An "Impossible" Photo

Willy Porter and Carmen Nickerson. Copyright 2016, Charles Black and Eye Guess Photography. Photo taken with Olympus
OMD EM1 and 50-200 f2.8-3.5 zoom. ISO 5000, 1/200 at f3.5, 200mm

This photo of Willy Porter and Carmen Nickerson is supposed to be "impossible". It was produced with a micro four thirds camera, the Olympus OMD EM1. According to some people the sensor in my camera is too small to use for concert photography. High ISO images, such as this one shot at ISO 5000, are just too noisy, too lacking in detail to be any good.

At least that's what some "experts" say. The thing is, many of these "experts" are the types who depend very heavily on their cameras to do things they should be using their own minds to do. That is, take the steps necessary to capture images in a way that allows for the final version to look the way they want it to look. What has happened is that some people become fixated on "OOC" images (out of camera) and eschew and criticize any images that they feel have had too much post processing done.

This is actually a pretty ridiculous attitude given that for the entire history of photography the greatest images have often involved extensive "post processing" of some sort. However, this article isn't about the whole "OOC vs PP" argument that continues to rage on various websites and at camera club meetings. It's about how to make sure your chosen photographic tool produces images that may seem "impossible". Whether that photographic tool is a smartphone, compact camera, or top of the line DSLR, the principles behind "impossible" images are the same.

1. Get to know your equipment. Understand what it can do well and what its limitations are. Then understand that it's a stupid, inanimate object and you do the thinking. Study some books, articles or watch videos about photography, not just about gear. Learn basic principles such as exposure, dynamic range (the range of dark and bright areas that retain detail in the photo) and other things that your dumb camera can only adjust based on fixed, programmed parameters.
2. Learn how photographs you admire were created. This will help you understand things such as lighting, composition, posing models, etc. You will find that in very few instances did the photographer depend on the camera by itself to make the image stand out. One thing that makes the best pros the best, and the Masters the Masters, is realizing that a camera is a tool that has to be used in the right way, not the decision maker in the creative process.
3. Get a good editing program, and learn it in depth. I use Adobe Creative Cloud, which consists of Light Room and Adobe CC. I also have a collection of plug ins that do things the basic applications can't, or don't do as well. There are plenty of programs out there, many of them free. If you primarily use your smartphone for photography, I recommend Snapseed or Photoshop Elements for Android. They're free, and allow for a lot of adjustments. There are also some terrific apps specifically for iPhone.Then, learn the real editing part of the software, not just the cool looking effects. Those effects only go so far in making photos truly stand out. Some people call some of my images "amazing" and nearly all of those images have no special effects added: it's just a good combination of my experience and skill in photography in general, the camera and the software.
4. Experiment. One great thing about digital is you can take thousands of images without it costing much to do so. This allows you to capture images of a huge variety of subjects under a wide range of conditions. Take lots of photos with different in camera settings. Then see how those settings related and interact with settings in the editor. 
5. Develop a front to back workflow. The "OOC" folks tend to put almost all their attention on the moment of capture, and how the camera is set for that. They are selling themselves short, in my opinion. Photography has always been about a complete process to create the final image, not just how to set the camera appropriately for the moment of capture. That's where step 4 becomes so helpful: over time, you will find how in camera settings A will work with editor adjustments B to create a certain look to your images that set them apart from the "typical snapshot". What I mean is that know, before you even capture the image, how you want the final image to look, and how what you have the camera set for works with what you will do in post processing to achieve that look.
6. Be your own harshest critic. Probably the area most people hinder themselves in improving their photography is they don't know how to effectively self-critique. What usually happens is emotional involvement with an image makes a person think it's a better photo than it really is. I regularly look at "great photos" people submit to forums and think "Holy Buckets of Cod, why did that person even keep that image?" I know the answer: it's a photo of a child, or pet, or pretty sunset, and they wanted to preserve the memory. That is really what photography is best for. However, it doesn't mean the photographs are good as photographs. It just means they are good as a preserved memory. Learnt to separate emotional assessment of the memory from critical assessment of the technical and aesthetic qualities of the image.

