Wasting Megapixels?

Sony recently dropped a bombshell on the camera industry with the announcement of the Sony A7R Mark IV. The “full frame” sensor has 61 megapixels. Five years ago, that many pixels would only be found on medium format sensors. Naturally, all the camera media, and the denizens of various online groups, are abuzz about the camera.

Some of the buzz I've seen doesn't dwell on the megapixel count so much as on the improvements in auto focus and ergonomics. These are two factors I think are far more important than upping the pixel count from 42MP found in the Sony A7R MkIII. In fact, for most people, and most display applications, 61MP is a big waste. It's not just overkill, it's nuclear warfare overkill.

Huh?

Isn't the axiom in photography that sharper (higher resolution) is always better, and this camera offers the highest resolution of any full frame camera to date?

(Note: discussing resolution verses sharpness is fodder for a different article.)

This axiom is true, sort of: it ultimately depends on how the final image is viewed. The rub is that images are viewed on browsers that don't have the same resolution as the original image. Worse, they are most often viewed online, in browsers that are emphasize fast delivery of content over quality. Then there's the fact that many sites where people upload their photos compress the files.

It's like this:

Ed the Enthusiast Photographer happily shells out $3500 for the A7R Mk3. He downloads his first group of photos (RAW of course) into his computer and opens up his preferred editor. That's where things start to get into the overkill range. Ed has a sweet looking 4K monitor, but it's still only 4096x2160 pixels. That's less than half the 9504x6336 image size the A7R MkIV produces at its highest resolution. Where is all that extra detail going?

No problem for Ed: he just zooms in to 100% to see all the glorious detail his new camera is capturing. (At last he can see just how soft the corners are when he shoots his favorite lens wide open!) Ed completes his editing, saves as a .JPEG (oops, there goes some of the detail as he saves in a compressed format) and uploads it to his online gallery (one designed specifically for photographers so it doesn't compress images). To really show off, he also uploads the images to Facebook and Instagram (which do compress images).

From there, the photos are viewed by people who mostly don't have 4K monitors, and who mostly just view the images in their browsers (which default to a pixel per inch far below what a 61MP sensor produces). Ed's enthusiast friends will zoom in to view the images at 100%, and some may even download the originals to really see how they look. Most people, though, will just look at the images however they are displayed by default, and take Ed's word for it that his new camera is “sharper” than his old camera.

Don't get me wrong: I fully support Ed's desire to buy the latest camera. In the case of the Sony A7R Mk3, there are a lot of other improvements to applaud beyond the megapixel count of the sensor. I'm saying the expectation of such a sensor far exceeds the reality for most people and most display applications.

Angie is a commercial photographer who's been using a Hasselblad 50MP medium format camera for years. She's needed the high resolution because her photos are often used for large displays, such as window banners and even billboards. Those display methods take full advantage of (and may even require) a high pixel count. She reads up on the specs of the A7R Mk3, and the fact that there is a wider selection of lenses available, and trades in her Hasselblad gear on a Sony kit.

Doug is a fine art and landscape photographer who produces exquisitely detailed large prints for sale in galleries and through his website. He tends to produce prints ranging from 30 by 40 inches and larger. He's been happy with the output from his Sony A7RMk3, but he sees he can produce prints with even more detail (or larger prints with the same detail) with the A7RMkIV.

Allie is a nature photographer who uses the Sony A9 for it's ruggedness and auto focus capabilities. She sees many of her preferred features are now in the A7RMkIV, with higher resolution to boot. To her it's a done deal. (I threw this last one in because not everyone will buy the camera simply because of the sensor.)

There are people who can expect an improvement in the images they produce for the way they are displayed. Most people already using full frame cameras, however, won't realize any significant improvement in image quality if they bought the Sony A7RMkIV. Displaying online images with most monitors simply doesn't allow for seeing any increase in resolution. I've talked with many “enthusiasts” who don't even realize this.

This is one reason why I'm in no hurry to switch from the Olympus micro four thirds system I use. Yes, on my monitor, at 100% view in my editing software I would see a notable difference between the images taken with my camera and those taken with any full frame camera, much less the 61MP of the A7RMkIV. However I know most other people wouldn't see any difference when they view the images on the various online platforms (two galleries, Facebook and Instagram) that I use.

