Month: December 2023

Posted on

Gratitude

Tree growing from rock. Grow where you're planted.

This article is going to be published around Christmas, so I will be going off the normal artistic or technical track. I think it is important to keep an attitude of gratitude. It focuses us and keeps us open to more of what is going on around us and keeps our life balanced.

What is gratitude

Gratitude is an attitude of thankfulness and appreciation. That can seem out of place in today’s world, but I believe it is just as appropriate now as ever.

Gratitude comes from the realization that I am very fortunate. I am very blessed in my circumstances. When we think soberly about it, we all know that none of us deserves good things, just because we are alive. We may have worked hard for what we have, but hard work alone will not determine the outcome.

I am healthy and fit enough to do what I want. Even at my age I do not take any medications and I do not have any chronic diseases. I get to set my own schedule and priorities. Few people consider that they have enough money, but the reality is that right now I have all I need and don’t have to worry about it. That in itself gives me tremendous freedom. My mind is still mostly intact (some people may disagree). I love to exercise my creativity in my art and I get the opportunity to do it about as much as I want. And one of my great joys is learning new things.

This is not bragging. I am telling you I realize I am blessed. I am not smart enough or talented enough or skilled enough to have created this situation on my own. The odds are way against it.

Basically, gratitude means I do not believe everything I have comes from my own talent and effort and I am extremely grateful for what I have.

Why is it important

Gratitude helps keep us humble. It makes it easier to see our self in context: we are limited and occasionally foolish and occasionally bad tempered and we make a lot of mistakes, but sometimes we can be creative and generous and giving. And it helps us realize no one really cares much what we do, so we better do what helps satisfy our own goals and gives us satisfaction.

So if we make a mistake or if our work is not selected for a show we entered or even if someone criticizes what we do, so what? We are just human like anyone else. Those things may hurt, but it is just part of going through life. Other people’s opinion should not affect us too much.

What effect does it have on us

A healthy sense of gratitude leads to contentment and inner peace. Contentment is a decision to accept and get the most out of whatever comes. Not to say you don’t try to change things and better our circumstances, but still be grateful for what we do have and are.

Contentment is not the same thing as happiness. Happiness depends mostly on our circumstances. Happiness is the temperature is just right. I had a very nice lunch. A friend called and asked me out. I received some unexpected good news. These happiness moments are rather ephemeral. When something goes wrong it can quickly go away.

Contentment, though, being an attitude or a decision, tends to have a long term flow through our lives. It is not so influenced by circumstances or events. It is an internal value that warms and comforts us all the time.

Gratitude unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough, and more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos into order, confusion to clarity, a meal into a feast, a house into a home, a stranger into a friend. Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today and creates a vision for tomorrow.

Melody Beattie

And emphasizing the receptivity that comes from gratitude, the great Paul Caponigro says

I strive to undo my reactions to civilization’s syncopated demands and hope that inner peace, quiet, and lack of concern for specific results may enable a stance of gratitude and balance – a receptiveness that will allow the participation of grace. This meditative form of inaction has been my true realm of creative action.

Paul Caponigro

Faith

I couldn’t really talk about gratitude without pointing out that it acknowledges something bigger than us. My belief is that the gifts I have and the opportunities I have received are a gift from God. I don’t expect or require most of you to share my specific belief, but I have to mention it. It is the basis of so much.

If you are your own god, you will eventually realize that you are a very poor god, with no power and no promise for a better future.

Gratitude

So I urge you to cultivate a spirit of contentment and gratitude. Be at peace within yourself. This leads to a rich life and a joyful spirit of exploration and creativity.

In the Christmas season when this was published, I urge you to seek contentment and realize the greater blessings we have.

Posted on

Depth of Field, Again

Sacred Places. Memorial celebration of WWII liberation

In my last article I discussed, in probably too much depth, the technical aspects of depth of field. But I try to keep this series focused more on artistic issues and creativity. Let me take a different look at depth of field again as a concept.

Purely technical

On the surface, depth of field is purely a technical concept. I went into some of the issues in my last article. Sorry for the math. 🙂 I know most people don’t like that. Actually, I don’t like it much either, but some level of understanding is necessary for mastery of the art.

Maybe the most challenging concept from that article was “circle of confusion”. The idea that there are acceptable levels of unsharpness. Perhaps there are analogies in our understanding of what we shoot.

