I've been thinking a lot about digital imaging these days and how it compares with the chemistry days of photography. Anyone who has read my journal posts (is anyone reading them?) know I lost heart for a long time when digital took over the photography world. That experience changed me in a lot of ways, not always for the better. But with the passage of time, and a lot of soul searching, I have found digital imaging to be a wonderful way to communicate my vision and thoughts photographically.
It may not appear so, but the way we work with digital images has a lot in common with how we used to work with film. There are the technical aspects of course, shutter speeds and apertures still control the amount of light and the effect one gets in an image... it's just on an electronic sensor instead of a silver film base. We still use light-tight boxes (cameras) and optical focus devices (lenses) to capture the scene, and we still need to somehow develop these images to view them. Of course, we don't need to stand in a darkened room smelling chemicals and getting stained clothes as we process film or create prints, but we are still "developing" when we color balance or edit our images with computer software. There is one great difference I have found that is beneficial to the photographic process, at least for me. Without the burden of spending countless hours processing film and printing in the darkroom, I find myself more focused on the thinking behind capturing and creating an image at the actual time of creation... in the field. This may seem counter intuitive to those that believe the image is created in the darkroom or on the computer as it seems reasonable to believe the more time spent editing, the more you are interpreting an image. Although I agree that does happen, I don't believe ALL creation comes from this post processing phase. Regardless of how long you take or your expertise in the editing process, the foundations of what you have to work with are set when you capture the image on film or with sensor, and the more you have to work with, the greater the result can be. Photography is not about being digital... or about being chemical... or about one being better or more traditional or more real or whatever other inane argument you may see online. I can appreciate film and chemistry for what it is without feeling like I've sold out or abandoned "real" photography. If we want to get down to it, photography started out with daguerreotypes -- positive images on metal. So film negatives aren't real by that standard at all! If anything, photography is about communication and about interpreting. It's about feeling, about emotion, about understanding, not chemistry and sensors.
0 Comments
I'm just got back from the Valérie Jardin Street Photography workshop... and I don't know what to say. There are so many things running through my head, the experience, the photography, the learning... where does one start?
I could write on technical issues -- how street photography and environmental photography are two different animals, from your visual perspective to the settings on your camera; Or I could discuss the workshop itself -- the cold weather I had to be overcome, the enjoyment of meeting others with the same love of photography, and the impressions of walking downtown Dallas; And what about our esteemed mentor, Valérie Jardin... I could go on and on about her photographic experiences, her passion for sharing her knowledge, her love of teaching. I'm sure I will write about all of these things, but for now, I'm thinking about the workshop experience and how it affects our vision and our thinking. Workshops are something I used to do when I was first learning about photography. They were a way to get a new perspective on the craft from those that had experienced it first hand. Learning about photography in a state college with a small art department and even smaller photo program, you tended to look elsewhere for more in depth knowledge. The opportunities were limited, but well worth the effort. I met prominent photographers of the time, took workshops across the country when I was able to, and generally learned the craft by absorbing everything I could from a diverse set of image makers. These experiences molded the way I viewed photography and its (and my) place in the world. Pretty powerful stuff! So what happened? Why did I stop going to workshops and gallery events and talks and whatever else? I believe at some point, we all stop doing these things. We have to go explore our craft on our own, find our own voice in the midst of all the cacophony. In so doing, we have to forcibly let go of what others are doing, remove the training wheels so to speak, and venture out into the unknown. And that's a good thing. If we all were busy attending discussions on the state of photography, we wouldn't be out there actually creating images! And yet, there comes a time when we have explored our voice and, unfortunately, become complacent, satisfied that we have done what we set out to do and need do nothing else. We may even go so far as to believe there really isn't anything new to explore, or worse, that anything new is anathema to our view of the world. What a horrid way to live! I can say all this from personal experience. I left photography and all its digital evolution... I felt it had changed to the point that it wasn't photography anymore. I had come to a point that I felt satisfied with what I had done, and did not need these changes in my life. They had become the anathema to my view of how photography was supposed to be. I could not have been more wrong. Photography is not about technique, equipment, or subject matter. It is, as I have said so many times before, about communication. The workshop I attended