I'd say if you want to buy the Sony A7MkIV, do so because of the improvement in auto focus, ergonomics, weather sealing and other small features compared to the A7RMk3. Consider the 61MP sensor a bonus.

Are You Using the "Wrong Camera"?

Sure, I'm using the “wrong gear”. It's not “Full Frame”. Not only that, my main work involves concerts and performances, low light photography where “FF” is seen as the standard due to the lower noise levels it offers at a given ISO. Some music togs get by with lowly APS-C rigs, which in some cases are not too bad compared to FF kits. Yet, alas, I use Micro Four Thirds gear (m4/3), with a pitiful sensor only one fourth the surface area of FF, and known to have “horrible noise” at anything above ISO 400.

Well, that's what the CW from a lot of “experts” would have us believe.

Of course, there's another group of “experts” which declare that the gear matters far less than the skill of the photographer, if at all. While this group has a point, I think they are erring too far in the opposite direction from the technocentric views of some of the FF people.

Personally, I think both group forget that using a given set of gear involves a lot of personal, subjective choices involving factors other than image quality. I know people who rarely use their high IQ FF camera gear because it's a chore for them to use (size and weight is usually the reason). I love using my m4/3 gear, because if fits well in my hands, I like the feature set, and enjoy the results. My reasons are all about ME, and that's how it should be.

As I see it, too many people with cameras are trying to live up to expectations laid on them by “them”. “Them” being a sort of self-sustaining consensus of what is the “best camera type” to use, period. Not the best camera type for a given situation. Not the best camera type for a given person. Just, “The Best”.

Using anything is else simply wrong. To prove this, “they” cite “what pros demand” or some other presumably irrefutable evidence that the camera they feel is “The Best” really is best. The irony of this is, pros demand what is the best camera for a given situation, and for them personally. Their livelihood depends on satisfying clients. However, the further irony is that the best, most successful pros got their not because of their gear, but because of their personal style, and to no small degree, their degree of hustle to gain clients.

The result is there are pros using all sorts of “wrong” gear. Photojournalists using smartphones. Fashion photographers using m4/3. And, if you think about it, street photographers toting large FF kits is, in essence, doing it wrong. Most of the time, street photographers want to keep a low profile, which is why Leica rangefinders were so popular during the “film era”. Essentially, the “wrong gear” can go both ways.

So, back to me and my “wrong gear”. The small sensor (in comparison to FF) in my Olympus EM1s is only 16MP. It does indeed produce more noise at higher ISO than FF cameras. If I “pixel peep” (view images at 100% or greater) I can see there is not only more noise, but less detail than if I were to make the same image with most FF cameras. Do I care about the “lesser image quality” my camera gear produces? Sort of.

I care in that it's taken me a few years to develop a post processing workflow to minimize noise while preserving detail. I do this so well that people regularly ask how I get such low noise levels at ISO 3200 and higher with a camera that supposedly provides “unacceptable” results above ISO 3200. I care because I love using my Olympus m4/3 gear so much that if I could find a FF system that offered the overall size, weight and features that my current gear does, I'd switch. Even though FF mirrorless camera bodies from Sony are about the same size as my EM1, the lenses I would use are considerably larger and heavier. To get comparable focal length coverage of my current kit would involve over twice the total weight and a bag about twice the size of my current main bag.

If I did make the switch it wouldn't be to make sure my photos looked like all the other photographers who use FF systems. I like the way the images I produce with my cameras. So do those who buy and use my photos. Compared to what most FF cameras produce in the hands of other photographers, my images are grainier and have less dynamic range. I'm fine with that because they look a bit more like the Kodachrome film I adored when I first got started in 35mm photography.

See, I'm using the “wrong gear”, but getting the right results for me. When I first got into digital photography, it was using a simple Kodak z712is, which while limited in features, resolution, ISO levels and dynamic range, produced gorgeous colors. That mattered a lot to me. I want final images that please me, and if others are pleased by them that's a plus.

As for paying clients: as I pointed out above, paying clients are attracted to the “look” a photographer offers, rarely considering the type of gear they use to get that look. It ends up being more about how the photographer works with light, posing, how his personal vision of what he's shooting translates into the final image.

