Sometime It Really IS the Photographer.

Annie Liebovitz is one of my favorite photographers. She has so many masterful aspects of her craft. She knows how to create just the right lighting. She has a unique (and often copied) skill at setting up marvelous shots that can boggle the mind. Yet she also can take simply staged portraits that reveal much about the subject. It's hard to say which is more impressive: her commercial work or her portraits.

As far as I know, for pretty much most of her career, Annie has used Nikon. Currently she also uses Sony and Hasselblad. Still, for as long as I have been a fan, Nikon has been her mainstay, at least when it comes to “35 mm format” gear.

But her real “gear talent” is in using various flashes, lighting modifiers, reflectors, diffusers etc. to create lighting effects that people in the industry instantly recognize as being her style. The cameras and lenses she uses would not matter as much if she didn't understand light and her subjects and how to use all the tools at her disposal in a masterful way.

I have a friend: let's call him Gil to protect his privacy. He's been into photography about the same length of time Annie Leibovitz has been an established pro, almost 50 years. He too uses Nikon, and has stuck with it for his entire involvement in photography. He is a serious enthusiast, so he uses pro level gear, just as Annie Liebovitz does. He's even dabbled in becoming pro, but in his words “never got the right break”.

Gil has pretty much the same gear as Annie (a lot of photographers own the same gear as their favorite pros). He has about the same number of years using that gear. He has solid knowledge of how to use his cameras, as well as general concepts of lighting equipment and other “accessories” vital to photography. Yet, even if I revealed his name, you would have no idea who he is. A google search would only turn up his online gallery and Facebook page. There wouldn't be site upon site displaying his masterful work, or lauding his accomplishments as a photographer.

When it comes down to it, Gil is essentially just another G.W.C. (Guy With Camera).

Not that Gil doesn't love and enjoy photography. He does immensely. Still, he blames his failure to launch a pro photography business on “not getting the right break”, which is only partly true. I mean, he has the same gear as so many successful pros. He knows how to use it. What was it that kept him from getting his break?

It could be argued that he lacked business acumen or simply determination. However, I've seen many of his photos, and the reality is he lacked (and still lacks) real aesthetic imagination. A personal style. Even just some aspect of his photos that doesn't look like he's trying to copy one of his favorite pros.

Gil is technically a very good photographer. His knowledge and skill when it comes to using his gear on a technical level is outstanding, “professional level” in every way. The detail in his photos, the exposure, the color: all show he definitely has mastered his gear. The problem is they are highly detailed, well-exposed, wonderfully colorful photos of ordinary subjects captured in ordinary ways. Even when he tries to stretch himself, it's basically to try to copy some photo that has caught his eye.

Copying admirable photos is a great launchpad into improving both technical and aesthetic ability. That's Gil's problem: failure to launch. He is content to copy what someone else has done, in an albeit technically excellent way, and that's it. He's satisfied that he's done the same thing the pro he has copied has done.

Gil doesn't understand that his technical mastery is only part of the process of producing outstanding photos. It really can be, as the saying goes, the photographer rather than the gear.

That's not to say that good gear isn't important. In some genres, the right gear is essential. The fact is, though, that Annie's gear is a tool to realize her photographic vision, and that includes an assortment of lighting equipment that can literally fill up a delivery truck. Realizing her vision is also why she has always used an assortment of cameras and formats, as each photo, each assignment can have unique requirements in order to bring her vision to fruition.

But Annie Leibovitz years ago recommended the iPhone for people (non-professionals) asking about what kind of camera to buy. I can't confirm it, but I suspect she uses one for her personal “snapshots”. That wouldn't be unusual, since I know of a lot of pros who leave their “pro kits” behind and rely on simpler tools for their personal photos.

There are in fact a lot of professional shoots being done with iPhones or other smartphones. Here's the thing: in most cases, the lighting equipment is virtually the same, it's just the camera that is different. While some enthusiasts gush about how “pros demand” the utmost in image quality, the reality is a pro doing fashion shoots is at least as interested in taking photos that set him apart from hundreds or thousands of others doing fashion shoots. For some, using an iPhone has been the factor that sets them apart.

