All In a Name?

Dennis Hopper in "Apocalypse Now".

“Photographer”

The name elicits different visions within people's minds. It might be a sports photographer with a big, white lens on the sidelines of a sporting event. It might be a photojournalist in a war-torn city. It might be a fashion photographer working with expensive models. It may be closer to home for most people, such as a wedding or portrait photographer. In any case, there is an assumption the title applies to someone who is earning a living as a photographer.

“I'm a photographer”.

This phrase evokes similar thoughts. People naturally assume that someone uttering those words somehow falls into the category of a person who really knows what they are doing when it comes to using a camera and producing eye-catching photos. The reality is different, however.

Many people I encounter who call themselves photographers really do so not because they work as a professional, or even because they have a notable level of skill. It's because they have a hobby-photography-that they support with expensive and sophisticated equipment. One day they are going around capturing photos with a smartphone or inexpensive point and shoot, just like a lot of other people. The next day they become a photographer because they bought a DSLR or MILC with a couple of lenses.

When it comes to other hobbies/arts/crafts that involve equipment, photography is an odd phenomenon. Someone can buy a guitar and amplifier that costs just as much, if not considerably more, than a camera kit, but won't so readily call themselves a “Guitarist”. Perhaps that's because most people can easily tell whether a person qualifies as a “Guitarist” (someone with above average skill who possibly earns a living playing guitar). A person who owns a $10,000 Taylor guitar, but stumbles through the opening of “Stairway to Heaven” will quickly convince others they're just own a really nice guitar and know how to play it (sort of), but they are not a “Guitarist”.

Why is it then, that people so easily refer to themselves as photographers simply because they own good gear and take a lot of photographs?

I see several reasons.

One is that people who don't own expensive camera gear seem to assume that someone walking around with a big, full frame DSLR with a big lens and a camera bag must be, if not a professional, then someone with above average skill. Unfortunately expensive gear doesn't correlate to skill in photography (even though many people with expensive gear think that's the case). I regularly see photos on photography forums that could just as well have been taken with a smartphone-and are less engaging than many smartphone photos.

Another reason is that most cameras today make if pretty easy to create technically good images. Many of those images have characteristics which are difficult, or even impossible, to achieve with a smartphone or cheap point and shoot cameras. Examples are shallow depth of field/bokeh (though some smartphones can now simulate this through computational photography); frozen action through high shutter speeds; very wide angle or long telephoto images; and macro images. Low light photography is a situation in which smartphones and cheaper cameras continue to fall short of more expensive gear as well.

The result is something like this: Stephanie decides she wants to “get serious” about photography and buys a Sony A7Riii and a couple of zoom lenses, as well as a 50mm f1.8 prime “for the creamy bokeh”. She makes essentially the same types of photos she's been making with her iPhone-her cat, her kids, her garden-but now they have aspects that were lacking on her iPhone images such as higher resolution, shallower depth of field, and close in views thanks to the 70-200 zoom she bought.

All her friends are wowed by her photos because they look better than what they take with their phones and point and shoots, and tell Stephanie she should become a professional. That's when she started calling herself a photographer.

She convinces a coworker to let her shoot his upcoming wedding. After all, she's a photographer with “professional gear”. She's never shot a wedding before, but how hard can it be?

Hard enough that real professional wedding photographers have spent years honing their craft.

She decides to only charge her coworker $200 (as a favor). Since that's a tenth of what the established wedding photographers in town charge, he jumps at the offer. After all, Stephanie is a photographer with really nice photos taken with her really nice camera.

Stephanie shows up at the wedding with just her camera and lenses. Because that's the only gear she has. She wanders around the chapel, and then the reception hall, taking photos the same way she usually does, just sort of pointing her camera at what she likes and pressing the shutter. At the close of the reception she tells the bride and groom she has “a couple of hundred really good ones” and promises to send them a CD with all of the images in a couple of days.

The newlyweds return from their honeymoon to find the promised CD waiting with their mail. They eagerly open the envelope and pop the CD into their computer. The images that appear are vibrant, mostly, except for the underexposed ones. And that one they would have loved to make a print of is kind of blurry. Why are the heads cut off of so many close ups, and the legs cut off awkwardly on the group shots? There are no photos of the groom's parents, and the ones of the bride's parents are just of them sitting at the table during the reception. And what is with the ceremony photos being so yellow and dark looking...?

The couple now wishes they'd paid the $2000 for a real photographer, because Stephanie really isn't one.

This brings up the third reason why people so readily call themselves photographers just by virtue of the gear they own: lack of knowledge of what truly good photos look like. I'm not talking about the technical aspect. A monkey can literally take technically good photos with modern gear. I'm talking about having the knowledge of photography as a craft, and art, to both know how to capture photos under various conditions as well as make sure those photos are aesthetically pleasing and emotionally engaging.

In the minds of most people, the label “photographer” implies an ability to produce images that “non-photographers” seldom produce. The gear doesn't do this: it only enhances the ability of the photographer. I refer to people who know how to use expensive camera gear effectively, but produce images that aesthetically are no better than what they'd get with a smartphone “camera operators”. That's all they are really doing, just operating a camera.

Of course, many people will argue with me about this (and do) because they look at their high resolution, ultra-sharp, perfectly exposed photos of their cat with creamy bokeh and declare that such images prove they deserve the title “photographer”. I no longer try to argue with such people. It's not worth the agitation and besides: the expensive gear they buy helps camera companies stay in business and produce the sort of gear that “real photographers” use.