Gear is the “best gear” if it facilitates fulfilling that vision effectively and hopefully, in as efficient and enjoyable a manner as possible. (Don't underestimate the “enjoyable” aspect. Enjoyment in using gear contributes to the creative flow.) “Wrong gear” is any gear that hinders photographers' ability to capture and produce images which fulfill their vision.

Right now, my gear does that. I am constantly reassessing things, though, yet always end up deciding to stick with my system of choice. For now, it's the right gear for me, though it could very well be the wrong gear for others. Frankly, I don't recommend my gear to anyone else seeking to do concert photography unless they really want to save size and weight. That's because most people want to duplicate the look they see top music photographers who do use FF produce. Also, I doubt many of them would want to spend the time developing the PP flow I use.

Bottom line: the “wrong gear” is only wrong if you're using it for the wrong reason, which comes from letting someone else decide how you should pursue photography.

Are Your Photos Taken or Made?

                                    Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, by Henri Cartier-Bresson.

“Photos are not taken, they are made...”

This statement is mostly attributed to Ansel Adams, though I think he simply was the first really famous photographer to say it. Ansel went on to elaborate: his approach to photography was to carefully plan and execute the way in which the images he captured would ultimately express his impression of the scene. Therein lies the controversy of this statement.

There are those who feel that photography should be as objective a representation of reality as possible. They feel that photos are indeed taken, not made, and that the skill of the photographer comes in using his tools and experience to capture the moment as accurately as possible, with as little work being done after capture as possible. Anything more than minimal processing needed to ensure a technically suitable final image is considered altering reality. And photography, unlike painting, is intended to represent raw reality as much as possible.

So, which is best? Is it to put a lot of work into making a photograph that represents the photographer's impression of the scene? Or is it to put effort into presenting a scene as realistically as possible? It would seem these creative ideologies are in opposition. They are actually just two sides of the same coin, and that coin is planning.

The photo at the top of this page is “Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare”, one of Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous images. It is the essence of his “decisive moment” philosophy of photography, where the most important aspect of an image is that instant in time which tells a story like no other. I don't want to go into too much analysis of this amazing image (things such as the leaping figure on the poster in back which many people fail to notice). I want to point out that as spontaneous as this photo appears, HCB put a lot of planning into it. (some even argue that he staged it, repeatedly asking the man to make his leap until HCB captured the decisive moment.)

Henri Cartier-Bresson based much of his ability to get the decisive moment on careful planning. He would pick locations carefully, sometimes scouting in advance of the time of day when the lighting would be best for the photo he wanted to capture. He would watch what was happening, seeing how human activity might ebb and flow over the course of time. Then he would pick the right location, angle, time of day and activity he wanted to capture, then wait for the decisive moment. (And yes, luck did play a part in his success at times.)

I point this out because I've notice that many of the “photos must reflect reality” folks tend to cite HCB as an inspiration for that, yet think he just walked around with his camera hoping that great photos would materialize in front of him. He seldom did that. Great street photographers seldom leave any more to chance than they have to.

They observe. They explore. They watch for patterns in both the static elements and in human behavior. They wait patiently. They plan ahead so that they are anticipating rather than reacting.

Question: How often do you just grab your camera and head out hoping to encounter suitable subjects, and depend as much on luck as on skill to capture good images? Not that there is anything wrong with a “photo walk”. It's just that it's not always the best way to get the best images at times. Some photographers will even scout certain locations without a camera, just observing things and seeing how the light changes during the course of time and how people move through the scene. Then they come back at the right time of day to capture the images they are seeking. (That's where luck starts to come into play.)

Try it. Try just taking a walk, without camera, through a park or section of town, taking the time to see how the light is, studying the best locations to shoot from and the most interesting angles. Then come back when the light is going to combine with the subject to get the best results. Above all, be patient. You might even have to come back repeatedly before you get “The Shot”. The Decisive Moment image that you can take great pride in.

Sure, this doesn't always work with certain subjects and situations. But I wager that if you do this more often, you'll find yourself spending less time editing out photos you just don't like, and more time making photos you really like display worthy.

Improving on Ansel Adams?

Ansel Adams's iconic "Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico". No photo is perfect, but this image is a full a realization of Adams's vision for the scene as he could achieve. Yet some people think they can "improve" on this image.