My point is to encourage people to not sell themselves short if they don't have premium gear. Look at photos you admire. Learn how they were made. Then find out how to produce images along the same lines with the gear you do have. Don't worry if the image quality isn't on par with photos taken with top of the line pro gear. Only be concerned that you are enjoying what you are doing, are making an effort to produce photos that are yours, rather than just copies of someone else's photos, and that in the end you can look at your photos and show them off to someone else with a smile on your face.

Full Frame Furor? Look Smart(phone).

Nikon Z7 MILC, Photo by Nikon

Nikon and Canon recently announce their “Full Frame” mirrorless interchangeable lens (MILC) cameras, along with a few lenses. Reactions are mixed, from unrealistically enthusiastic to ludicrously negative. In the Micro Four Thirds camp (of which I'm a part) there was a near panic on some of the forums. 

 A lot of Micro Four Thirds users suffer from a gear angst and feelings of image inferiority already, especially at the hands of Canon and Nikon fanboys. For these folks, their one “ace in the hole” was certain advantages mirrorless has over DSLRs. For these people, having the two leading DSLR manufacturers enter the MILC race with Full Frame offerings is a direct threat to their gear of choice (more on why later). This angst was aggravated further by the rumor that Panasonic will be announcing a Full Frame camera on September 25^th.

Interestingly, while a panic-stricken contingent of Micro Four Thirds users are squawking like “Chicken Little” about how their preferred camera format is doomed, a number of Canon and Nikon owners are just as incensed about problems they see with the Nikon Z series and Canon R series. You'd think these cameras were abject failures to read some of the comments from disappointed camera owners.

It's all really a tempest in a tea pot, and something average people wanting to take the best photos possible don't have to take seriously. The vast majority of photos being produced and shared right now are taken with smartphones, and that number is increasing. So too is the quality of smartphone photography, both in overall capability and the resultant images. (Incidentally, the growth of smartphone photographic capability has fueled the angst felt by people using dedicated cameras, and common push back is to belittle smartphones and the photos taken with them. Don't listen to those folks.)

In the midst of this, “serious” photographers, or people who want to get serious about photography, may swear they must have a Full Frame camera. They must also have the best, fastest lenses to make the most of the Full Frame sensor. It's easy to drop $10K on a basic Full Frame kit, and still find yourself wishing for more.

Yet many of these Full Frame aficionados are producing essentially the same images they could get with the better smartphones. It's true, because much of the genuine need for certain capabilities of a camera depend on subject matter and shooting conditions, then another big aspect is “end use” (how the photos are displayed and why).

With some variation, about 70% of photos people make and share are taken of subjects that can easily be handled by any recent smartphone. The flagship models can handle even more situations.. One reason for this is because something like 90% of the photos shared nowadays are shared online, and most of those on social media sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram etc. Without going too deeply into the technical aspects of sharing photos online, especially through social media, suffice it to say that you don't need a Full Frame camera when it comes to image quality.

In fact, you really don't need any dedicated camera with a sensor larger than the better smartphones offer. Internet browsers simply don't offer the resolution and color space produced by even 1” or Micro Four Thirds sensors, much less Full Frame. The majority of people view said photos on smartphones and tablets, so high resolution isn't a factor when viewing on such small screens.

For the great majority of people, Full Frame is overkill when it comes to image quality. So, why do certain people clamor about it (in both positive and negative terms) in nearly obsessive ways? Various reasons.

They claim they need the lower noise and wider dynamic range that Full Frame offers, even though neither are really a factor in how other people may enjoy their images. For pros, this may be a bigger factor than amateurs, but not nearly as much as some Full Frame enthusiasts claim.

They claim they need the higher resolution to produce the sharpest images. See what I said about about browsers and how most people view images.

