Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Tag: digital photography

What Is a Photograph?
I still see people agonizing over how much processing they are “allowed” to do on their photographs. But what is a photograph and what does it become if it is processed heavily?
Unique
Photography is rather unique among 2-dimensional art forms. Other forms like painting construct an image directly on the media. It is immediate and tactile. With photography, we usually capture the image whole and then indirectly manipulate the pixels. The final image is produced later.
The tools we have available now allow great freedom in the manipulation that can be done. So much so that some people cry foul and say, “too much, it’s not a photograph anymore.”
Is there a rule here, or are people just expressing their preferences?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Technology
In photography, we never actually touch our pixels, and usually not the media. Light is captured by a sensor or on film. It is digitized. Then we process it as data in our computer. Even when we view the resulting image on a screen or as a print, we still only indirectly see the result of our processing. A pixel, as a digital value, is almost imaginary. It cannot be seen or felt or weighed.
So, we must use a complex tool chain of technology to accomplish our results. Modern cameras are amazingly complex, with processing power that rivals computers of a few years ago. The digital files must be brought into our computer and processed with some of the available application software, depending on our preferences.
Even to view the image requires complex technology. Web browsers or other viewing software using high resolution monitors. Printers with sophisticated error diffusion algorithms, using multiple inks to construct a pleasing representation of what we created. To make a print, the pixels are “sprayed” on a media by a machine, not by our hand.
Even if you use film, it must be developed and printed. It is probably digitized. Then it goes into the technology chain I described above.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Core of reality
But despite the technology differences, a major factor is that traditional photography usually starts with a real scene. This, to me, is one of the great things about photography, but also a problem for many people. In normal practice, we do some corrections and tone changes, maybe remove some distractions. If we compare the result next to the original scene, nearly everyone would recognize that the photograph represents that scene.
Because of the history of the medium and the nature of the photographic process, many people imply a contract that a photograph must represent reality. Reality being what was actually in front of the camera at the moment of exposure.
If our artistic processing deviates too far from this implied contract, many people get offended. Or at least nervous and filled with doubt.
The question seems to revolve around whether the artist claims the image represent reality or it is art. If I see a photograph of a news event, I expect it to be showing reality. Sure, the exposure could be corrected, and a few very minor distractions could be cloned out. But these changes must not alter the substance of what the image is showing. If a news outlet uses an image that is altered to significantly change the scene, or is created by AI, they will lose all credibility with me. I will never trust them again.
But to me, art has completely different standards. I can’t help what viewers assume, but I can control my intent.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Painting
Let’s contrast this to painting. I believe the same standards exist, but to a lesser degree. If a painting claims to show reality, it must do so. Otherwise, it is art and it can do whatever it wants. But few people expect a painting to represent a scene in exact detail.
Did you know that some portraits of Abraham Lincoln were somewhat false? He was a notoriously homely man. Some portraits softened his features to make him look better. That seems a gray area. Not a faithful representation but not entirely lying.
At the other extreme are the paintings of Albert Bierstadt. He was a romantic artist of the 19th century who glorified the American west. I have been to some of the locations he painted, and I can attest that his images are complete fiction. But they were popular. In those days, very few people could visit those areas, so they believed his paintings as reality.
But the nature of a painting is that the artist starts with a blank canvas and uses a brush or a knife or a pencil to lay pigment on the substrate. It is hands on and considered to be creative. There is little criticism if the artist takes liberties or completely makes up the scene.
Even if you watch a painter working en plein air, the resulting image is seldom a faithful representation of the scene. They take whatever liberties they want to simplify, or eliminate distractions, or change it to be more interesting. It is recognized as being art.
I have never seen one criticized for not looking exactly like the original. People hold photographs to different standards. Even other photographers.
What is a photograph?
So, then, what is a photograph and why do we treat them differently?
I believe it is because many people have a model in their heads that paintings are creative works and can be anything the artist wants to do, but photographs are snapshots of reality and should stay that way. I believe this statement is too restrictive of photography as it exists today.
In the 19th century, when photography became popular, the technology was crude. Photographers could only capture black & white images of still subjects. So the marketing pitch was that they can capture reality in an instant.