Recently a regular on a popular photography website started a thread in which he attempted to “improve” Ansel Adams's iconic “Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico”. He explained why he felt his version was better. All he did, really was crop with a narrower aspect ratio and cut out a portion of the sky. The result was a photo that in his mind was obviously better, inasmuch as it drew more attention to the town in the foreground and left the moon hanging in a smaller expanse of sky.

It also proved he had no real idea why the photo is considered one of the great masterpieces of 20^th Century photography.

Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that the areas of “negative space” that cause the town itself to seem less of the subject, as well as isolating the moon itself, is a major reason the photo is considered a masterful work. (Adams actually tried different crops before settling on the final one we normally see.) Adams broke or stretched a number of accepted conventions of composition, which is why the photo stands out.

A short time later, on the same forum, someone else started a thread asking people if they had drawn any inspiration from Adams and other “old masters” of photography. For me, at least, it was no surprise to see a number of people sniff at the idea that they should take inspiration from Adams and others. That's fine, to a point: we all find some photographers and photographs to be inspirational, and others to be in styles we simply don't relate to.

What struck me is the reason some gave for their dismissing the importance of Adams and other masters of photography. They implied-or said outright-that they think Adams and others are overrated. That's an incredibly bold statement, especially coming from some people whose best work amounts to technically precise photos of their cats or gardens.

Lest people think I'm being some sort of photography snob, let me say a couple of things. First, I have various levels of skill and experience in a variety of creative media. In addition to photography, I'm also a musician (I play multiple instruments and attended Berklee College of Music); a writer and also have enough “connections” among painters and sculptures to understand the perspective on life being that sort of visual artist entails. Among these various disciplines, photography is the one that most invites “elitist artistes”: people who think they represent a much higher level of ability than they actually have, not only in producing their own work, but in critiquing the work of others.

I believe the reason for this is how “easy” it can be to get certain results, especially with today's digital imaging devices (not just dedicated cameras, but smartphones as well. The days of having to thoroughly understand exposure, focus, color, light/shadow and other technical aspects of photography are long gone. Technology allows people to produce images that are technically outstanding (at least in their own view). The ongoing problem with this is the conflation of technical quality with what actually makes for a truly attention grabbing or evocative image.

The forum in question is just one of dozens on a website devoted to digital photography gear, not the photographs themselves. That's the thing about photography, it's so gear driven that a given model of camera can, in a technical sense, provide “better” images than a different model. People can be impressed by the technical quality of otherwise mundane photos.

I see this all the time on various websites. Someone posts what they think is a really good portrait. Others immediately chime in about how sharp it is, how great the exposure is, etc. Meanwhile, I (and others) are noticing that the lighting is less than flattering. The pose is a bit awkward. The framing of the photos and placement of the subject are poor.

Being able to recognize these aesthetic/compositional flaws takes experience, and ideally a bit of training. It's a process of constantly learning and improving which is independent of, yet interwoven with, technical skills and the capability of gear. What I see is that many people pick up a decent camera, wanting to get “pro level results” the marketing folks promise, and settle at seeing sharper, better exposed images with “creamy bokeh” as a sign that they have reached a certain pinnacle as photographers.

At that point, it doesn't take much to nudge certain personality types into the realm of “The Elitist Artist”. These are people who have decided that since they really like their photos, and often have friends or relatives who think they are really good photographers, that they have earned a level of respect usually reserved for people who have actually garnered such accolades from skilled photographers and others who have the right experience in determining how “good” a photo is.

The idea of “good” photos takes a sometimes bizarre turn. People will lug out the old “I consider it art, so it is” argument commonly used to excuse a lack of genuine proficiency in producing images (whether photographic or other) that aren't nearly as “good” as the artiste thinks. That's because they use their own definition of “good”, rather than recognizing there is a consensus among skilled photographers, editors, collectors, critics and museum curators as to what sort of photo is worthy of putting in a magazine or on a gallery wall, and what isn't.

Often, what the experts note as making a photo stand out from the crowd can be subtle aspects that most people don't recognize or appreciate. It's not that the experts inherently smarter or better at analyzing photos. It's often just a matter of training and especially, experience. I recognize this in my own evolution as a photographer.