They talk about shallow depth of field and “creamy bokeh”. This is a complex subject and despite the talk of certain pundits, Full Frame is not a cure all for those desiring shallow depth of field and creamy bokeh. Knowledge of photography, specifically the variables that affect depth of field and bokeh, is as much a solution to the issue as gear.

They cite how “real pros” use Full Frame cameras. OK...so how does that justify spending thousands of dollars to take photos of pets and petunias that end up online in galleries only a few people visit? 'Nuff said on that one.

These are the biggest reasons people give as to why they “need” Full Frame. Really, it comes down to that they want it, not need it, and often it has more to do with ego and bragging rights than actually producing the best possible images. In my experience, only a small percentage of Full Frame owners are able to take full advantage of the format.

In fact, I'd say that in terms of IQ, most ILC owners I have seen could get by with one of the latest smartphones. There is some real justification in situations where smartphones still fall short, such as fast action, very low light, or the need for very wide angle or longer telephoto lenses. Even the bokeh argument is becoming moot as smartphones have come out that use computational photography, and even multiple lenses, to reproduce the depth of field and bokeh effects that Full Frame offers.

Why is it some people have to justify their desire for Full Frame by citing technical advantages, and why the angst involving whether or not a Full Frame camera makes the grade? Because a lot the most vocal camera owners invest much of their sense of worth and accomplishment as photographers in the gear they own. They bought into the marketing hype that they must have a given camera to produce professional level images, and that is what they fancy themselves doing.

I've found, however, that many of these people haven't taken the time to learn how a pro actually produces those marvelous images Full Frame fanboys say they need their cameras to produce. So they subject the world to an assortment of high resolution, low noise photos of pets, flowers and their kids, as though we all are going to look as closely at the technical aspects as they do.

We don't.

Sure, they have the right to own whatever gear they want. Buying Full Frame gear helps the manufacturers' bottom line, which can go toward making lower tier, smaller format cameras more affordable. You know, the ones that most people haul out for birthday parties or soccer games when they know their smartphones aren't quite up to the task. The cameras that make up 85% or more of total ILC sales. The cameras that many owners find they are using less and less as smartphones become more capable.

What's the bottom line I'm getting to? Don't buy into the current furor about Full Frame cameras, whether positive or negative. At least don't let anyone convince you you need a Full Frame camera. They probably don't need one: they just tell themselves that because saying it's just that they want one seems less impressive to those who don't know any better.

The fact is, that if you want longer lenses, or better capabilities when it comes to capturing fast moving subjects or low light events, any ILC or MILC made within that past 5 years will be a huge advantage over a smartphone. If you find yourself wanting a Full Frame camera, however, right now is a great time, because the choices are expanding greatly. This means that not only are there more choices, but also that older Full Frame cameras are going to drop in price, and that more used models are going to start showing eBay and Craigslist.

The Moment In Between

The Ronstadt Brothers. CSPS Hall, copyright Eyeguess Photography 2017 

Most people who are serious about photography have at least heard of Henri Cartier-Bresson. He was a master photojournalist who popularized the concept of “The Decisive Moment'. That's an instant in time where the elements of a photograph-the positions and action of the subjects, the lighting, all the other factors-are captured in a way that makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. It's an ideal behind journalistic and spontaneous photography that most aspire to and on occasion achieve just right.

In sports it may be the moment a bat strikes a ball or a receiver snags a pass with his fingertips. In wildlife photography it may be the moment a bee alights on a flower or a grizzly bear snatches a leaping salmon in mid air. In photojournalism it may be the moment a soldier is truck by a bullet or a flaming building explodes. Whatever the case, we see such photos and are duly impressed by the image. They encapsulate nearly everything we expect from photography: capturing an instant in time in a way that can impress it upon memory indelibly and eternally.

