An artists journey

Category: Technology

Ideas about the mechanics, techniques, and technology behind image making.

  • How I Use AI

    How I Use AI

    I’m generally very anti-AI, but it is a huge, fast-moving field splintered in lots of directions. Not all are bad. This is a snapshot of how I use AI today.

    Traditional argument against AI

    The traditional argument against AI is that it takes over our creativity and allows automated generation of imaginary scenes. Yes, this is all possible and it is being done every day.

    For many, it is no longer necessary to locate or create an interesting subject to photograph. Just let the AI agent do it. If you want a purple elephant in that scene, just describe it to your friendly chat bot and it will quickly create several variations to select from. To me, this is fantasy illustration, not photography.

    But I’m a photographer. My work is based on reality. Even if I create a fantasy composite, it is built from pieces that actually exist somewhere. Pieces I have found and collected just for this purpose. All of it is my original photography and the combination is my own creative work.

    I sincerely believe that AI cannot think or feel. It has no soul. It cannot appreciate what it generates. By my somewhat biased definition, this invalidates it from being art.

    Rise Against, representing the daily struggle©Ed Schlotzhauer

    It’s just a technology

    But let’s not forget that it is not a living entity and it is not magic. It is just technology. It is software running in a data center. The people who build it don’t understand how it works and why it does some of the things it does, but still, it is technology.

    Almost any technology has the potential to help us in some positive way, if it is used appropriately. This is true from the printing press to nuclear energy to AI.

    With AI, though, we are in a very immature early phase. Everybody is running around saying “Oh, look at this!”, without considering what it means or where it leads. AI is a large field. It is hard to make blanket statements about it.

    Photography technology history

    Photography has progressed through several generations of technology changes without being destroyed.

    The original hard-core photographers had to mix their chemicals, wet coat glass plates, expose them in their heavy 8×10 view cameras, then rush to their tent to develop them. You had to really want to do it.

    But then coated film was developed. The field opened up to many more people. We could shoot all we wanted – all we could afford, anyway, drop them at the photo store, and get prints back in a few days. Small “walkabout” cameras like Leica exploited the new, smaller film and became hits. The. world was more convenient, film and lenses kept getting better, and things were generally pretty good.

    But then someone (Kodak, as it turns out) came along and created digital cameras. No more film. No more waiting for prints. It started as a crude technology but quickly grew to dominate photography. It is all I use and I wouldn’t go back. I know for sure that I got the image and real-time histograms are something I would not give up. Even film purists would generally agree that digital has surpassed film in resolution.

    At every stage, the old-time purists declared that the new technology would ruin photography. Actually, it just kept getting better. I believe some parts of AI will be like this and some won’t.

    Tunnel of storm sewer pipes©Ed Schlotzhauer

    In camera

    Unless you are shooting a manual camera, there is a lot of “AI-like” technology embedded in your camera. I’m referring to things that can take over creative decisions from the artist. Remember, AI is a large field. There are a lot of small, focused applications of the technology.

    Going way back before AI was named, Nikon developed a multi-segment metering system, and its exposure system was “trained” using thousands of properly exposed images taken with the matrix. That is basically the definition of AI. At this point, matrix metering may be based on actual AI technology. I don’t know. It works very well and keeps getting better. I have trusted the Nikon matrix metering system for many years. But I monitor it, and if I disagree, I override it. This is a key.

    Or look at the focusing systems in our cameras. Not only do they have hundreds of sensing points, but many use a combination of phase detection and contrast detection to go to correct focus in milliseconds with no “hunting’. I very rarely focus manually. Some can “look at” the entire scene and decide what the focus point should be. And some recognize eyes and focus on them. And some track moving objects and predict where to focus at the moment the shutter is pressed. These relieve the photographer of some tedious manual control that requires a lot of practice to get right.

    I’m not necessarily saying this is literally AI, but that is a matter of definition. It is an example of technology that can automate manual work for us, allowing us to make the creative decisions. This is good technology. But it is important for a photographer to be vigilant and always ready to override the technology when it goes against our creative idea.

    Yellow bicycle©Ed Schlotzhauer

    In post-processing

    Probably the main area where we would recognize AI being used is in post processing. Lightroom Classic and Photoshop are the main tools I am familiar with so that is all I will discuss. This is not a tutorial on using AI tools, so I will only point out some of the features I use.

