the scenes images that portray the dancers beyond what people see in the dance circle.

"Bling" 2013 Meskwaki Annual Powwow

Here are some common themes for Personal Projects. Some of these make it easy to get started, while others can take some thought and planning.

• Photo a Day. It doesn't matter the subject, just work to produce 1 photo a day that is "display worthy". This daily project can run a week, a month, a year: as long as you like. Variations on this are "Letter of the Alphabet" in which each day a different letter is somehow featured. Another is to take the photo at the same time every day, such as noon, but a different subject. I know one photographer who took a self-portrait every day for a year. She managed to look different somehow in each one.
• Same subject through the seasons. Another popular project is to pick a single subject, such as a tree or street intersection and make regular photos of it over the course of a year.
• Variations on a theme. Pick a subject, then go about taking photos of as many different variations of that subject as you can find, as well as making the photos as varied as you can manage. Doors. Flowers. Cars. Signs. Clouds. A color.  The list of potential subjects is endless.
• Editorial. This gets a bit more involved. It's developing a project to tell a story about a subject. It might be photos of abandoned buildings around town, or a photo essay about a particular person or event. Planning is often involved, because you don't want to just produce a bunch of photos. You want them to present a narrative that communicates definite ideas about the subject.
• Pick a technique: There are various techniques of all sorts that can be used as the basis for a Personal Project. It might be various lighting techniques. Another possibility is a sort of "Decisive Moment" project where you try to capture a subject at just the right time, such as just before a person steps in a puddle, or just as a bird takes flight. One simple variation on this is to use only 1 focal length for photographs. One "technique" that digital photographers find especially challenging is to take project photos without "chimping". Don't look at any photos until you get home and start editing them. Photographers got by with this limitation for over 150 years before digital started allowing instant review of images you've just captured.

"Imperfection #3" from "Imperfections".

These are just some of the themes that can be used as a basis for Personal Projects. I'm sure you can come up with some unique ones yourself. The important thing is to use the project as an opportunity to both stretch yourself as a photographer but also take photos for the pure enjoyment of it. So, unless you are a student or working photographer who HAS to take photos of a subject you truly have no interest in or enjoyment capturing, don't force yourself. Picking a subject you don't normally find interesting is one thing, but trying to force yourself to take photos under conditions that rob you of the joy of photography is counterproductive.

A good way to start is to look at themes found in the work of photographers you like. There's no rule against using other photographers' work as direct inspiration for your own, as long as you don't try to pawn it off as original ideas (unless you do a homage to another photographer in a truly original way). One of my first projects to get used to my new DSLR kit and some home made lighting gear was to work with bell peppers in much the same way Edward Weston did to produce his iconic photos.

"Capsicum" from a series based on Edward Weston lighting techniques.

One you get some ideas in mind, sit down and scribble your thoughts out. Make a list of possible project themes, and how you would produce each one. Then rate each theme/project with the following criteria in mind.

1.  How much do I think I will enjoy this project?
2.  Will I learn new things by pursuing it?
3.  Will I produce photos that are better, or at least different, from what I already produce?
4.  Is it actually doable?

The easier it is to answer these questions with a given project idea, the better off you are pursuing that project. The goal of a Personal Project is not just to improve technical or artistic skills, but also to deepen your love and enjoyment of photography.

"Greeting" from "Around Town: New Bo" project.

The nice thing about Personal Projects is they are all yours. You set the goals. You make the rules, if any. You do things your way. The project can last 1 day or a lifetime. Many of the most iconic photos we have are the result of photographers' Personal Projects. In fact, for Fine Art photographers, most of what they produce is strictly personal work, that just happens to find buyers when displayed in a gallery or online.

Bottom line: grab your camera, come up with a project idea, then get out there and get started.

"Imbalance" from "Urban Abstracts" project.

What You Pay for When Using a Pro Photographer.

For years, professional photography has suffered some hard knocks. A decline in print publications, recession and the growing number of people who own digital cameras (or smart phones) have all contributed to a shrinking market for traditional still photography. This has affects professional photographers all across the industry, regardless of genre. There are fewer jobs to be had, and those that exist often pay less than they used to, simply because supply has outstripped demand.