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.

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.

Make the Most of that New Camera, Part 1.

Photo courtesy of phlearn.com

So, you just received a new camera for Christmas, maybe even that DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) or MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera) you've been wanting. Such cool features as interchangeable lenses, lots of settings and a nice, big sensor that you are sure will take your photos to the next level. You're ready to step up and start taking those "professional looking photos" that the salesperson said that new camera is capable of producing (and it is.)

While such a camera is an upgrade over a compact point and shoot or a smartphone, a sophisticated camera with larger sensor and nicer lens doesn't guarantee better photos. They may look nicer, especially when taken under conditions where other cameras or a phone are lacking, but there are some things to remember to really make your photos shine.

I'm going to touch on a few basic points, especially that have to do with portraits, that will make the difference between "nice shot" and "Whoa, you ought to become a professional!" (OK, maybe not the latter.)

Eyes in Motion.

The main thing that makes a difference between a photo someone likes to keep looking at and one they simply glance at for a few seconds is how much his attention moves throughout the photo in a comfortable way. A good photo has a main subject, but also other "points of interest" that lead the eye around the image. This creates visual interest that draws the viewer into the photo and keeps her there longer. The points of interest can be secondary subjects, highlight or shadow areas or areas of differing colors. The following are some ways to get the viewer's eye to skip merrily through a photo, making it stand out in the mind of the viewer.


Rule of Thirds.

This is the most basic "rule" of composition (more like a guideline, really) that frequently sets good photos apart from mediocre ones. There is a tendency for people to place the subject of a photo dead center in the frame. Sometimes this can work, especially if it's a closely framed portrait. Much of the time, however, it results in a very static composition that quickly loses interest.

Rule of thirds is simple: the frame is divided into thirds (many cameras with electronic viewfinders and phones even allow for this grid to be shown.) By placing the main subject and ideally, secondary subjects either on the intersection of the grid lines or along one of the lines, the eye is more apt to move across the photo, thus increasing visual interest.

Example:

See how the goose falls almost exactly on the intersection of two of the grid lines?  (It doesn't have to be perfect to work.) This helps lead the eye around the frame of the photo: the brain likes that visual motion and finds the photo more interesting. What adds to the effect is the gradation of the light and color as well, due to the reflection of the trees along the top. Now here's a version with the goose just positioned in the center:

Pretty boring, eh? Even with the interest provided by the reflection, the eye just sort of sits there. This might be OK for a guidebook on birds or a science article, but it's not going to get anyone thinking how great a photographer you are if you took it, at least not compared to the other image.

Take the Lead.

Leading lines is another way of keeping the eye moving through a photo and providing interest. It's a pretty simple concept: use lines in the photo to draw attention to the main subject. They can be actual lines, or simply lines created by light and shadow. In either case, it's a great way to get a photo to say "Hey, look at THIS!"

Example:

Notice how the various lines created by the folds in the sheet, as well as lines of highlights and shadows, all point toward the partially hidden face and eye? Your eye travels around the photo, but never rests in one spot, always being redirected to the main subject which is the eye. What other guideline does this image incorporate? That's right, the Rule of Thirds. The eye is placed along the line dividing the upper third of the photo, though it's not at the intersection of two grid lines. It doesn't have to be for the Rule of Thirds to work.

Remember: most of the time you want to create this sense of visual restlessness because that's what makes the photo interesting.

Curvessssssss.

Another guideline that helps promote visual interest is the "S Curve". It's exactly what the term describes: an invisible (or sometimes visible) "S" snaking through the photo, leading the eye around the image, providing the restlessness and visual interest to keep the viewer interested.

Example:

I bet you're thinking "Hey, that's cheating!" because the curve is right there in front, and looks like the main subject. But does your eye return there, or to the lady bending over to look at the other sculpture? Ahhhh. That's because there are other curves involved that lead your eye around the image.

We often don't notice "S" curves at work in photos because they can be subtle, (or in this case both obvious and subtle). No, "S" curves don't always have to be a complete "S" to help the image maintain visual interest. A curve in a photo can "hand off" the path of motion created for the eye without being a complete "S" itself.

While a photo of a meandering river or curving path with someone walking along it are obvious ways to use the "S" curve to help a photo shine, practice in observation and analyzing photos teaches you to notice "S" curves in otherwise mundane scenes. In this example, you probably see now just how many curves are involved in provoking visual interest that I didn't mark off. Sometimes the subject calls for "S" curves to be subtle, but other times the curves themselves can become the subject. As is the case here. If the woman had been standing upright as her companion was, this would have been a much less interesting photo.

That brings up the last point I want to cover in Part One of "Make the Most of That New Camera": timing. With this shot, I'd watched as the woman had already bent over to read the small tags on other sculptures, so I anticipated she would do the same thing with the one she is looking at here. I positioned myself where I wanted all the elements to fall into place, and hoped she would bend just right...and I got a single frame before she stood up again and walked on with her companion.

Master photographer Ansel Adams said that good photographs are not taken, they are made. These basic elements of composition, combined with some patience, timing and determination to make the best photographs you can, will help you get the most of your new camera, or even that trusty cell phone you take with you everywhere except into the shower.

Part Two will concentrate on portrait techniques, since people pictures make up 90% of photos taken and shared.