    One reason Lightroom Classic has almost completely replaced Photoshop for me is the ever more sophisticated masking tools. These allow me to manipulate images more precisely and the AI features save significant time in applying them.

    Sky and Subject masking have been around quite a while, but their algorithms are getting much better. Have you used the new Landscape masking tool? It is a fast way to create several masks isolating various parts of a scene, like foliage or mountains or architecture.

    Automatic People masking can be a real aide. It gives specific control to create individual masks for a wide set of features, down to selecting only the whites of the eyes.

    Something I fought for a long time but am starting to warm up to is the distraction removal features. It occasionally does a fast and decent job of removing people. The reflection removal is occasionally awesome. And I have been known to take an image into Photoshop just to use its wire and cable removal tool.

    I confess to very often using the Auto exposure correction button in Lightroom Classic. It gives a quick starting point. I always change the settings, maybe undo it completely, but I like to see what it thinks should be done.

    Another one I have a love/hate relationship with is Healing. I don’t find that it works well in general, but occasionally it saves a lot of time.

    Graffiti abstract©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Who is in charge?

    Who is in the role of artist? That is the point of all of this. I only use targeted tools that I allow to operate on parts of my image under my supervision. When they work, they are significant time savers. For instance, using the sky selection tool saves me a lot of detailed, time consuming, non-creative work. I do not consider that it replaces any of my creative judgment. None of these do anything I could not do myself. They just do it faster, freeing me to spend more time making creative decisions.

    Well, the reflection removal is something I probably could not do myself. Maybe that makes it too much AI incursion.

    These are examples of the power of AI in post processing. The tool set seems to be getting better all the time, and I appreciate them. It is a welcome productivity boost.

    But in all cases, I only use AI as a labor-saving device and a multiplier for my creative effort. It does grunt work faster than I can. I do not give it a prompt telling it to create a purple elephant in my image. I will not allow it to create significant imagery itself. If I did not photography it or create it, I will not use it.

    Technology can be good, but it can run out of control. My position now is that AI is good if it can help me get my creative work done easier. But I keep a tight control on who is the creative artist and what is the tool.

    The future?

    This is a point in time report. As I said, the world of AI is large and fast moving. I can’t predict what will happen in a year or 2. Will I break down and start using generative AI, or will I stand my ground, or will photography as we know it disappear?

    My guess is I will keep my current arms-length position but will enjoy lots of new AI-powered tools. It will be an interesting ride.

  • The Weakness of Photography

    The Weakness of Photography

    I love photography. It is my chosen art form. But photography has a weakness that weakens and cheapens it, in some people’s eye. Can it really be art?

    Literal

    We point our camera at a scene, press the shutter release, and it is recorded. Everything in the field of view is captured. We didn’t have to arrange it or decide what should be there. It is all scooped up.

    Therefore, most photographs are straight views of literal scenes. Little thought and consideration went into it. There is trash and power lines we are expected to overlook. And that telephone pole growing out of the subject’s head: yeah, ignore that.

    If we want to document a place or time, that can work. But we wouldn’t call that art.

    Green surreal image©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Too easy

    Along with that is just the fact that taking a photograph is too easy. Anyone with a phone can take a pretty good picture with no thought or effort. An amazing amount of computational science is applied in your phone to make it look good. And just like everyone else’s.

    This is clearly seen in the trillions of photographs uploaded to social media and photo sites each year. And by the billions of hours of video uploaded to YouTube and TikTok. Everyone can do it, and they do.

    If everyone can do it, it must not be special.

    Too mechanical

    And photography is criticized for being too mechanical. It seems more technology than art. People don’t need training to do it. Just Point and Shoot.

    We capture a photograph in an instant. It can be sent anywhere in the world in milliseconds. We can paste it on social media for the world to see and comment on.

    How many people shooting pictures on their phone are spending much time considering the artistic elements of the work? No, there is little to consider. Click the button. If you don’t like it, use the AI editing controls to make it good, or just shoot it again.

    It’s just an automatically produced thing. It is no longer a picture; it is a commodity.

    Abstract. Could be a volcano?©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Is photography worthless?

    To me, who likes photography as art, that sounds very bleak. So, has photography become worthless?

    I like to think not.