All of this can take some time to put together, but the results are worth it. It's taken me a couple of years to develop the familiarity with both my gear and software, as well as my workflow, to create images which defy the conventional wisdom of how they are expected to look. I'm not alone in this regard. I have seen some images from iPhones and Android phones that are breathtaking, because the photographers took the time to learn their tools, learn the best process, and make it all work for them, whether someone else says it's impossible or not.

Good luck and take lots of photos.

"The Shot": Ellis Paul, Sunday, April 24, 2016

(Danger Will Robinson: Since this blog is primarily about things creative, and I am being so creative in other areas I've been neglectful of being creative with this blog, I'm going to use my other creative endeavors more to be creative here.)

Ellis Paul in Concert. Copyright 2016 Charles Black & Eye Guess Photography. I gave myself permission, to use this photo. All others must ask.

Photographers great and not so great, are always hoping for "The Shot". It's an image that even before you trip the shutter, you realize is going to say something special, or at least look cooler than anything else you do at that time.

For a concert photographer, The Shot can do a few different things. In some cases, it epitomizes the atmosphere of the concert that it might be the only one needed to make people wish they'd been there. Or, it might be one that presents the performer in a way that sums up his or her talent and style in a single image. Then at times it's an image that does the opposite, stripping away the stage persona and revealing a side of the performer not often seen.

This is that sort of shot.

Ellis Paul is a great singer/songwriter who is usually very congenial and outgoing on stage. He connects very well with the audience, and it shows in how much the audience appreciates his performances. Sometimes though, all performers have moments when they sort of disconnect from the show and tap into something the audience can't see, some etherial place where the musician's chosen Muse resides.

When that moment happens, it seems the audience disappears for an instant as the musician connects with the Power that feeds his soul and drives his music. This is Ellis Paul in that moment.

Happy Mothers Day to Adoptive and Foster Mothers

Mothers Day is an odd holiday for adoptees and foster children. We all have a woman who we consider "mom". She may not have birthed us, but she loved us as her own nonetheless. She took the extra steps to love a child that was not of her own flesh, born of her own womb. That's an extra special mother in my eyes.

Then there's our "birth" or "biological" mother. (don't ever call her our "real mother") Sometimes we know who she is, and end up being glad she isn't in the role that we want a mother to be. We have our mothers, and both we, and those dysfunctional women who were at least smart enough to give us up because they knew they couldn't raise a child at that time, are better off not being part of each others' lives.

Then there are the birth mothers who keep in touch, who remain some part of our lives even if circumstances kept them from being or one and only moms. We are blessed with a bittersweet good fortune in this case, having two moms as it were.

But most of the time, our birth mothers are a mystery of varying magnitudes. Depending on the state and the circumstances, we may have complete knowledge of a mother we have never met, or nothing but the idea that someone out there gave birth to us, but left our lives soon after.

For some of us, that mystery can haunt our entire lives. What was her name? When I look in the mirror, how much of what I see is her? Do my daughters look anything like her? Do I have siblings out there somewhere?

Did it rip her heart in pieces to give me up for someone else to be my mother, or was she glad to be rid of me? Does she consider the same questions about me that I consider about her? Do her thoughts dwell on me as often as mine dwell on her? Is she even still alive? Is see searching for me, as I may have searched for her, only to find laws that are meant to keep us apart as long as we live?

Some of us adoptees and foster children find the answers to these questions. Sometimes when we do it's a wonderful, joyful occasion. Other times it results in heartbreak and regret. In my own search for my birth mother, I've read as many horror stories as happy endings.

So here we are, adoptees and fosters, facing a holiday that may remind us of heartache and loss, or joyful fulfillment, or nothing at all. Some in our situation find themselves simply filled with emptiness when it comes to Mothers Day. Their adopted or foster mothers turned out to be as dysfunctional as they imagined their birth mothers might be or actually were. They are children who deserved a good mother as much as anyone else did, but never had such a blessing.

This is my salute to all those adoptive and foster mothers who took us into your lives and did the best job you knew how raising someone else's flesh and blood. We know that with few exceptions, you consider us as much your sons and daughters as if you had bore us from your own wombs.