For many years, I didn't “get” the photos of Gary Winogrand, and certain other photographers whose work encompassed points of view and subtles I simply didn't recognize. Then I found a quote by Gary Winogrand:

“Photography is not about the thing photographed. It's about how that thing looks photographed”.

Yeah, took me a while to wrap my head around that. Then I examined my own thinking about what the purpose of a photograph, at least in how Winogrand was thinking, actually is. I had spent years in photography hoping to capture images that were as realistic as possible, or at least presented my perspective on a given subject. The assumption behind this thinking is that a photograph actually presents the world in a realistic way. In truth, it doesn't.

Fundamentally a photograph captures a finite moment in time, with a number of variables subjectively controlled by the photographer, of a world that is full of ongoing action and an infinite number of perspectives of any given subject or event. Sure, advances in 3D imaging allow for impressive images that can be rotated and viewed from a potentially infinite number of angles, but it's still a select moment in time, chosen subjectively by the photographer.

What I'm getting at is that for me, I “didn't get” a lot of photographs and photographers' styles because I was comparing the images to my intention if I were to photograph the same subject. That handicaps the ability to examine and appreciate a given photograph as a photograph, because the concentration is on whether or not the image presents the subject in a way we can appreciate or even understand.

That's why I think that the gentleman who tried to improve “Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico” was missing the point of the photo to begin with. He was wanted to present the scene in a way he found matched his own aesthetic, where as Ansel Adams wanted to present the scene not only as he perceived it, but also how he felt is would look best as a photograph. Personally, coming to recognize this aspect of photographic composition (and to a certain extent, technique) not only led me to a greater appreciation of a number of photographs and photographers I didn't pay much attention to before, but it also has fueled some progress in my own photography.

The second thing I want to make sure is understood is that I do believe everyone is entitled to an opinion, and there will always be those who disagree with a given point of view. The thing is that not everyone's opinion carries equal weight when critiquing the artistic works of acknowledged masters. At times it's semantics: a person may say Adams is overrated when what he may actually mean is he doesn't find Adams's photos particularly appealing. Or he may simply not “get it”.

Still, there are those (as in the case of the forum threads I'm describing) that honestly think they have the critiquing skills to seriously say that Ansel Adams, and others, are overrated. When they say they “don't get it”, they are not admitting to their own limited understanding of what makes for great photographs. What they are saying is that they think those who “do get it” are somehow ill-informed or lack critiquing skills.

Sure, you'll find this in any creative medium. However, reaching such an attitude is, in my opinion, much easier in photography. A musician actually has to practice effectively for a certain amount of time to reach a skill level where others will actually be willing to listen to her play or sing. From there, a musician is expected to “pay dues” before gaining enough credibility to either question the ability of other musicians, or declare herself some sort of master who can offer authoritative criticism of other musicians.

Part of this is because even someone with no musical training or ability can recognize a bad musician. Playing a guitar like a hack, or singing off key, is recognizable by almost anyone. As I mentioned above, such is not the case with photography. Untrained or inexperienced people, accustom to the middling results they get with a smartphone with dirty lens or a cheap point and shoot, can be so impressed by the higher quality and smoother bokeh of a photos taken with even the cheapest interchangeable lens camera that they assume there was a great deal of skill involved. (Ironically, they also think the opposite: I frequently have people say that I must have a “really good camera” to get the results I do. I do , but others have similarly capable cameras and get much poorer results under the same circumstances.)

So, what am I getting at?

Several things. Don't let technical quality of photos fool others-or yourself-into thinking you're a better photographer than you really are. Be willing to look at and learn from photographs by those who are considered masters, or at least experts, even if you don't “get” the images right away. Don't go around talking (or posting online) with an attitude that surpasses your ability. Mostly, as I often say, just go out and enjoy taking photos of what you want, in the way you want. However, if you seriously want to improve your photography, think about what it is you want people viewing your photos to think and feel, beyond the ubiquitous “nice shot” praises. Avoid the pretentiousness of being an “Artiste” at all costs. Even Ansel Adams remained humble his entire life, and constantly cited other photographers that inspired him. No one is ever such a master that they can't keep learning and improving.