    Photography is an extremely challenging art form that requires intense effort and years of practice. At least for me. And at that, I’m just getting somewhat competent at it. I don’t think I will ever consider that I have mastered it.

    That sounds contradictory. Thoughtless image capture that anyone can do or difficult and thoughtful art. Obviously 2 different things. That’s where we go off track in the argument. It is not photography that is art or not, it is our intended purpose and expectation. Are we capturing an image for a utilitarian purpose or creating a piece of art?

    The same tools and processes are used for both. That confuses things.

    Freshly filled wine bottles©Ed Schlotzhauer

    The difference

    On the surface, it is hard to tell the difference between photography being done for art vs for utilitarian reasons. The subjects could be the same, the equipment could be the same, the locations could be the same.

    If you watched the photographers work you would probably spot some differences, but not always. That is not a reliable indicator.

    It may be overly simplistic, but I think the difference is what is going on in the photographer’s head. Their intent and purpose, the feeling and insight they bring to the scene, and their experience. It becomes art because there was an artist present, involved, responding, feeling, creating. This can transform a simple scene into art.

    The subject

    If we are creating for art, the depth of our involvement must become far more intense than a simple snapshot. One of the traps many people fall into is the consideration of the subject itself. Did you just capture the obvious shallow view of the subject, or does the image say something about our feeling or perception of the subject? Did we delve deeper and try to bring our something that is not obvious on the surface?

    A representation of the subject is just that. What you see is what you get. But if we can bring our something different or new or insightful to challenge the viewer, the image could have staying power.

    Fence seeming to submerge into the sky©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Composition

    Most people walk up to a scene and snap it. An artist thinks about composition. About how the parts relate and are perceived. And about what to include and what to leave out.

    Often the artist has no ability to re-arrange the scene, but they have freedom to change their position or to zoom in to parts of the whole. Small changes of location or framing can make huge changes in the visual effect.

    If we are serious about photography, we know the basic principles of composition: placement on thirds, leading lines, visual weight, etc. How we use them while making an image depends on our personality and experience. I don’t have a checklist of composition rules with me. For me, it is more subconscious recognition of them. As in “there’s a potential leading line; can I exploit it; will it make the composition stronger?”

    A well composed image will be seen as designed, intentional, crafted, and more whole.

    Rusty old Ford in garage©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Form

    An artist will look at the same scene as anyone else and see interesting shapes and patterns. They are aware of textures and reflections and how the light is playing across the subject.

    Sometimes form is the whole purpose of an image. This is especially common in black & white. One of the reasons for producing an image in black & white is to remove extraneous elements like color and immediate subject recognition, leaving the forms and tones as the focus.

    Subtleties like this are not usually obvious to the snapshot shooter.

    Gesture

    This is a favorite of mine. Gesture is not just a certain movement. It is what shows the innate character of something. The great Jay Maisel is a huge proponent of the concept. He goes so far as to say:

    It’s light, gesture, and color. It really doesn’t matter what you photograph.

    Jay Maisel

    That is, the subject is less important than capturing that thing or moment that shows its essence. Discovering the gesture can be hard, but it is worthwhile. We could take a picture of a thing, or we can look for something that shows what the thing does or feels or how it behaves. That gives it life.

    Finding and capturing the gesture usually requires intense concentration and attention. You must approach it with the will to find it. But it is a process of the artist looking deeper and with more intent than the snapshot shooter.

    Through a Screen©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Are photography’s problems solvable?

    Yes, because it doesn’t actually have a problem. Photography is a wonderful practice and every bit as artistic as any of the other established art forms.

    The fact that the vast majority of pictures are taken as snapshots/throwaway/selfies/travel memories does not invalidate that the medium can be used for artistic purposes. That would be like saying most people can’t write well, so writing is not valuable.

    I use my phone to grab quick shots all the time: a sign with a name or telephone number I need, a part I need to find at the hardware store, something that amuses me, or my grandson. These serve exactly the purpose I want. Either a throwaway or a memory. Every day I also take my “real” camera with me and occasionally see something to shoot from an artistic viewpoint.

    These are 2 different activities with completely different purposes. Neither invalidates the other. Both exist together and do not compete. The same technology is being used for different goals. It’s not the subject or the equipment or the location that separates them. It is the intent and skill of the photographer. And it is the desire of the artist to create.

    Denver International at night.©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Is photography as an art going away?