We have come a long way. The technology has far fewer limitations. Very high speed or very long exposures can freeze or express movement. Dynamic range is extended. Digital prints are almost perfect. Editing tools are so good that there are few excuses for having an imperfect image – unless that is the artist’s intent. Parts of scenes can be composited together or parts can be “painted” or AI generated.
Because of these greater freedoms, artists are now able to express themselves more. In the same way that Impressionist painters were completely rejected by their Realist contemporaries, we see photographers beginning to push the boundaries and make photographs into something different, and bring criticized for it. Something that does not follow the rules and conventions established by others is initially rejected.
What is a photograph? Maybe it is anything you want it to be. Maybe the distinction is the contract with the viewer. Is it presented as reality or as art?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
When is it not a photograph?
I consider myself a photographer and an artist. In my work, I may alter the pixels any way I want to achieve the result I like, because I am presenting art to you, not documentary. I can blur or sharpen. Distractions can be removed. Skies can be replaced. I often composite bits and pieces of many disparate scenes to create something new. I have been known to stretch and twist and flip with little regard to the “truth”. of the actual scene. Sometimes, the more I can forget the original scene, the better my art gets.
With all of this, I am comfortable calling my work photography. Occasionally I call it art based on photography. Depends on the audience.
Since what I do is pixel based, and nearly all of it came from captures of real scenes, It is clear to me that it is photography. It does not matter much to me where the pixels came from as long as they are my original work. It doesn’t matter to me if the end image represents something that exists in reality.
On the other hand, by my value system, if a digital image is AI generated or entirely drawn or painted, it blurs into what I would call Digital Art. The distinction being that there was no image capture at all.
My position is that I will not use AI. I don’t like it, and I don’t plan to use it to create my images. I do not consider it photography. That’s my bias.
My stance
One of my granddaughters is studying animation. Most of her work is based on 3-D models. Is that photography? Not to me. And not to her. But if one of those artists chooses to call what they do photography, or if someone calls what I do Digital Art, I am not in a place of authority to prevent it. Labels are not important to me.
So, a working definition for me is that it is a photograph if it was made mostly from photographic captures. The degree of processing makes little difference. If it was substantially generated by AI, it was not a photographic capture. But the reality is, there is no rule, and I don’t think there can be.
My contract with the viewer is this: if I claim the image is truth, it should essentially represent the original – essentially, I am not a photojournalist. If it is art, then almost anything goes. Either way, I claim it is a photograph.
I will not give you an AI generated image and claim it is a photograph I made. Neither will I go on a public rant against an artist who does. The philosophers and great minds can debate the fine points. I prefer to go on just making my art however I want to.
October 21, 2026
Behind a Mask
I’m referring to masks we use for editing digital photographs. They are one of the most powerful tools we have. A lot of magic goes on behind a mask.
I will use Lightroom Classic and Photoshop for my examples, because I know them best, but this is not a how-to article.
Adjustments
Some of the most widely used editing operations in photography are adjustments. An adjustment means that some property of the image data is modified – more or less, color shift, higher or lower contrast, etc.
I believe that all photo editing tools have some means of making adjustments. Some of them differ in the ability to make only global adjustments, affecting the whole image, or masked adjustments, affecting only a selected part.
Whether global or selected, the adjustment alters some property of the image. For example, some of the Lightroom adjustments are temperature, tint, exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, whites, blacks, texture, clarity, dehaze, vibrance, and saturation. There are others. This is just an overview.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Why adjust?
I’m talking about adjustments as if they are a good thing. But why do we need them?
When we load photographs into our computer, they are mostly in the form of a jpg or a raw file. A jpg file (broken acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group – the jpeg was shortened to jpg back in the days when Windows only supported 3-character file extensions) is fast and easy, highly compressed to save storage, and VERY highly processed. The algorithms have already made the decisions about how the image should look in terms of brightness, color balance, contrast, etc. Generally, they look good as soon as you see them. Average, but good. They may need some adjustments, but usually little.
A raw file is just that, it contains almost the raw data off the camera sensor. Almost, because all cameras do some processing of the data. It might “fix” bad pixels or apply some “secret sauce” algorithms proprietary to the manufacturer to correct for sensor characteristics or to give the manufacturer’s “look”. Each manufacturer’s raw format is different.