For that, one day a year isn't nearly enough.

Less IS Best.

Let's say you've decided to take your involvement in photography up a notch, going beyond the endless flow of selfies, the keepsakes and the occasional “doesn't that look cool” grab shot.

Let's say part of that process was getting a dedicated photo editor (Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, Snapseed et al) instead of just relying on Instragram filters or the effects your smartphone camera has built in.

Let's say you're sitting down at your computer, editor open and looking at a photo and checking out all those cool sliders like “Clarity”, “Noise Reduction”, “Sharpen” etc.

Let's say you're wondering what to do with all those nifty, yet daunting controls, and are hoping to find a tutorial on how to use them to best effect.

Well, this ain't that tutorial. Said tutorials are built into the help functions of the various editors, and can also be easily found on YouTube or via Google. I can't offer anything that would be better than any of those, (probably not even as good). What I can do is offer an important piece of advice that many people starting to use more advanced editors really need to heed:

Less is More. Take It Easy. Dial It Back a Notch. Don't Overdo It. Chill.

Yes, that is all one piece of advice.

You see, what happens when many people get their hands on some of the controls in a good editor is they become enamored of what the effect does, beyond their ability to recognize when the effect has become destructive to the image. An otherwise nice looking photo can be ruined by overdoing certain helpful functions, and often a beginner doesn't recognize what is going wrong. But those with a more experienced eye will see the problems, and we see a lot of them because the overuse of certain effects is rampant.

Oh yeah, here's a second piece of advice:

Keep Things in Order.

This is important because certain effects can adversely affect other changes. For instance, making exposure or contrast changes can make noise (that grainy look) worse. So noise reduction should be applied before doing any exposure or contrast changes. Most people use the following workflow when applying various effects and controls. Note: You should do any cropping before starting further work on the image.

1. Noise Reduction
2. Contrast/Exposure/Color Saturation (these 3 are interdependent and often must be tweaked at the same time)
3. Special Effects Filters
4. Sharpening.

The reason for this order is simple, and important: each change could have an adverse effect on the previous changes if done before, rather than after. I could go into some in depth technical explanation why, but this isn't really a technical article, so just Google it if you want.

Now comes the whole “Chill” part. There are two reasons why changes should be conservative. The best way to proceed when getting started is to make a change to a certain point, then dial it back about 10%. The reason is because of, you guessed it, how future changes will influence the changes already made.

Noise Reduction: Digital photography has created an expectation that images should be as smooth-toned as possible. The days in which “grain” was an acceptable part of using certain films to produce photos are gone. In fact, some people assess photos primarily by how much noise they have, with other factors such as whether the photo is even worth looking at being secondary. But I digress.

Getting rid of noise is both easy and a pain. Simple noise reduction usually involves just clicking a button or, better yet, moving a slider until the photo looks “clean”. The problem is that reducing noise also reduces detail, so too much noise reduction can result in a smeared looking photo, or one that is so artificially digital it looks like it's CGI instead of a photo of real life.

Sharpening can recover some of this detail, but not all of it. So it's always better to take it easy with noise reduction, in part because the next steps can help reduce noise as well.

Exposure/Contrast/Color Saturation: One of the great things about digital is that it's much easier to correct or change exposure (brightness level) contrast and color saturation. However, because these three are interdependent in a lot of ways, you will find that making small adjustments of each on is better than trying to improve or fix an image by making a big adjustment in a single area.

Increasing exposure is going to make most photos look like the contrast and perhaps color saturation, have been reduced, while decreasing exposure can have the opposite effect. Increasing or decreasing contrast can make a photo look over or under exposed, and throw off color saturation. Increasing or decreasing color saturation can give an apparent increase or decrease in contrast. This is why adjusting these three settings really needs a light touch, and some patience, to get things looking the way you want.

How does all of this can have an effect on noise levels? Increasing exposure can make noise more apparent in shadow areas. Increasing color saturation can make noise more apparent in large areas with little detail. Contrast changes can make existing noise more obvious. However, reducing things such as shadow or black level can make noise less obvious, at the expense of losing some shadow detail. All of this is why you do noise reduction first, then go gentle with the next set of changes.