One factor that undermines the efforts of professional photographers is lack of understanding among customers of why pro photographers deserve the prices they demand for their work. This is a complex set of variables that I hope to present in a simple a way as possible. There are several factors which combine at varying levels, depending on the genre, to create the impression among customers that the services of a pro photographer either aren't needed, or should be dirt cheap.

The first is the ease with which digital cameras, and even smart phones, allow the average person to produce acceptable images. When I became serious about photography with the purchase of my first 35mm slr, a Canon AT-1, taking photos with anything other than an Instamatic or Polaroid camera was considered somewhat arcane. Simply loading a roll of 35mm film was a challenge some wanted to avoid, much less things such as setting exposure values, focusing and understanding how shutter speed, aperture and focus all worked together to either make or break any given photo.

The other factor was cost. A 110 Instamatic that took decent photos could be purchased for as little a ten dollars, while even the least expensive 35mm slr was around three hundred dollars. When I stared, Automatic Exposure was just becoming reliable, but the Canon AE-1 had been introduced with a very effective marketing campaign that convinced people it was both easy to use and would produce "professional looking results". By that the marketing people meant the images would have greater detail, more accurate exposure and certain other factors that set professional photos taken with an slr apart from those taken with an Instamatic or Polaroid. It did not however, guarantee that the composition would be of a professional level.

Today digital cameras can produce technically excellent photos with the camera set to do everything automatically. Exposure and focus are all handled masterfully by the camera: some even have aids in composition, such as face detection, even smile detection. The result is people have found they can capture images they didn't think were possible even 10 years ago. This sense of ease in producing technically good images contributes to the thinking that owning the right camera makes up for lack of professional level ability. The result is people thinking that a professional isn't needed, since the photos they or their friends take look "good enough".

This thinking translates into lowered demand for pros all across the industry. A company looking for photos of the new offices for its newsletter may opt to have an employee with a dslr who takes "really nice photos" produce the images when in previous years they would have hired a pro. This is less expensive and quicker (since the employee simply has to upload the photos to the company intranet site) and the decision makers justify it with the savings in money. They don't think it as important that the photos they have lack a certain "something" and don't quite grab attention the way the ones the pro produced a few years ago do.

This attitude of letting Stan in Accounting take all the photos for the office means lost business for event and commercial photographers. Companies will even rely on non-professional photographers for product and advertising photos. As someone who has worked in the printing industry and seen the sort of photos some companies send in for ads, I can tell you that in some cases, they are actually hurting their business because of how poorly the photos present their products.

The decline in printed periodicals means that companies don't need as much photography for advertising, but it also means less demand for photojournalists and editorial photographers. A couple of years ago, the Chicago Sun-Times fired all its photographers, handed out iPhones to all its writers, and told them to take the photos necessary to support their articles. Sure, the newspaper felt this was a smart business decision in the face of decreasing subscriptions and advertising sales. The actual result, however, was a loss of respect and credibility among readers, without really resulting in a worthwhile savings.

Wedding photographers take a hit because people can use cheap cameras and cheap editing software to produce images that look like those made by a wedding photographer charging thousands of dollars. The technical quality of the photos may be comparable when posted to Flickr or Facebook, but the prints done by Walmart won't be quite the same, for more than technical reasons.

The wedding and portrait industry is further undermined by people who buy a cheap dslr and kit lenses, then advertise themselves as professional photographers, hoping to get jobs on weekends to earn some extra money. They often list job prices at half, or even one tenth, of what the real pros offer. Instead of a package that includes high quality prints and albums, they charge $200 to show up, take one or two hundred photos, put all but the technically bad ones on a CD and give that to the client.

"OK. So what?," you might say. "People are no longer paying pros as much or at all, because they can produce images that are just as good."

No they can't. Not when a truly qualified professional is involved.

The real pros, the ones worth every penny they charge, are not people who picked up a "professionally capable camera" a few months or years ago and decided to go pro because everyone told them how good their photos are. They are talented, skilled individuals who have spent years honing their craft, even obtaining college degrees, to offer the utmost in quality and creativity.