I'm not going to talk about “Decisive Moment” photos because that's been done. A lot. By photographers and critics more experienced, knowledgeable and skilled than I am. Instead, I'm going to talk about “The Moments in Between”. That is, photos that fall into place before or after what people would consider “The Decisive Moment”. Sometimes these photos actually work better than the ones that show the expected result of a “Decisive Moment” capture.

As I mentioned, most people seek “The Decisive Moment” because it's what they are looking for. It's what they think the viewer wants to see. For working photographers, it's certainly what an editor or client is willing to pay for. They are “money shots” because most of the time they capture the essence of an event.

Sometimes, however, it's what happens between the peak of action that can help a viewer better connect with the subject of a photo or the event captured. Sometimes what happens before or after “The Decisive Moment” can be more visually intriguing than the moment itself. I remember a photo I saw years ago of a lion that had just missed catching an antelope and was trying to regain her balance as she slide in the dust.

Or it may be something that happened in a different spot than the peak of action. On a regular basis we see photos of a defender who slipped and missed coverage, laying on the field in disgust, watching the completed pass result in a touchdown or a goal being scored.

This is part of my own approach to performance photography. Some of my better photos are of moments in a show that are not peak moments. Sure, everyone loves to see the leaping guitarist or the singer at the height of emotion. That's not all there is to a concert though. I've been on stage many times, and can tell you that there are times when a performer drops into a certain zone. There may be a band, or entire orchestra on stage, but the musician is lost in the music, and there's only his/her self and the music that exists at the instant in time.

It's these “Moments in Between” peaks of action that I actively seek to capture whether I'm shooting musicians, dance or theater. To me, such images can say much more about the human beings on stage than peak action photos. They can give an insight into the art of performing as well. By freezing seldom considered, transitory moments from a performance, people get a chance to study that moment, and consider, perhaps all that goes into bringing music, dance or theater together into the shows people love to see.

Take the above photo of The Ronstadt Brothers in concert at CSPS Hall in Cedar Rapids, IA. A second before, and a second after, this instant, the musicians were each either looking at another band member or the audience. Yet in this image, they are all absorbed by the music, by their performance. To me, it evokes the feeling I often felt on stage of having the world just fall away and all that existed was the music I was making, and how it was meshing with the music others were making that I heard in the background.

These are sublime moments which every musician recognizes are the key to making beautiful music on stage. Yes, it's important to remain cognizant of what other players are doing, and work together to ensure everything comes together as seamlessly as possible. However, the reality is that ultimately, playing music is about self. No matter how much cooperation there is on stage, each musician is still ultimately trying to fill his own world with the best music he can create.

To me, a photo like this one captures that feeling almost perfectly. A juxtaposition of people both isolated and working in close concert to produce beautiful music. It's a feeling that's hard to describe for those who've never performed music on stage.

So, while pursuing ideals of “The Decisive Moment” is a worthy (and to some extent vital) goal photographically, it's important to also think about the “Moments in Between”. I'll readily admit that the “hit rate” of such images can be lower. Often such captures do indeed look like “missed it by that much” photos that should be mercilessly subjected to the DEL key.

Mercilessly, but not too quickly. Take enough time to study the elements of such photos to see if they tell a story that a “Decisive Moment” photo doesn't tell. That's often the measure of true success of a photo, telling an effective story, a unique story. Sometimes that story is best told by an image that might otherwise be overlooked in the rush to produce eye candy that everyone expects to see.

The "Secret" to Better Photographs?

If left to the marketing people from various camera manufacturers, the key to making great photographs is to buy the latest cameras they have to offer. Sure, you may have done that a couple of years ago, but that camera no longer produces photos as good as its replacement. They even have lab test data and professional endorsements to back up that claim.

The situation isn't helped any by the thousands of “experts” on various photography websites who claim they must have certain camera features to produce the best photos they can. Certainly better high ISO performance can help produce clearer low light photos. There's no doubt that better auto focus speed and accuracy can help with sports or wildlife photos. The question is whether these make for better images.