Looking deeper

Let’s set the math and technical details aside for now. I can hear the sigh of relief.

I propose that there is an analogous concept concerning the sharpness of our intent when we are shooting. That is, did I just point my camera at a subject, make a decent composition, and shoot? Or was I clear in my mind why I was taking the picture and what it was really about?

I have often referenced the Ansel Adams quote that “There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” There are 2 reasons for that. First, it is a brilliant observation. Second, it is something I struggle with, so it is very real and close to me.

Yes, I can compose and I can use good technique to get the sharpness I want. I can use light to my advantage and I have a lot of experience post processing. But even so, I often look at my images in despair. Too often they are sharp images of a fuzzy concept. When I am honest with myself, I know I didn’t have much in mind when I shot them.

Art happens in our head

Maybe it is too obvious to state, but art happens in our head, not in the camera or the computer. As with any definite statement about art, this is a generalization. Sure, there have been many times when I was working with images on my computer and experimenting (e.g. playing) and things seemed to come together. That is the exception, though.

All too often I look at my images and realize they are, at best, just record shots of a place I was at. No “depth of focus”. Not much below the surface to give you a reason to pause over it and consider it.

The fault is entirely my own. I didn’t have anything to say, and I said it.

There is a marked contrast with the images I get when I go out to shoot a project, or ones I shot when I was feeling strongly about the subject or the situation. Many more of them are strong and satisfying.

We all know this: the more we put into something the more we are likely to get out of it. Why don’t I remember it more when I am out shooting?

My excuse, other than simply laziness, is that I like to go out exploring and shoot interesting things I come across. I don’t always find interesting or “deep” things. That is just that, an excuse. Maybe it is as much that I didn’t have much to say that day. I try to remind myself of Jay Maisel‘s quote that “If you talk with nothing to say, that’s bad. When you shoot with nothing to say, that’s worse.”

Circle of confusion

So, is there a “circle of confusion” concept for our shooting? Maybe so. If we can’t get our ideas into focus, maybe we shouldn’t shoot. Do our ideas have to be in perfect focus? No. Like the technical term, maybe there is an acceptable level of unsharpness. I hope so.

What do I mean by this? Well, sometimes I realize exactly what the scene means to me and I can determine exactly how to shoot it. That is great. I am often happy with the result. Sometimes, though, I just have a feeling, a sense of what I am experiencing. I have learned to follow those instincts even if I cannot clearly express their meaning at the moment. If something is drawing me, there is probably a reason.

Later, while editing, I may realize what was calling me to it. If I was diligent enough to work the scene a bit to get several views and takes , I might be lucky to find that one of them captures what I was feeling.

Maybe I am being too hard on myself. Jay Maisel also said “You always end up with too many pictures to edit and too few that you feel ‘got it’.” I suppose the feeling is common to all photographers, but it still is frustrating.

Projects to focus

I am learning to use projects to help me focus more clearly. A project is a chance to think deeply about something, decide how I feel about it, and then find opportunities to express it.

It is basic psychology that when you are concentrating on something you are more attune to it. A simple example: a friend was thinking about buying a Nissan car. I don’t think about there being many of them around, but after that conversation it seemed like every other car I saw was a Nissan. I was more attuned to them.

A somewhat more relevant example is from a recent trip to France. It was a family trip and we were going to be traveling around quite a bit but I didn’t want to come back with just random tourist shots. So I created a few projects to keep in mind to focus my thoughts and energy. One of them I called Sacred Places. It helped me be much more aware of cathedrals, of course, but monuments and memorials and standing stones. Even a small village celebration of their liberation in WWII. I felt more aligned with the concept of the project, it helped me to see more opportunities, and I felt I looked deeper at the occasions I found.

If I don’t see it, why should you?

Circling back to Jay Maisel’s quote: “If you talk with nothing to say, that’s bad. When you shoot with nothing to say, that’s worse.” If we can’t focus our feelings and experience, are we shooting with nothing to say? Just taking a sharp or well composed picture isn’t enough. If you can’t participate in the experience I felt then I’m not bringing you anything other than an “I was there” picture. Maybe it is pretty, but there isn’t much to feel or remember.