The difference between the photographer who charges $200 for a wedding and the one who charges $2000 can be the difference between "Not quite" and "Just right", or even "Outta sight!". The cheap photographer shows up at the wedding, quite possibly with gear that is low end, especially the lenses. He'll walk around snapping photos. He'll have people line up for group shots. He may shoot available light, even when he shouldn't, or may use the flash built into the camera, which he especially shouldn't. Then he'll head home, delete all the out of focus or improperly exposed shots and mail off the CD, leaving it up to the client to sort through scores, even hundreds of photos to pick a dozen worthy of printing and putting in an album.

The photos look good, maybe, but probably not great. That grab shot of the bride walking down the aisle is marred by the flower girl picking her nose or the back of some people's heads in the foreground. That casually posed shot of the bridesmaids has some feet cut off at the bottom. The romantic looking photo of the bride and groom in the garden has them both squinting slightly in the bright sun.

What the $2000 photographer offers is the skill, knowledge and experience to watch for things that mar an image, such as nose picking flower girls or heads on the edge of a frame. He'll take the extra time to properly pose subjects when it's important to do so, knowing how to make people look good on camera. Training and a careful eye combine to make details the average person misses at the time of capture-and sometimes even when viewing the prints-are avoided. If not avoided at the time of capture, then these mishaps are never seen by the client because they are deleted in the edit.

Therein lies another skill of the "real pro": the experience and ability to offer only those images which make the subject look his, her or its very best. You're not paying a pro to "take pictures", you're paying a pro to "make memorable images". This extends even to the higher priced pro knowing the best labs for producing prints, albums and special items. The folks who take the CD to Wal-Mart or order from a dirt cheap online lab may find their photos of a once in a lifetime event don't survive to their tenth anniversary. The higher priced pro will usually order from a lab that offers high quality, archival products so your grandchildren can see the same quality photos you did the day the album was delivered.

What you are paying for with a higher priced professional is actually something priceless: the ability to produce images that stand above the millions taken by ordinary people. Whether the purpose of the photos are senior portraits, a wedding, a company newsletter or advertising, the ability of a good pro to create images that have value beyond what most people think is inestimable. That value comes not only from technical expertise, but from aesthetic and creative talents ideally suited for the intended purpose of the photos.

A good pro makes sure the images you pay for are ones that are going to be the best ones for your purposes because that is what he is paid to do. He knows what will work best, even better than his clients do, because he knows his craft. His craft is producing extraordinary images of ordinary subjects. After he calculates all the tangibles of his bill-his own bills, expenses, etc. the cost of his own labor includes the value of that intangible quality he has, and Stan in accounting or the weekend wannabe lack, which makes for photos that leave people saying "Oh wow!" instead of just "Oh".

A $2000 wedding photographer is worth that much because he gives far more than the $200 photographer gives. In fact, in a lot of cases, the $2000 wedding photographer is undercharging and the $200 one is overcharging. The sad part is a lot of people don't discover this until it's too late: that once in a lifetime ceremony is done with, or the negative impression that poor advertising photos have created is hard for a business to overcome after the fact.

Whether you are a business owner doing advertising or just want a portrait to hang on the wall, consider whether you want to spend money for "Not quite" or "Outta sight!". Then choose the photographer with the understanding that you will get only what you pay for.

Camera Buying Anti-Advice

People often ask "enthusiast" photographers for advice on which camera to buy. This can be a good thing or a bad thing. One characteristics of enthusiast photographers is the tendency to place a higher value on certain aspect of both gear, and the images produced, than the average person does.

For instance, an enthusiast may put so much emphasis on image quality expectations such as resolution or high ISO noise levels that he isn't thinking that his friend Staci really does only need enough camera to get pics of her kids suitable for uploading to Facebook or Tumblr and maybe the occasional print to hang on the wall. A 'full frame' dslr or ILC that costs  between $1500 and $2500 just for the body, and takes lenses the size of artillery shells may be the enthusiast's cup of tea, but is a bad idea for Stacy.

This brings up the other idiosyncrasy of many enthusiasts: they want to believe they are on par with professional photographers, so they tend to want to own gear that pros favor. This is one reason why Canon and Nikon are so popular. They have been the brands of choice for pros for decades. Part of this is because they have such a wide selection of lenses, something of great importance to a pro who may need a 600mm lens for photographing sports or wild life (and can justify the $10K price tag). Yet it's not an issue for Stacy or  95% of other camera buyers, since lens selection is pretty much moot.