By that I mean: does the image you are viewing strike a chord with you? Does it resonate in some way that evokes certain emotions or thoughts? Does it leave you thinking about what you viewed even after you have stopped viewing it?

These are important questions to ask yourself when considering what a “good” photograph is. Granted, for most situations, what people are really looking for is an in-focus, pleasantly-composed image that captures the moment for future viewing. The fact is that today, smartphones can do that for about 75% of situations. For those times when things like long lenses or high frame rate or high ISO performance are needed, even 5 year old dslrs and milcs can do more than most people really need.

A visit to any photography websites with public forums (such as dpreview.com) will demonstrate that many of the expert hobbiests and enthusiasts who take great pride in the quality of their bleeding edge gear are taking photos that could be done just as well with cameras 5 or even 10 years old. For that matter, when it comes down to showing on the internet or average sized prints, smartphones from the past couple of years have more than enough output.

There are a lot of average, even mediocre photos being taken with the latest, top quality camera gear. So why aren't these photos really good, or even great, given the cameras used are supposed to give that level of result?

Because the people using the cameras are looking to the wrong source of real “goodness” of their photos.

“It's not the camera, it's the photographer” is a common phrase, and fundamentally it is the great truth behind producing the best photos. Laying aside certain obvious technical limitations or requirements, it's the mind behind the making of an image that counts the most. This involves both the technical understanding of how cameras work in conjunction with light and shadow, color and form, but also the creative spark that drives a person to produce photos to begin with.

There's no secret to learning to produce good, or even great photos. Having suitable gear and learning to use it well is the easy part. The thousands of technically great, but aesthetically uninspiring photos out there prove this. What is often overlooked is inspiration. By that I mean having a sort of photographic muse, a reference point from which you assess your own efforts at achieving the best, most-satisfying photos you can.

That inspiration comes from other photographers (or even painters). Any photography instructor worth his/her salt will tell you to look at the work of as many notable photographers as you can. Study their images. Pick the ones you find most inspiring, those images that make you think “I wish I could take a photo like that” and find out how it was done. Pick a few favorite photographers and learn about them: their lives, their techniques, why they produced the sort of images they did.

I say this because in a recent discussion on photography, I cited two well known sports photographers. Someone replied that he had no idea who they were as though they must not be that good if he didn't know about them. Granted, he may simply not have enough of an interest in sports photography to know of any famous sports photographers, but his ignorance is only one of many examples.

This ignorance of past masters a problem I see a lot among photographers today. I see people talking about how they can't produce certain images because their gear doesn't focus fast enough, or doesn't have a high enough burst frame rate, or the high ISO performance isn't clean enough, etc. The fact is that in the past none of these technical limitations prevented photographers from producing classic, iconic images.

That's why I say the “secret” to producing the best photos is to study past masters. Immerse yourself in their images. Let the thoughts and emotions you experience looking at them dominate your thinking. Bask in the emotional, aesthetic aspect of the photos for a while. After you gain some understanding of what the photograph makes you think and feel and why it does, then start considering the technical aspects of the photo.

The average person relates to an image based on the emotional impact it has on them. Most people don't look at an image and immediately think about what lens was used or whether it's suitably sharp or how bad the high ISO noise level is. They judge a photo by an emotional response that occurs within about 3 seconds of viewing it. It's mostly the gear-oriented enthusiasts who first think in terms of technical qualities of a photo.

My own “first inspiration” came from W. Eugene Smith. Since then I've added many photographers to the list of those I study, but he was the first whose photos made me really stop and think about how, and why, I wanted to produce images similar to his.

I can guarantee that if you spend more time studying the photos of great photographers than you do visiting “how to” websites or forums populated by self-proclaimed experts, your photos will improve. This is because you have to know what great photos look like in order to try to accomplish the same thing. Here's a good website to get you started:

Digital Photo Mentor

(Normally I would recommend the Masters of Photography website, but it appears that no one is maintaining it lately and so a lot of the images don't even load).