Thinking Inside the Box

"Shooting square" helps this portrait draw attention to the eyes. In a rectangular format,
there would be too much extra space for the eye to wander around in.

I periodically come up with challenges for myself in order to expand and improve upon my photographic abilities, both technical and aesthetic. This is a long accepted practice, and I've (usually) found it does help me “think outside the box”. Most of us can fall into creative habits which can not only limit what we produce when it comes to our images, but leave us in a rut as well.

I'm starting 2019 thinking inside the box. A 1:1 box that is. Square photos.

Why am I doing this?

There was a time when a great number of photos were being taken with cameras that shot in square format. 2 1/4” square (120 film format) twin lens reflex, and then later single lens reflex cameras were once the choice of professionals and enthusiasts. They wouldn't do a wedding or portrait shoot with anything less. Even amateurs would find themselves “shooting square” with a variety of “box cameras” and lower end models, such as the various “Brownie” iterations and the 126 Instamatic of the 1960s.

One advantage of square format cameras is there is no need to change the orientation of the camera for “portrait mode” as is done with rectangular format cameras. This can also be a bit of a disadvantage, because if you do want to frame a shot in a vertical format, you have to crop off a portion of the frame. Still, this wasn't that much of an issue when cropping from 120, medium format cameras because the resulting image would still have more detail than that taken with most 35mm films.

However, various factors-most notably the growth in popularity of 35mm cameras as well as the 110 Instamatic, rectangular format, mostly with a 3:2 ratio, has pretty much taken over photography. The exception is still professional or enthusiast use where medium format dslrs are preferred.

So then, why shoot in square format?

Good question.

I already crop rectangular images to square compositions regularly.(I shoot Olympus m4/3 cameras, which happen to have a native 4:3 ratio). Sometimes an image looks best that way, especially portraits. Often I “previsualize” an image that way while I'm composing in the viewfinder. (Previsualization is an important aspect of creating strong and appealing images.) Other times, I decide in post processing that an image will look better in a 1:1 ratio.

Since my mirrorless cameras allow me to set a 1:1 format that appears that way in the viewfinder, I've decided to “go retro” in a way and do most of my personal work that way for the next few months. The goal is to force myself to think of compositions in terms of the benefits and constraints of a 1:1 ratio.

I had my camera set to square format, so this is what I saw in the viewfinder. I switched
to 4:3 format and didn't see a composition I liked as much as this.

Aside from the afore-mentioned benefit of not having to turn a camera on its side to compose an image, there are some aesthetic opportunities afforded by shooting in square format:

• The “Rule of Thirds” takes on a different dynamic. The squares and intersections of the Rule of Thirds are equally distributed within the frame, which can both help or hurt using this technique for composing.
• The dreaded “dead center” framing can actually work well in square format. This is because there is less “dead space” along the sides.
• The format itself creates a different emotional/aesthetic response in the viewer. It can create a more “static” appearance: it actually leads the eye to stay within the frame more. This can either lead to boring photos, or force better use of not only Rule of Thirds, but “S” curves, triangles and other methods of composition that make for more engaging images.
• "Negative Space" can create a decidedly different effect than when used in rectangular formats.
• Square format stands out from the multitude of rectangular images people see every day.

So, if you're looking for ways to broaden your photographic horizons, give “shooting square” a try. In fact, you don't even need to “shoot square”. You can always just go back through your existing images and experiment with cropping in 1:1 format if you don't already. Still, this doesn't get the creative juices flowing quite as much as actually making captures in 1:1 format.

If you have a mirrorless camera, you can probably already set it to 1:1. It will only produce .jpegs in that format: RAW will still be rectangular. Many smartphone cameras allow for setting 1:1 ratio. There are also smartphone apps you can download that offer this ratio. Compact cameras are a mixed bag: some allow for 1:1 shooting, some don't. You'll just have to check the menu to find out.

If you shoot with a dslr, you're pretty much stuck shooting rectangular and cropping in post. This is where previsualization comes in, which is a good thing to work on anyway. It can take time and practice to look through a rectangular viewfinder and see the image as a square composition, but you can do it if you are patient. People shooting 35mm cameras did this for decades.

Give thinking inside the (square) box a try. You might find it opens up levels of creativity you haven't touched on before.

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.