Perhaps I do not have to be able to precisely express what I was feeling at the moment. Maybe there is a “circle of confusion” associated with our understanding of the image we are creating that gives us some margin for imprecision. But the circle of confusion in focusing helps discuss a range of acceptable sharpness, not permission to be out of focus. Maybe there is a range of acceptable understanding of our feelings leading to making an image. But little or no understanding is definitely out of range. With no real understanding or feeling, there is little interest for viewers. Have something to say.

Today’s image

I mentioned having Sacred Places in mind and encountering a memorial celebration in a small village in France. This image was a result of that. We happened, by accident, to be there on the day of their annual celebration of liberation in WWII. They still remember and memorialize it to this day. That in itself is heart warming.

This flag display was presented while local dignitaries and military officials made speeches. I didn’t understand enough French to follow it, but it was moving.

Having the Sacred Placed project in mind made me more attuned to this. We actually stayed for all of it and loved being there. When they discovered that we were Americans I barely avoided having to give a speech at their village celebration afterward.

I hope a little of the dignity and solemnity of their memorial comes through.

Posted on

Depth of Field

Intentional shallow depth of field

In a previous post I said I would talk about this later. Here it is. I believe most photographers only vaguely understand what depth of field (DOF) means. That’s probably OK, as long as we can still use it to our advantage. You don’t have to know in detail how your car works to be able to drive it, but it helps.

What is it?

You have seen it. We focus on a subject, but when we look at the image we are disappointed that another subject or the background was out of focus. We have been bitten by too little DOF.

Depth of Field is the distance between the nearest and farthest points in the frame that are in acceptably sharp focus. OK, we can intuitively understand distance that is in focus. But what does “acceptably sharp” mean?

The reality is that when your focus your super expensive, multi-element, rare earth material lens, it technically only focuses at exactly one point. Everything else is to some degree out of focus. But like many things in life, the precise details do not matter. What matters is the result.

For most of us in most of our applications, it is OK for things to be a little bit out of theoretical sharp focus. We can’t really see that unless we magnify an image greatly.

Circle of Confusion

So for most of our work, we will accept a certain amount of out of focus as unnoticeable. The measure of this for Physicists and Optical Engineers is called the “circle of confusion“. If you focus on a point of light, you expect it to be imaged as a sharp point. But as one of these points gets in front of or behind the sharp focus plane it becomes a circle instead of a point. You have seen this as you adjust the focus point in a scene.

The overly technical term “circle of confusion” refers to how large these circles are. And what we care about is how large they can get before we perceive them as out of focus. This picture helps illustrate that. The center diagram is focused precisely. The top one is focused slightly behind the focus point. The bottom one is slightly in front of the focus point.

Circle of Confusion illustration

Physics

You probably don’t actually care about the math. But here is it:

The approximate depth of field can be given by: {\displaystyle {\text{DOF}}\approx {\frac {2u^{2}Nc}{f^{2}}}}

for a given maximum acceptable circle of confusion (c), focal length (f), f-number (N), and distance to subject (u).

This is precise, but not helpful. There are DOF calculators available, but most of us will not use them when we’re out shooting. I never would, and I even understand the math. 🙂

What does it really mean?

It means that if we want to maximize the apparent range of sharpness in a scene to our advantage, we need to understand some basic things about our cameras and how to adjust them for the results we want. None of it is magic and we do not need to become mathematicians.

Controlling the DOF becomes just another of the design choices we make more of less automatically as we set up a picture. When we become familiar with the concept it gets to be an easy thing to take in consideration.

How do you control it?

If you unpack the equation above you discover that there are are really only three things to juggle: focal length, aperture, and distance to the subject. I take circle of confusion as a relative constant, since we don’t usually think about it while we are shooting.

Normally we consider the aperture to be our main control of DOF. That is because it is the easiest one to adjust. You have discovered or been taught that a wide aperture (small f/ number) gives a shallow DOF and a small aperture (large f/ number) gives the most DOF. This is true, as far as it goes.

But there are 2 other components to the equation. We also affect DOF by our lens focal length choice and by our distance from the subject.

For any given lens, the closer we are to the subject, the shallower the DOF is. Telephoto lenses exaggerate the effect more than wide angles. Increasing the focal length reduces the DOF. And getting further from the subject greatly increases the DOF. Looking back to the formula briefly, notice that the focal length and distance to the subject are both squared. This means they are a much stronger influence than the aperture.