I say this because data indicates that roughly 80% of all photos are taken in the focal length range of around 35mm to 85mm EFL (effective focal length compared to 35mm standard). That's pretty much the same range that the average kit zoom that comes with even an entry level DSLR or ILC covers. It's definitely within the range of zooms found on compacts and "bridge" cameras. This is the case because most people take photos based on what they see with their eyes, and this range of focal lengths covers the angle of view of human vision. (Sure, if Stacy wants closer photos of her kids playing soccer, that mid range to telephoto zoom will be necessary, but again, even entry level cameras can be bought with a zoom in this range.)

My point is that take what an enthusiast tells you about which camera to by with a grain of salt. That grain should include considering whether you are going to be taking photos at ISO 3200 or 6400, or that you want to print at 30 by 20 inches. Don't let the oft-heard justification for buying Canon or Nikon, "They have the best selection of lenses" become a factor unless you really do plan on spending thousands of dollars on long telephotos, or lenses with very large apertures, or specialty lenses like tilt and shift wide angles. Those are tools for pros and serious photographers who need them to capture certain images, but not reason for the average camera buyer to invest in a system.

I'm not saying don't buy Canon or Nikon. I am saying that there are better ways of making a choice of camera than what Uncle Irving the family camera guru has to say (that is, if he harps on a particular camera or brand by tossing out terms such as "better IQ" or "Great high ISO noise performance" or lens selection.) All the current major brands-Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, Samsung, Fujifilm-make cameras that are pretty much equal in features and results for the average user. They all produce a sufficient variety of lenses for their DSLRs and ILC cameras. They have a good selection of compact and "bridge" cameras available.

So how do you choose?

Simple, really.

Think about the photos you most plan on taking and compare which camera features will make it easiest to take those photos. Want to take photos of your prize winning gardening efforts? You can easily get by with a relatively inexpensive entry level DSLR, ILC with kit lens or bridge camera. Have a daughter whose a future FIFA star? Then you want a camera with a longer zoom lens, good continuous focus capability and a higher burst rate. Want to take video as well as stills? You would better off with a bridge camera or mirrorless ILC, which make video easier and more effective, than with a DSLR.

Also consider aspects of owning the camera some people overlook. Do you want image stabilization, and if so do you prefer the lenses do it or have it built into the body. Sensors can collect dust: how effective is the self-cleaning system of the camera? Does the camera have any special requirements such as only using certain types of memory card, or is the battery life poor and extra batteries expensive. Size: is the kit going to end up being bulkier and heavier than you want? (This is especially problematic with mirrorless systems where the body is quite small, but the lenses are still the same size as DSLR lenses) Also do some research into reliability and repair options. A great camera that has a poor service record is just going to lead to frustration.

 At this point you probably won't find a lot of difference between the cameras, so...

As much as possible, pick up and handle the cameras you are considering. Do you like how it feels in your hand.? Are the controls easy to use and understand? Can you get the camera set up to capture images of a particular type of subject or situation without a lot of fuss? Does it fit your budget?

Finally, be willing to apply the concept that "less is more". Do you really need that $1500 DSLR kit when in fact you will do just as well with the $800 kit, or even the $400 bridge camera?

The bottom line is whether you feel comfortable with the camera, both in use and as an investment. Unless you plan on making photography a serious hobby or career, you may find that the cheaper camera gets plenty of use and is more than adequate. Conversely, a lot of people have expensive DSLR kits that sit in the closet except on birthdays and holidays because they find their smart phones do the job just fine the rest of the time.

Buy the camera you enjoy trying out in a store, even if Uncle Irving wouldn't approve and the sales person wrinkles his nose at your choice. It's your money being spent, and you using the camera, so to make the most of it get one you like using. Things such as image quality and lens selection are pretty much equal between brands for most people.

As a working photographer who specializes in performance photography, I have specific requirements that the average person doesn't when it comes to what my gear is able to do. The fact is that my current gear is "adequate", but with plenty of room to upgrade (which I am budgeting for in the near future.) Yet, what is "adequate" for me is overkill for a lot of people. My primary lens, as seen in the photo at the top (attached to my most used camera model), costs more new than most people need to spend on their entire kit: camera body, 2 kit lenses, cards, batteries, bag et al.