    As far as photography as art going away, I would claim the opposite. Since most pictures taken are mediocre, at best, when we come along with an image created with skill and an artistic style, it will get noticed. It will be obvious to most people that this is different and special.

    The introduction of photography caused many painters to fear it would replace them. Instead, it freed them from a lot of routine and repetitive work, like basic portrait commissions, and allowed them to create. Impressionism and other artistic directions emerged. I believe we will see some of the same.

    As photographers who are trying to lift our work above the base level, we should not be apologetic about photography or feel inferior. Our intent is to produce art. We should not price our work at giveaway prices because many people expect that. Look for a market that appreciates the difference.

    You are an artist. You are creating things that are unique and special – aren’t you? If not, you will be swallowed up in the giant flood of ordinary and AI generated images.

  • Too Much Help

    Too Much Help

    Is it possible to have too much help in our photography? Are there long-term downsides to some of the technology we employ? What does it do to us as creatives?

    Photographic technology

    One of the characteristic things about photography is that it is closely tied to technology. Since the invention of photography, it has been technology based. The specialized emulsions and chemicals and techniques required training and a certain level of technical savvy.

    Today the technologies have changed drastically, but the tie between photography and technology has not changed. If anything, it is stronger than ever. Being a “serious” photographer just about requires a complex camera system, a capable computer system, and specialized training in the tools.

    The companies that make our technology try to ease some of the cognitive load by getting more helpful all the time. Usually, we welcome that. Who would not want our tasks to be easier? But we need to ask ourselves if there are hidden costs in taking the easy path.

    Leaning trees.©Ed Schlotzhuaer

    AI

    The antagonist I want to single out is what we generally call “AI”, or Artificial Intelligence. It is creeping into many aspects of our art with the promise of making our life easier or getting things done faster.

    I will be very open that I am against most uses of the things called AI, as embodied by large language models like ChatGPT. Not only in photography but most areas of life. I am not just a Luddite. I spent a long career in the tech industry, and I studied and practiced AI at some points of my career. So I have some familiarity with what it is and how it works, including a moderate knowledge of the technology within it and its limitations.

    Study of coding

    I am curious about lots of things. I enjoy looking at seemingly unrelated areas and trying to see parallels or applications.

    Many studies are starting to be done on the human impact of AI. One that intrigued me was a study of software developers in Italy and what happened when their access to AI was cut off.

    In 2023, the Italian Data Protection Authority suddenly banned ChatGPT based on privacy and security and non-compliance with European data protection laws. The effect on software developers was immediate and dramatic. Code check-in on GitHub – a proxy measure of output – dropped 50% in 2 days.

    But on further analysis, 2 very interesting things emerged: the output of inexperienced coders went up slightly while the output of experienced coders went way down, accounting for most of the drop in output.

    One of the suggested explanations is that novices were concentrating more on developing basic skills for themselves, therefore not relying on AI as much. Experienced developers, on the other hand, embraced AI to do a lot of the routine work. But the productivity booster had become a crutch. They lost a lot of the ability to do the work they used to do.

    Stark, bare aspen tree. Chaos of branches.©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Productivity tools

    I believe there are parallels for photography. At this point, I will ignore the novices just learning the craft, since I am not there and can’t think like them anymore. Let’s concentrate on experienced artists.

    Our tools constantly offer to take over more of the photographic process. Some of this is good, but not all of it all the time. I have bought into a lot of it. I don’t think my handheld light meter even works any more. And I have long forgotten how to use the manual calculators to determine exposure or desired depth of field. Now, my camera’s metering is so good that I usually trust it. And DOF, well, I can immediately see my image after shooting, so I can check it easily.

    I often use “AI” tools in limited ways. In Lightroom (Classic, the only “real” one ☺) I often use the Auto button to see it’s opinion of a good starting point. It does a pretty good job for the outdoor shots I usually take. I seldom leave its settings untouched, but it can be a time saver. Likewise, I use the manual Remove tool a lot for dust spots and distraction removal. I very occasionally use the generative remove, although it is about a 50/50 chance of it being better than doing it manually. Lightroom is getting much more capable of creating useful masks. I often use them as a starting point.