Aperture, focal length, and distance to the subject all work together to determine the DOF A smaller aperture (larger f/ number) increases it. Moving further from the subject increases it a lot. Using longer focal length lenses decreases it a lot.

It is said that wide angle lenses have greater DOF

Conventional wisdom is that wide angle lenses have more DOF than telephoto lenses. Actually, no. But practically, yes.

The discrepancy is how we tend to use them. We shoot with a long lens and decide there is not enough DOF. So we put on a wide lens and shoot the scene from the same position. DOF increases a lot. But the field of view has also expanded, so we have a much wider shot. If you were to walk up to the subject to make the image size field the same as before, the DOF would be the same. Thank you physics.

But in practice, yes, using a wide angle lens usually gives us a great DOF because we usually shoot from relatively far away.

Hyperfocal distance

One “trick” that has been used for a long time and that simplifies getting maximum DOF is to know about hyperfocal distance. The hyperfocal distance is an optimum point where everything from infinity to a point near the camera is in acceptable focus. Seems too good to be true, but it is just physics again.

The technique is getting harder to determine now and is probably falling into disuse. Way back we tended to shoot prime (non-zoom) lenses and they had focusing scales. For a given aperture, all you had to do was adjust the lens so the distant aperture number was at infinity. You were now focused at the hyperfocal distance. Everything from the near focus scale mark to infinity is in acceptable focus. It was easy and very useful.

Now, though, zoom lenses have gotten very good and most of us use them. The problem is that they are optically complex and do not focus the same. They cannot, by their design, provide us with focus scales.

What to do? A pretty good solution is called the double the distance method. There is some estimating (e.g. guessing) and approximations involved, but it is better than a lot of alternatives.

Say you want to have a flower about 5 feet away in focus and have everything in focus all the way to infinity. Focus at about 10 feet. Choose a “suitable” aperture, probably around f/11 to f/16. I told you there was guessing. But by doing this, the field from about 5 feet to about infinity will be sharp. Check it in your viewfinder. Adjust if necessary. The hyperfocal point is about 1/3 of the way from the closest point you want sharp to infinity. You have to estimate it.

Making some educated guesses based on knowledge of what’s going on is better than a random guess based on no knowledge.

Just do it

Photography and video production are probably the most technical of the arts. We are constrained by the physics of the sensors and materials, the properties of the optical systems and lens design, and the effects that can be created by these. Compounding these is the reality that we are typically imaging real subjects with all their flaws and constraints. It’s wonderful!

Don’t get caught up in the math or the technical details unless you are a nerd that really likes that. It is seldom necessary for making good photographs. I just put the DOF formula in to show you it is based on science, not some mystical mumbo jumbo. I would never use it in the field.

Learn that depth of field is a balance between the aperture, the lens focal length, and the distance to the subject. Experiment with them. Get a feel of how they relate and practice getting the results you want. It is harder to describe than it is to do.

Today’s image

This image demonstrates intentional shallow depth of field. I wanted the foreground and background definitely blurred, but still recognizable. The effect was achieved with a moderate aperture, f/11, and a short telephoto of 70mm close to the subject. Remember, increasing the focal length and decreasing the subject distance both strongly reduce DOF.

Experiment more. Make the use of your equipment to achieve your intentions automatic.

Posted on

In Focus

Focus exercise. Subject is sharp. What is the intent?

Focus, as an optical phenomenon, is unique to photography. But when we consider being in focus, there are other considerations besides the obvious optical one.

Focus is unique to photography

I had never considered this consciously, but it is only photographers who worry about optical focus. What is focus? Photography is created by imaging a three dimensional scene onto a two dimensional sensor via a lens. The lens has properties such as focal length and aperture that interact with the light passing through it to the sensor. The physics of imaging determines the thing we call Depth of Field (DOF). This is the amount of the the scene that is in acceptable focus. What is acceptable and what this means is the subject for another article.

So as I am setting up a photo and making decisions about the focal length and aperture to use, my location relative to the subject, lighting, etc., it is also affecting the range of clear focus I will achieve. I praise the wonderful auto focus systems in modern cameras. They have come a long ways and do a great job if used properly.