could not have underscored this point more. Working on the streets and photographing people is so far removed from what I am used to that I was at a loss as to how to approach the subject. That's a wonderful thing! It demonstrates that there is ALWAYS something new to learn, something greater to see, visions to explore and communicate in a new way. Will street photography ever be a part of my repertoire? Can't say. But what I can say is, Valérie has opened my eyes to other ways of seeing, and that makes all the difference in the world. If at any time you think you've done what you set out to do, remember... you're not even close. In my last post, I was talking about the Pinhole Pro and my efforts to find proper exposures when using it. So this time I'm going to review the actual images. I decided to begin with the smallest aperture (0.10) to see what kind of image was possible having to use a longer exposure. The first image I took had something blocking the view, but I couldn't find anything in the way of the pinhole that would cause it. At first, I thought it might be the UV filter attached to the front, but then realized it was the engagement ring being out of alignment. You have to be careful to engage the ring exactly right or you will block some of the image. Notice the left image has a black shadow on the right side. This is not an exposure issue, but rather it is part of the edges of the pinhole blocking the field of view. After readjustment, you can see there is nothing blocking the scene in the right image. This was not a major issue... it just means I have to be careful to engage the aperture ring properly. The images themselves are fairly sharp for something that has no lens elements. The statuary is close to the camera and everything seems to retain the same amount of sharpness throughout, which is expected with a pinhole. The exposure is slightly different, but that was most probably the outside light changing from one exposure to the next. Since the apertures for both images remained the same, there should be no exposure difference otherwise. Color balance is, as far as I can tell, spot on, which I was not expecting. I thought there might be a shift due to diffraction from the small aperture. The image was taken in a shady area on a sunny day, so an exposure at I.S.O. 200 at 1/250 of a second would need an f/stop of f/8 using a lens. The 0.10 aperture is about f/512, which means I need a +12 stop exposure compensation. This meant my exposure time was 16 seconds. Interestingly enough, I didn't seem to have an issue with reciprocity failure, which I was also expecting. Not sure if that has anything to do with digital vs. film or not, but the exposure time didn't have to be adjusted, which was fine with me! My next set of images shows a scene with a wider view using each aperture and their resulting effects. These images should expand when you click on them, so you can look at them in greater detail. The image is the side of a garage with an outdoor patio swing in a yard. Very exciting... not. But it serves its purpose. I wanted to use a wider view to see if there was any apparent change in sharpness near to far. The day was bright and sunny, so an exposure at I.S.O 200 at 1/250 of a second would need f/16 for a proper exposure. This meant the 0.80 aperture would need 4 stops of extra exposure, or 1/15 of a second. Each image needs twice more exposure than the last (except the 0.25 pinhole, which remains the same as the 0.30 aperture - see The Pinhole Pro post for a short explanation). The longest exposure was 4 seconds while using the 0.10 pinhole.
Each image retains the same relative sharpness throughout the scene, and again, this is expected when using pinholes instead of a lens. Another thing to note is the obvious change in sharpness as you go from the largest 0.80 aperture and decrease the size. Again, this would be expected as a larger aperture would result in shorter exposure times but less sharpness throughout. Keep in mind everything here is judged by a visual inspection of the images on a computer screen and I was using my camera equipment, not yours, so your results may differ. Understand also that "sharpness" is a relative term, and images of greater contrast are often seen as "sharper" than low contrast ones, so again... your mileage may vary! The 0.30 aperture is slightly lighter than the 0.80, 0.50, and 0.35 images, but remember that I round off exposure times to make things simple when I am out in the field. It is possible I overexposed by 1/3 stop or so, or it could have been the outdoor light of the scene changed for that exposure. The 0.20, 0.15, and 0.10 images are progressively lighter, but I am inclined to think that could have been a change of lighting in the scene and rounding off the exposure times. Just a guess, but I'm going with it. It was interesting to see how much sharper images got as I decreased the pinhole size, but you will note that the 0.10 image is actually slightly less sharp that the 0.15 pinhole image. This could very well be a result of diffraction from such a small aperture. There does seem to be some flare in the image, which would reduce contrast and relative sharpness. I am thinking of creating images of a close up scene using just the smaller apertures to see what results. I would assume I should get similar results, but you never know. Overall, I am very pleased with the Pinhole Pro. It's nice to use some old school technology on a new millennium instrument. If anyone else has purchased a Pinhole Pro, or has created a pinhole for their digital camera, I'd love to hear from you and get your input. If I find any more interesting observations, I'll let you know. |
fotostufphotographic illuminations Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|