Special Effects Filters: Yes, they can make your pics look really cool. When used properly. And sparingly. As in not on every photo you want to share. Really. Not every pic is well served by the vignetting, or old style film effects, or overdone tone mapping. Always keep in mind that as a photographer, what may be a great shot to you involves your emotional investment in that image, something that may not be shared by others.

Effects filters can make a shot look better, or be more attractive to the viewer, but my advice is the same, to dial the effect back about 10%, or more, from what you think looks good. Most importantly, always, always, always consider whether the image is actually improved, or made more aesthetically appealing, through using effects filters. Often what people do is take an image that should simply be deleted and make it worth looking at for a few seconds by adding the effect(s). However, that doesn't really make the image worth keeping, it just makes it the photographic equivalent of a gimmick song by a “One Hit Wonder” musical artist.

Sharpening: Sharpening isn't really sharpening. No, I mean it. All sharpening does is increase the brightness or darkness between adjacent pixels, making lines between light and dark more apparent. Your brain perceives this as an increase in sharpness, to a point. However, if you apply too much sharpening, you create halos around certain areas in the image and it ends up looking like that photo taken with your brand new $800 dslr kit was made with a cheap cell phone. In fact, oversharpening is probably the main way in which people ruin images.

Modern editors have some wonderful sharpening tools. I recommend sticking with Unsharp Mask to start, although the smart sharpening tools found in Photoshop and some other apps handle the task quite well. Just keep in mind that some dialing back of what you think looks good is usually in order.

Remember how I said that each change can affect previous changes? This is why sharpening should be done last, because if you sharpen a photo, then do something like noise reduction, it won't work as well as it should. The noise reduction is basically trying to undo the sharpening process. It's kind of like trying to change your shirt while still wearing your coat.

Clarity: This is sort of a “fix a lot of stuff at once” tool. You should still do noise reduction first, but clarity can eliminate doing other things like exposure adjustment or sharpening. As the name of the effect implies, it improves the clarity of the photo by making all those other adjustments at once. So the sliders in a clarity control handle the interdependent adjustments of exposure, contrast, color saturation, black/white/shadow/highlight levels and even sharpening all at once.

This sounds like a great tool, and it is for a lot of photos, but it can also be overused. Too much clarity can result in an image with a bizarre combination of too much contrast, with grungy looking dark areas and plastic looking bright areas.

At this point you might be asking “Can't I just use the 'One Stop Photo Fix' or similar one-click option in my editor?” The answer is yes you can. Keep in mind, however, that this control works by comparing your image to thousands of “normal” photographs and changing things to match that “look”. That's a look you may or may not want. Also, photos which are not “average” will turn out disastrously with one stop options. Concert photos, for instance, with great areas of darkness and colored lights, will turn out looking horrible most of the time when fixitall options are used.

The bottom line is making your photos look awesome using photo editors takes some time and experimentation. Eventually you will find settings that make your photos look great, but also like your photos instead of photos imagined by the programmers of the editor. That's why I didn't include any examples in this article: how I produce my photos is based on my tastes and goals, and yours may be very different. You may like levels of effects that I don't, and ultimately it's up to you to decide what works best.

One final consideration, be aware of how others will be viewing your photos. What looks great on the 5” screen of your iPhone 6 or LG G3 may not look so good on the 22” monitors people are viewing it on as they peruse Facebook. Problems which you can't see or appear minimal on a phone or tablet screen become major bugaboos on a computer monitor. If you're going to be printing photos, that involves a different approach to editing, and so a different article.

Most of all, enjoy!

How I Learned to Love Photoshop, and Then Some.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love the Camera You're With.

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

A Nikon D2X.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Square for Art, Thou Romeo?

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

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

wasted space or dead areas.

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

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

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

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

Funny you should ask.

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

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

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

if done right.

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

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

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

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

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

What about other subjects?

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

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

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

Going square with this image allowed me to eliminate some

distracting elements, as well as create better balance between

the grave markers.

That all sounds good, but what about landscapes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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