    Sunset sihlouette©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Creative rot

    But who says art should be effortless. Our tools want to take over increasing portions of our work, to “help” us and make it easy They offer to automatically remove dust spots, they provide great aid in removing distractions, they offer to distort our images to align verticals and horizontals, they offer to cull our photographs and assign keywords, etc. All these things can be helpful time savers, but at what cost?

    Like the experienced coders in the Italian study, at what point do we start losing the ability to do our own work?

    Editing, for example, is something I consider a necessary skill for photographers. I have noticed in my own work that I am now sometimes uneasy in manually removing complex distractions. My initial instinct is “that’s hard and will take a lot of time; maybe it would be better to just let the software do it”. That is a warning flag to me. I feel that I need to be skilled at doing this and confident that I can. If I cede these decisions to my tools, I believe I have abrogated part of my role as an artist. I am responsible for every pixel of my image. Software should not take over important creative decision making.

    Or take culling images as an example. I strongly believe culling is a critical part of the artistic process. Confronting our mistakes and selecting the best of a series is a necessary part of improving our work. I would rather not spend the time required to do it, but I feel I must. Without it, I am deluding myself about my actual work. I can’t afford to let the computer do it for me.

    There are too many examples to list. AI technology is trying to embed itself in most phases of our process.

    Dead tree in snow. Bent, broken, but still trying to stand.©Ed Schlotzhauer

    The other AI

    Let me pause for a moment and note that I am not discussing fully AI generated images. There are times and places to use them. They are not inherently bad. It is kind of like hiring an illustrator to create some graphics for a presentation or a graphic designer to make pictures for a marketing brochure. Those are business products, not art.

    I firmly believe that AI is incapable of coming up with creative new ideas or art. It cannot do more than it is trained on. Good art is a product of human creation. I admit that there is a lot of bad art that is no better than AI.

    Caution

    I am not going to abandon technology advances. Many of them make my life easier and more convenient. But I do intend to maintain a certain skepticism that will keep me from becoming dependent on convenience features.

    If the great automatic metering and auto focus in my camera went away, I still know how shoot fully manual. If most of the automatic aids in Lightroom and Photoshop disappeared, I still remember how to do things the hard way.

    I fear that younger photographers who have grown up with the tools do not have that fallback position. We could soon be in a position where photographers require AI tools to do their work, because they cannot do it themselves. If they have to rely on it to do their basic work, then why not allow it to do more and more. At some point, who (or what) is the artist?

    I do not believe my smarter tools have negatively effected my images or my creativity so far. I keep a watch for that.

    Or maybe I am wrong and completely out of touch. Maybe photographers are no longer required to be masters of our technology. It could be that the requirements for making an original and creative work are different from what I believe. In that case, I am just an old dinosaur holding on to a forgotten past. But I choose to believe my knowledge and experience is something AI cannot copy.

    Maybe this disquiet about too much help is one of the reasons there is a resurgence of interest in “old school” technology, like film and manual cameras. Many long for simpler days when we were more in control and closer to our end result. I am somewhere in the middle. I don’t want to give up most technology, but I refuse to be controlled by it.

  • Transmogrification

    Transmogrification

    Photography is a process of transmogrification – a transformation of one form to another. It’s a wonder an image ends up a recognizable representation of a scene. Some don’t.

    Transmogrification

    If “transmogrification” is unfamiliar to you, you are probably not a Calvin & Hobbs fan. I am a shameless fan. In my opinion, it was one of the most creative and humorous cartoon strips in history.

    Calvin (a little boy) and Hobbs (his imaginary friend who is a stuffed tiger) were always getting into typical little boy trouble. One of his “inventions” was a transmogrifier, a device (cardboard box) that could transform anyone into anything else.

    One of the reasons the comic is meaningful to me is that I had 2 active boys who always pushed the limits, and then some. Now, I have another newborn grandson, so I will be starting over in that world.

    I thought the author, Bill Watterson, invented the word, but it turns out to have been used as far back as 1671. It is a real word, not a made-up cartoon word.

    Not deep philosophy

    This discussion of the transformations that take place in making a photograph will be purely practical. I will not get into philosophical questions. We could do long analysis of indexicality or semiotics or formalism or the photo theories of John Szarkowski or any of dozens of other theories that attempt to explain why we see what we see.

    I don’t avoid this just because I am not capable of the deep thought. My nature is to be more of a pragmatist in my basic life philosophy. That’s why I went into Engineering rather than Science.