Marketing departments work hard to make people think that by buying a camera body or brand that is used by pros, their photos will reflect that fact. This isn't the case. Sure, the larger sensor and better optics of a DSLR or ILC will definitely improve the technical aspects of your images over a smart phone or compact point and shoot. That's only part of the equation though. A bigger part in your enjoyment of photography, and in producing images you are proud of and others enjoy seeing, is YOU. The more you enjoy using the camera you have, the better your photos will be.

I, and every other working photographer, started out the same way, producing photos I loved. Over time and with intent on my part, they happened to become good enough for others to start paying me for them.  Many pros will tell you that while they may tote $10,000 or more worth of gear in their bag when they work, they turn to a cheaper, simpler kit when they are on vacation or taking photos of the family.

Right now I use gear that some would consider "amateur" because the cameras lack certain features of top of the line pro bodies.  Those pro bodies don't necessarily make the photos themselves any better: they simply  better facilitate the process of producing the photos under a wider variety of conditions, and according to the demands of a professional's way of working.  Yet I take many personal photos with my smart phone, a Samsung Galaxy S3, because it's convenient to have with me, produces good results, and lets me process the photos and upload them online all in the same device.

Whether paying extra for the capabilities of higher end cameras is worth it is up to you.

In the Land of the Blind...

Years ago I read an H. G. Wells short story called "The Country of the Blind". It tells of a mountaineer named Nunez who literally stumbles into a Utopian, secluded valley populated entirely by blind people. They had started out with sight, but disease robbed their newborns of vision, and after fifteen generations they had even forgotten what having sight was like. They had thoroughly adapted to the lack of sight, just as cave dwelling creatures do.

Nunez naturally thought his ability to see would allow him to rule and help the people. Instead, he was confronted with doubt and derision, as people thought he was making things up or even deranged when he tried to describe what it was like to actually see. No longer able to deal with the frustration of the attitude of the villagers, Nunez acquiesced and gave up his efforts to convince people he could see.

 He fell in love, but his request to marry was refused by the village elders because they thought he was ill due to his talk of seeing. It was suggested that his eyes be removed, since they were judged to be the cause of Nunez's illness. In one ending of the story, his attempts to warn the village of an impending rock slide were dismissed, and he barely managed to escape with the woman he loved before the village was destroyed.

The story was meant to be an allegory for the small-mindedness H.G. Wells saw in Edwardian England. Many people at the time only accepted a certain version of the world that fit their comfortable existence. Ideas and concepts which fell outside of their views were dismissed as unrealistic flights of the imagination or the rantings of the insane. People demanded that order be observed and that proper members of society would help to maintain the status quo.

Creative people are also "people of vision" . The reverse is also true. It's just as visionary and creative to come up with a new way of building a home that is more environmentally friendly as it is to develop a style of music that is outside of conventional expectations. Both are also equally valuable to society. Both are also subject to the same lack of vision that plagues the majority of people within most societies.

"The Country of the Blind" offers the same the sort of scenario creative and progressive-thinking people constantly find themselves in. Whether it be the style of a painting or the message behind the words of a song, the "seers" of the world, who express their vision through the arts, are often subjected to either derision or condescension.  Just as with the story, those who lack vision are oblivious to the fact. They have accepted their version of the world not only as normal, but as the correct and preferred version. Anything outside that version of the world is an anomaly to be disregarded, or even destroyed if it becomes an annoyance.

The irony of this is that the next generation often embraces the very same concepts and ideas that a previous generation rejects as "crazy". It's a sad irony, though, because they then turn these new ideas into staid convention, robbing them of the life and originality that made them a vision in a vision-less world. By reducing the novel and creative to the level of the mundane, we then take it for granted. We lose sight of the value genuinely creative people and their works have in our society. We end up wanting the 'product', because it has become a valued part of our lives, but we don't want to properly recognize and support the producers of those products.

We see this in things such as the cuts to music, drama and arts programs in our schools. It's evident in how demand to pay less and less for the music, images and artwork that we use to enrich our lives. The worst part about his is, we extend this lack of appreciation for our visionaries to those who see solutions to practical concerns such as racial, social or economic issues.