How is other visual art different? Well, a painting is created directly on a canvas. The sharpness or blurriness of elements in the image are determined by the painter by the marks he puts on the canvas. Since the resulting painting is a 2 dimensional thing, it has no depth to influence sharpness or DOF.

Or take a sculpture. It is a 3 dimensional object. We view it with our eyes. Since our eyes and brain construct a sharp representation of the scene we are viewing, we see it as all in focus.

Other focus considerations

But the optical sharpness or unsharpness of an image is not the only consideration. An image can be in focus or not in other ways. How well did the artist understand his intent? Is it clear what we should see as the subject? Does it move us in any intended way?

Worrying about or concentrating much on optical focus is a beginner issue. Once we mature that becomes just a natural part of the craft we take care of automatically. I don’t know any advanced photographers who worry about “nailing” the focus. Sure, there may be times when camera shake or something causes the image to be blurry, but it is seldom because the artist did not know how to achieve good focus.

Intent

Sometimes when we are shooting we are moving fast. Maybe the light or the subject is moving quickly and we are having to react in real time. Or maybe we are just too lazy to analyze what about the scene we are framing interests us.

I believe very much in instinctive shooting. But our instinct has to be well trained and experienced enough to bring together a huge amount of decisions quickly and without much conscious thought. Until we get there, we need to be very slow and intentional about what we are doing.

Ansel Adams expressed it well when he said “There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Our image may be in perfect optical focus, but were we intentional about what we wanted to say?

Similarly, Jay Maisel, in his brusque New Yorker manner said “If you talk with nothing to say, that’s bad. When you shoot with nothing to say, that’s worse, because you still have to edit the damn pictures.” Well, he’s right, too.

Before we even raise our camera we need to go through a dialog with our self. “What draws me to this?” “What do I want my audience to see and feel?” “How can I frame and compose this to achieve my goal?” With experience this process becomes almost automatic, but I strongly recommend being slow and intentional with it for a long time.

When I feel I’m going too fast I still will slow myself down and consciously go through the dialog. It helps to center me and clarify my focus and intent.

Subject

Do all of your images have a defined subject? A certain object or area or pattern that is the key that the image revolves around? If you are shooting portraits or street scenes that may seem obvious. But even then, is it conscious?

In a video I watched of Jay Maisel shooting street scenes in Paris, one of the images he shot was of a girl riding a scooter in a park. It was a sweet and nice image. But when he showed it and described his reason for taking it, we see that it was captured at the perfect moment when her head was up and she was kicking her pushing leg dramatically. A perfect moment. That gesture, as he terms it, made it a beautiful image.

So in this case the subject wasn’t just a girl riding a scooter in a park, it was her posing and moving in a very characteristic way that gives a dramatic insight into her personality. He moved beyond the simple surface subject and opened up a deeper insight.

Shooting the eye of the bird

When I was learning to shoot (archery and guns) I was taught a simple but impactful lesson. You have to aim for what you want to hit. Duh. But not so simple or obvious as it sounds.

One expression of it I heard was a story about an archery master teaching pupils to shoot birds. The students arrows were wildly all over. The master almost always brought down a bird. They asked him why. He said they were shooting at the bird. He was aiming at the bird’s eye.

I have seen the similar effect in hunting, even in modern times. If you are trying to shoot a deer in the woods, if you shoot “at the deer” you will likely miss. Pick out the exact point you want to hit and aim carefully for that. Your percentage will go way up.

So in our art, the subject isn’t necessarily everything in the whole scene or even that lovely grove of trees. What is really key, important? Pick what is really the subject and make it the basis of the image. The eye of the bird. This may seem nearly impossible in a landscape. But think about it. Give it a try. See if you can’t pick out what is actually the key point in the scene. Make sure it is treated properly.

Experience

But even more important and powerful than a clear subject is the experience we bring to our viewer. Photographers, in particular, often get caught up in the technology or craft and sort of forget abut the viewer.

It’s kind of like what Ansel Adams said about there being nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. If you don’t know precisely what you intend the viewer to see and feel, they probably won’t figure it out, either. Then we’re both disappointed.

Clear focus and optical sharpness is often important, but will probably not be what makes or breaks a great image. Having a distinct subject is also important, but also will not be the deciding factor. The artist must have a clear vision of the effect he wants to create in the viewer. Everything about the image must work together to achieve that goal. That is being in focus.