    A theory of why I made a particular image may be of a little bit interesting to me. It might help me to understand my process and vision. But I don’t think it benefits my viewers or really changes the final image.

    To someone viewing my image, it is what it is. It has to stand on its merits as they see them. I may have had deep theoretical intent behind what I did. but they don’t care. And despite any philosophical basis I may have used, if I don’t like the image either, it is useless. Don Giannatti recently said on Medium “A good photo is a good photo.” So true

    A series of transformations

    There are 3 main groups of transforms between a scene and a final print: in our head, in the camera, and in the computer. I include our head because it is probably the most important one. I will only describe a raw image processing path, since that is all I use. When I talk about a processing step, I mean a point where the result can be altered.

    Image processing transform in our head©Ed Schlotzhauer

    We see a scene and our brain goes through a lot of steps before we are even close to pressing the shutter release. We evaluate what we are seeing, determine what is significant, decide how we feel about it, what is our intent in taking this picture and if it is even worthwhile, and generally how we will compose and frame it.

    These steps may happen rapidly and instinctively, or they may be a slow deliberate process. That depends on the situation and our shooting style and our experience. But they probably happen.

    Camera transforms

    image transforms in the camera©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Assuming we decide to take the picture, now several processing steps take place within the camera. First, the light from the desired scene comes in through our lens. The lens determines the field of view, wide or narrow. It also “contributes” its own distortions – the MTF, barrel or pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc.

    After or within the lens is the aperture. This opens or closes to let in more or less light. As a side effect, the aperture size determines the depth of field – the amount of the image that is in sharp focus. Focus depth is one of the creative decisions unique to photography.

    Then the light is controlled by the shutter. The shutter opens for a precisely controlled amount of time when the photographer presses the shutter release. That opening time controls the amount of light that can pass through. The aperture and shutter work together to provide two of the key variables that determine exposure. The side effect is that shutter speed also determines the perceived motion blur of the scene. This is another creative decision.

    Next, the light hits the sensor where photons are converted to electrical signals. The total number of pixels is fixed here, as is much of the quality of the final image. The sensor also introduces some kinds of noise into our data.

    A deep, dark secret that many people do not internalize is that at the sensor, the information is “analog”. That is, it is varying levels of electrical signals. It goes through an Analog To Digital converter (ADC) to digitize it. Gain is also applied here as determined by the ISO setting. Higher ISO values apply more gain to boost the signal. There is a tradeoff the artist must make about the ISO setting, the amount of gain, since that determines a lot of the noise in our image data. Each pixel’s electrical value is digitized to create the matrix of digital values representing the image.

    Next the digital data flows through the digital signal processor (DSP) section. Each manufacturer applies its own proprietary “secret sauce” of processing to enhance the response of the sensor. This is why there is a Leica look and a Fuji look, etc. A jpg image is also processed from this to create a quick preview of the RAW data. The data is assembled into RAW data format for storage and then written to the memory card.

    The memory card receives the raw data that represents the image as processed by the camera.

    All these steps are just what is within the camera. I have not even mentioned our decisions of how to orient the camera or support it. Is it fixed or intentionally moving? Where is it positioned in relation to the scene? These decisions were probably made at the “head” stage.

    Computer transforms

    Image transforms in the computer©Ed Schlotzhauer

    We typically take that memory card and read its contents into our computer through a cataloging program such as Lightroom. Now the data is stored locally on our computer system for access.

    The type and amount of processing that can be done here is too vast to describe. We might use Lightroom or Photoshop or Topaz or any of several other software applications to operate on the pixels, bending and shaping and polishing them to our satisfaction. We may crop or delete large sections, combine images in various ways, change color drastically, even to black & white. There is little limit.

    Finally, to make a print, our print processing software uses profiles for the printer and paper we will be using to re-transform the image to a new color space. This is necessary to create a print that mostly matches what we see on our monitor. Raster Image Processing is used to do error diffusion and other complex calculations to create a new representation that creatively shapes the pixel values to patterns of microscopic ink dots that will produce the final image. The printer sprays the ink onto the paper substrate.

    We now have an image.

    Uniqueness of photography

    This series of transformations partially serves to define the basic difference between painting and photography. It should be clear that a photograph is a capture of all the light and forms that was seen by the lens. Everything gets recorded.