It's no coincidence that many truly creative people are also forward thinking, and deeply passionate, about social issues. It comes with having a mind and spirit that are constantly seeking, forever dissatisfied with the here and now because that mountaintop leads to a vista that cannot be neglected. The desire to discover or produce something new, something creative, is unrelenting to those with vision.  Creative people seem to be passionate, more caring, about things others aren't. Why is that?

Is it a matter that creative people naturally care more, or do they simply find ways to express what they care about in more passionate, attention-grabbing ways?

Does being creative make you more caring, or does caring more elicit greater expression of the creativity that is inborn within each one of us?

Whatever the answers may be, the real issue is why society tends to dismiss the most creative people and their ideas, at least until it's proved there is a profit to be had. In so doing we stall progress technologically, socially, economically et al. We rob ourselves and the entire world of advantages that creative endeavors offer, simply because we either cannot or will not apprehend the value of it until well after the fact.

 For instance: in 1987, Apple came out with a device that was unique at the time, the Newton. It was a computer that you could hold in your hand, with a touch screen that allowed you to do many of the same things you could do on a bulky desktop or laptop computer. It failed commercially. (Interestingly enough, 20 years earlier people accepted such as device as normal in the scifi series "Star Trek".) Yet now the iPad and other tablets are ubiquitous in our society, and are surpassing conventional computers in sales and usage.

That is the conundrum of being creative in a mundane world: Right now, people ask "Why?" while in the next decade, or the next generation, they will be asking "Why not?". What they once rejected, they now accept, even demand, as a part of their lives because someone came along and convinced someone else that money could be made from the idea. Nicholas Tesla offered the world free electricity. Thomas Edison offered the world electricity for a price. Look at where we are at now.

The history of art is filled with men and women who died penniless, but now collectors are paying millions for their works. It's the height of frustration to realize that a song or a novel or a photo or a painting that is earning little or no money right now could become an iconic masterpiece in the future, simply because someone decided (often after the artist is dead) that they are willing to pay a premium for the work.

Like Nunez in the H.G. Wells story, people with creative vision have to deal with being viewed as liars or mentally ill by a society which lacks vision. The saddest part of this is that the society could benefit greatly from heeding the words of the creative people who are the subject of so much derision. Consider how people with vision and creativity feel when they are left with the choices our society so often poses to them.
One: give up and join the vision-less masses.
Two: Sell out, and compromise the vision by finding ways to make it fit into the expectations of the vision-less right now.
Three: Stay true to the vision and endure the reproach it brings, trusting that one day someone will embrace the vision and receive the benefit it brings.

This goes out to all those creative, crazy visionaries out there: please choose option three. As hard as it is to deal with being a visionary in a society that lacks vision, we all need you more than we realize. The quality of life of our future generations depends on creative visionaries staying the course right now, more than ever, even if doing so leaves them feeling like Nunez in "The Country of the Blind".

253 Shades of Grey

Birds of Chicago in concert at CSPS Hall, Cedar Rapids, IA.

No, I'm not talking about a souped up version of the provocative novel. I'm talking about the Zone System.  Developed (pun unavoidable), by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer as a method of visualizing a scene and then processing the negative and print in a way that optimizes the image as it appears in monochrome, it has been the de facto standard for many photographers when it comes to black and white for over seventy years. The original Zone System broke monochrome images down into nine levels of grey, plus black and white. Digital allows much more discrete delineation, with 253 levels of grey plus black and white.

I'm not going to go into detail on how the Zone System works, for three reasons. First is that it's so involved a method that entire semesters in college are devoted to it.  Second, because it is based on using film, not digital, there are common principles involved but not direct correlation of certain things. Third, this article is meant for the average camera owner to find out ways to have more fun, and a lengthy discussion on the Zone System isn't  that fun for the average person as far as I'm concerned.

What I am going to do is provide some tips on how to convert color images into monochrome, or black and white as more popularly labeled. I often have people tell me they like some of my monochrome images more than the color ones. Monochrome, done right, certainly evokes a different mode and set of responses than color. The reason for this is because when color is removed from an image, what is left are "pure" elements of light and shadow (contrast) form and emotion.

Some people look at an image they've taken and think about what it might look like in black and white. Others never give it a thought, but should. Sometimes a photo that is just blah in color becomes much better when converted to black and white. The conversion must be done right, though, for the image to really improve by being converted to monochrome.

Just about all digital cameras and smart phones have a monochrome option among the settings. This is the simplest way to shoot black and white, and I would recommend using it if you don't have access to or want to use an editor, but even more so as a learning experience. Capture a scene in black and white on the spot, and you have the opportunity to see what it will look like. This helps train your brain to visualize scenes in black and white. That's what the Zone System is meant to do-train how to see things-and there are even filters you can buy which make a scene appear as it would when converted to monochrome.

That said, I recommend against using in camera monochrome to produce monochrome images, with the possible exception of if the device also offers an option as to what color filter is applied (more on that in a bit). The reason for this is because few color scenes simply convert straight to monochrome without certain tweaks and adjustments. Ever see some black and white photos that are simply breathtaking, while others are blase? There are usually two reasons for this. First, the subject doesn't really lend itself to monochrome. Second, the image was probably just subjected to a "Black and White" module in an editor without any tweaking done.

Once upon  a time, to do quality monochrome conversion in digital meant breaking the image up into layers of cyan, magenta, yellow and black, then mixing the ratio of each layer to come up with the desired, final result. Then came channel mixing. Some people still use these techniques. Now, however, apps and plug ins are available for both computers and smart phones that make monochrome conversion both easy and effective.

(Note: Depending on your browser and monitor settings, differences in images may be more or less pronounced. Best to view this with the latest version of Internet Explorer or Firefox.)

Back in the film era...

The tweaking doesn't have to be complicated to get a good black and white image from a color one. When using black and white film, it was common to use a colored filter over the lens to alter the way in which the film recorded the colors in monochrome. Common filter colors were (and still are) Red, Orange, Yellow, Green and Blue. These filters would pass all of the main color, but cut down the other colors of the spectrum in varying degrees. Here are some examples:

Here's a couple of images in color to see how the various hues convert to black and white.

Straight conversion: All hues are converted directly to the closest monochrome equivalent. Skin tone is a bit too dark, vegetation too light.

Red: Greatly darkens blue skies and foliage, while lightening most skin tones. Great for landscapes, use sparingly on portraits. Notice how much the yellow blossoms stand out compared to the straight conversion?

Yellow: Darkens skies and foliage but not as much as red filter, Skin tones are actually a bit closer in tonality to color version. Best choice for all around black and white photography/conversion.

Orange: Intermediate effect between red and yellow.

Green: Lightens blue skies, foliage turns almost white. Brings out details in skin tones, so it can make a male subject look more swarthy but be unflattering to female subjects.

Blue: Similar effects to green, only more intense: blue skies turn white, foliage stays about the same, skin tones can look ugly. Turns light skin very dark.  Used rarely, but can be good for architectural and other scenes where a unique contrast is desired. See how the yellow blossoms are now darker than the rest of the plant?

Apply changes in brightness and contrast along with filters to get the final result you like.

So you can see, if you have a monochrome conversion application or plug in that allows use of colored filters, or to adjust how the application "reads" the balance of colors in the image, it only involves a couple of steps or sliders, and a bit of experimentation to see which settings you like best. For most people and most photos, we can end this discussion here. You've learned as much as is needed to cover the majority of situations where a satisfactory black and white conversion can be done. Tweak a bit of brightness or contrast, sharpening if necessary (remember to always save sharpening for the final step) and you have turned that ordinary color photo into a black and white masterpiece.

A note about printing: If you want the best results when printing your black and white images, do not take them to a lab that will just print them as color images. This can result in unwanted color casts or changes in how the print looks. Have a lab do them that offers black and white specific printing for the best results.

That's about it. Almost...

The following is for those who want to do a bit more tweaking to come up with images that stand out even more, or are more difficult to convert.

Throw 'em a curve, and a slider.

When using film, contrast and tonal curves of the negative were determined both by the film itself and how the film was processed.  Then the right paper had to be selected, as print paper came in a variety of contrast grades, which themselves varied from manufacturer and "model" of paper. A decently stocked dark room might have a dozen or more different types of paper on the shelves.