    The photographer has command of composition and viewpoint and lens selection and exposure to control what gets captured. But everything that was there is recorded. One of our jobs is to carefully select what to record, removing distractions.

    Distraction removal often continues to the post processing steps. And new elements may be added to the image. These happen long after the image is captured by the camera.

    A painter starts with a blank canvas and adds the elements he desires. Nothing can be there unless it was his intent to place it there. If he didn’t paint it in, it does not exist.

    Photography is a subtractive process while painting is an additive process.

    Over time we photographers learn how to control what ends up imaged on the sensor. We must be vigilant as we are looking through the viewfinder. Learning to actually see all the faults and distractions is a skill. Learning how to deal with them is part of our art, as is learning how to process the image to end up with the result we want.

    Looking through clock, Musee Orsay©Ed Schlotzhauer

    The chain

    As we can see, there is a complex chain of transforming steps that an image goes through between the “real” scene and the resulting depiction in a print. Most of these steps can seriously change the final result.

    I take 2 main points from this: all images are modified and as artists we exert the control over the intent of what we are creating.

    An image is not the object or scene. It is possibly a representation of the original. Or it can be completely different. I intentionally avoid any discussion of referent philosophy, other than to say a picture is not the original thing, it is an image that may or may not have something to say about the thing..

    How the image corresponds to the “real” scene is the artist’s choice in creating the image. As artists, we have an abundance of control points in the process. How we choose to use them is our decision. It is what we do as photographers. The result of all these transformation steps is an expression of our artistic vision.

    I called it transmogrification because the complexity of what is going on is almost science fiction or fantasy. But this is what we deal with every time we take a picture. As photographers, we must understand this chain. We do not have to understand all the technical details, but we must be able to use the steps available to us to create the image we want. As artists we must understand how to control all this technology to shape the final image to our vision.

    It’s a great thing, though. Taming all this technology and learning to use it well is part of the joy of being a photographer. It gives us tremendous creative freedom.

    Ultimately, though, our viewers do not care at all about our technology. They only look at the image and decide if it is worth looking at for more than an instant and if it has some relevance to them. Technology, like good magic, should be invisible.

  • No Medium Format

    No Medium Format

    Despite their advantages, and as much as I would like to, there is no medium format camera in my plans any time soon.

    Fine tools

    It is a joy to use fine tools. The better we become in any craft, the more we appreciate our tools. After all, we use them frequently and tend to push them to their limits. I believe this is as true for a photographer as any other artist or craftsman.

    Plus, there is the ego boosting feeling of possessing and using something expensive and exceptionally well made. It makes us feel important. We must be a better artist, because we have better tools.

    Most photographers are familiar with mega-pixel lust and/or lens lust. We “need” the latest technology breakthroughs, the highest scoring products. They will improve our photography, right? Well, sometimes. But probably not by themselves.

    One of the ongoing lusts I fight is the desire to move to a medium format system.

    Old rusty International Truck. I finally got it's portrait.©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Medium format

    Camera systems have always been characterized by the size of the recording medium they expose. In film it was 8×10, 5×7, 6×6 cm, down to 35 mm. Digital systems tended to smaller formats, because of the cost of the sensor chip. For a long time, the 35 mm “full frame” sensor was king. Other lower cost sizes also became common, like APS-C, micro 4/3, etc.

    Of course, there are many other contenders. Polaroid made a few huge sheets. There were 11×17 cameras. Others, especially in digital, range down to microscopic cameras small enough to fit unobtrusively in a pair of glasses. And don’t forget the tiny sensors in your phone, probably the most used cameras in the world today.

    The cameras in the slot between 5×7 and 35 mm are called medium format.

    Brave adventurers in the digital world decided to push digital larger than 35 mm. Their goal was to recapture the detail and mystique of legends like the Hasselblad 6×6 cm or Mamiya 6×4.5 cm medium format systems.

    These huge sensor chips are a strain on semiconductor production. They are very expensive because the yields are low for such a large chip, and the production volume is small. But makers like PhaseOne, Hasselblad, and Fujifilm persisted and developed successful products, and the results seem to be spectacular.

    Dead branches. Interesting range of tones.©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Advantages

    I do not speak from first-hand experience. Only from extensive research and reading. From what I can determine, the medium format digital systems are a marvel of image quality, with tangible and intangible properties that cannot be matched by 35 mm full frame cameras.