Digital is so much easier. For the most part, all the factors involved in selecting the type of film, how to process it, and what paper to use can be handled by the "Curves" adjustment found in more advanced editors such as Lightroom, Photoshop , Paint Shop Pro and others. (If you use Photoshop Elements, which lacks curves adjustment, there are plug ins you can use).  Simply put, every image has a tonal curve, that represents that relative brightness and darkness of various parts of the photo compared to the theoretical limits of bright and dark. (That's as tech as I'll get in describing curves.)

What the curves tool does is let you alter that curve so that a dark part becomes darker or lighter, or light parts become lighter or darker. What might involve several choices of film, chemicals, temperature, agitation and paper type in the old days can be done in seconds with a slider of the curves tool. One precaution regarding the tool: it can get out of hand if you try to adjust too many points or adjust them too much. Less is more when it comes to the curves tool.

Straight conversion, no curves. Image is slightly underexposed.

Curves applied to bring up the middle tones and highlights while leaving the shadows relatively unchanged.

Do your level best.

Another nice tool is the levels tool. It's similar to curves, but affects the entire image at once, whereas curves affects only certain areas. The tech behind it is that each image, ideally, ranges from the blackest black to the whitest white were detail is still barely visible. This doesn't always happen, due to exposure being off. An image may be too dark or too light.

The levels tool offers a graph which shows where the various dark and light parts of an image fall along a graph, and how intense each segment is. Ideally an image should stretch all the way from the left side of the graph (0) to the right (256), with an even distribution of tones. When you open up the levels tool, you will see that you can use a slider to adjust two things. One adjustment lets you "stretch" or "compress" the image to fit within the levels range in the way that gives it a balanced contrast range. The other is to tell the editor what you want the midpoint or overall range of tones to be. Both will cause changes to the overall image in regards to contrast and relative brightness of the darkest and lightest parts of the image.

I personally don't use the levels tool nearly as much as the curves tool, in part out of personal habit and partly because I make sure I get the exposure as close to ideal as I can at the time of capture.

Levels tool was used to adjust the midpoint and highlight point to correct underexposure. Note how, while this does bring up more detail, it also results in a flat looking image.

And then some other stuff happens.

Curves and levels tools alone can take the quality of any image up a notch when it comes to contrast and tonal curve or gradation. Then there are some additional steps that can tweak an image even more. I won't go into detail, but will summarize a few tools.

Burn/Dodge: Precisely adjust the darkness or brightness of specific elements in the image.

Tone Map: Digital alchemy at it's finest. A tool which breaks down the tones of an image into a different number of parts (ranging from 1 to 256) and then allows  you to increase or decrease the contrast between each part. If you have this available, play with it to see the sort of interesting effects that result.

Shadow/Highlight adjustments: Tools which adjust shadows or highlights in relationship to the overall image brightness. What is adjusted is altered by changes in the levels, so used in conjunction with the levels tool, this can make a big difference in how an image looks.

Black/White  Level: Different from shadow or highlight, it effects the prominence of black or white within an image, independent of the level of the overall image.

Toning: Black and White allows for a wide variety of tones to be applied. Sepia is the most common, but there are also various tones such as Platinum print, Albumen, Cyanotype, Opalotype and many more. Keep in mind that toning can also effect the overall contrast and tonality of an image, so you might have to experiment with all the other settings to get the exact results you want.

Keep in mind you can also select only certain parts of an image to apply any of these tools mentioned, from curves on down. Also, working with various layers and different layer transparencies can have a major impact on the final image. A "Gallery quality" black and white conversion might involve hours of working with various tools on several layers. Or it may not. It depends on the starting image and goal for the final image.

Here is an image which combines a lot of different techniques. In addition to converting with a red filter to increase contrast a bit, curves adjustment and tone mapping, and sepia tone were used to give the image more impact and emphasize the gritty feel of the radiator and texture of the wall. It's also not 100% desaturated: I left in just a bit of the original color.

Fortunately, most modern editors offer enough basic tools that are simple to use for most people to create monochrome images that will both satisfy your creative urges and impress viewers. If you really get into monochrome conversion, there are several apps that can be used as plug ins or even stand alone converters. My preference is Topaz Labs BW Effects. Another excellent one is Nik's Silver Efex Pro. Some "film emulators" such as DxO Filmpack can simplify monochrome conversion by letting you choose a specific black and white film, and make minor adjustments.

Look for images that you think will look good in black and white. Experiment, have fun, and do Ansel Adams proud.