    One obvious thing is that the larger sensors have a larger number of pixels. Typical medium format cameras have 100 MPixels, compared to 60 for the highest resolution full frame camera today.

    But it is more than just number of pixels. The larger sensors allow larger pixel sites. This means each pixel gathers more light and each pixel has lower noise, greater dynamic range, and better color accuracy. Medium format lenses are also generally higher quality than 35 mm ones.

    Overall, the whole system is high quality all the way through. This leads to files that can be printed at huge sizes with astounding detail and color.

    An image with some minor processing in Photoshop. It is well over 1GByte.©Ed Schlotzhauer

    Disadvantages

    Of course, these advantages do not come for free. Everything must scale up physically with the sensor size. This makes the cost of all the components, including the sensor and lenses, go up exponentially.

    Larger also means heavier. In a studio that is not a concern. But I shoot only outdoor, and I lug my equipment wherever I go. Heavy is bad. Big is bad. Medium format is both.

    I indicated that the lens sizes must scale up for medium format. The lens must create a larger image circle to cover the larger sensor. This not only makes them heavy and expensive, but the physics of lens design and the small market limits the practical ability to make wide range zoom lenses. So, currently, something like a 35 mm equivalent range of 28 mm to 75 mm is about the best that is common for a medium format zoom. Other sizes are available, but nothing like the “super zooms” we love in full frame cameras. Medium format wide angle lenses are much easier to make and more common.

    Underlying all of this is the sheer cost of the system. Buying into a medium format system with a reasonable selection of lenses can add up to 10’s of $1000s. Much more if you decide to go with PhaseOne. Do I want medium format or a new car? Medium format or a luxury anniversary trip to Europe?

    Reality

    The reality is that the medium format system currently is too big and heavy, it is too expensive, and I can’t get the type of lenses I want to use. At least, this is true for my value system.

    My old body wants to shed weight I must carry, not add to it. Less is more when I am out for hours at a time. I seldom even carry a tripod anymore.

    The “mainstream” camera companies like Sony, Cannon and Nikon have done a great job of improving their full frame products. To the point where it is a hard decision to make the jump. Yes, I’m sure it is true that if I did an A/B comparison between my Nikon and a Hasselblad 100 MPixel I would agree that the Hasselblad was better. But maybe not better enough for my needs.

    Cost seems obvious. I am not earning enough from my photography to justify the huge increase in cost. I would have to rationalize it on factors other than cost, and I can’t right now.

    But for me, an overriding factor right now is lens availability. This is a very individual decision point of view. I have become a photographic minimalist. I don’t like carrying extra lenses and I don’t like changing lenses in the field. One simple reason, besides fear of dropping one off a cliff, is that I get far fewer dust spots on my sensor if I do not change lenses outdoors.

    I have adopted much of my vision around my marvelous Nikon 24-120 mm Z lens; it covers 98% of my needs. To the extent where my attitude now is that if this lens does not work, I will move to get the shot or make a different shot. I have made several multi-week trips now, taking only one camera body and one lens. It has worked great for me. No regrets. I can’t yet do this with a medium format system.

    Girl sitting on rock over cliff©Ed Schlotzhauer

    No compelling need

    I would love to use medium format. Just the sheer quality of the output would almost be worth it. Looking at the detail of my images at 1-to-1 on my monitor is a joy right now. I’m sure the joy would be even greater for a medium format image.

    But I understand the reality of my life is that I am not called on to make billboard sized prints where you could put your nose up to it and marvel at the detail. I am not required to do portraits that have glowing, lifelike skin tones and shading when printed life size.

    Would I like to be able to shoot like this? Of course. We always long for the best tools, the next technology bump. But the cost is so great I cannot justify it.

    Fortunately, or unfortunately, Nikon has satisfied my basic needs with a high quality 46 MPixel sensor in a small mirror-less body, coupled with small, lightweight, high-quality lenses that meets my expectations. These cover my real-life needs. I can’t justify the change just for my ego.

    Canon and Sony also cover those needs with excellent products, but I am a long-time Nikon user.

    As of right now, there is no medium format system in my plans. It could change, but there is a high barrier to climb. I hope Nikon jumps their full frame system to 100 MPixel before I give in and take the plunge.