Raw processing software, such as Adobe Lightroom Classic, reads the proprietary raw format, does Bayer filter demosaicing, and gets the data converted to an array of pixel values. The image we see on screen at that point is rather bland. Contrast is low, colors are not vibrant, it is not ready to share.
By the way, the Bayer filter is one of the secrets that is baked into our camera technology. It is elegantly simple, but a little deceitful. Check it out in this blog. You do not have to understand it to take great pictures, but understanding it gives you a little more mastery of the technology.
I only shoot raw files, but why do that if it requires more work? When it comes to my images, I’m a control freak. I choose to do the adjustments myself according to my vision rather than letting an algorithm do it. And raw files have much more data and can be edited to a much larger degree than jpg.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
A mask
I said that adjustments can be global or selective. Masks are commonly used to do selective adjustments. Being able to work precisely on areas that need adjustment gives us far more precision and control.
Think of a mask like a stencil. It blocks some areas from being altered but lets the adjustment flow through to other areas. Because we are using digital technology, the mask can be “perfect”. That is, it can totally block the adjustment where we do not want it. Or if you prefer, the mask can be a fractional value, allowing us to only let a portion of the adjustment through. This allows great artistic control.
The concept and application of masking was not created in digital. photography. It goes back to stencils, block printing, wood cuts, watercolor painting, integrated circuit production, etc. With our current technology, it just becomes far easier to use it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Power
Global adjustments are a big hammer. They change everything. That is useful, but not adequate. What if there is a small portion of the frame where we want to viewer’s eye directed? A masked adjustment to select only that area does it. It is more and more common to want to selectively lighten or darken some areas, to change the color of a small area, or to change the color or contrast of just the sky or a portion of the sky.
These are examples. It would be impossible to list all the applications of masked adjustments. I believe that masking is a critical skill for photographers doing digital processing of images. If you don’t or can’t do it, you will be at a disadvantage compared to other artists.
If an image is going into my portfolio, or if I am going to print it, it is almost certain that there will be extensive masked adjustments made to it. Masking has become such an indispensable tool that I can’t not use it. Why would I choose to ignore one of the most powerful creative tools I have?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Benefits of AI
From my viewpoint, the last few years of maturation for Lightroom Classic has revolved around more and easier to use masked adjustments and AI-aided mask creation. These are 2 very powerful trends. And yes, AI is in there.
A few years ago, only a few adjustments had any rudimentary mask capability, on an individual basis. Now, it has flipped. The app has extensive masking, and we can apply most of the adjustments through them. A much better model.
Besides the manually created masks, there are many excellent AI generated ones. Sky selection has been around for a while, and it is getting much better as algorithms improve. So is the Subject selection. There is detailed ability to mask people, from the whole person, their skin, or clothes, down to just the pupils of their eyes. And they are pretty decent masks.
Have you tried the Landscape mask? It is relatively new. You can let it find and create separate masks for sky, snow, architecture, vegetation, water, natural ground, artificial ground, and mountains. It is a great tool for quickly separating blocks of an image for individual work. The masks are usually pretty good. But like all things AI, it works well most of the time but fails spectacularly at others. I often try it first to see if it can tease apart the areas I want to adjust separately.
The Adobe “AI” ability to locate areas and mask them is improving steadily and bringing us much benefit. If the AI can do what we would have to do manually, and give even better results, I would be crazy not to use it. Using AI to generate a mask is not at all contrary to my vows to not use it to create my images.
Need Photoshop?
The steady improvement of Lightroom Classic brings up a question I often ask myself: do I still need Photoshop?
Much of the time, the answer is “no”. Well over 90% of my final images never see Photoshop. Lightroom is getting very adequate for most image correction tasks.
There is another class of edits, though. The strength, and a weakness, of Lightroom, is that it cannot create or destroy pixels. It is a strength, because all our edits are non-destructive. Anything can be undone with no damage. But some image manipulation I want to do involves major pixel damage.
A simple case is compositing. Lightroom cannot bring all or parts of several images together as one image. Photoshop does this without breaking a sweat. It is happy to do anything we want to any or all the pixels in an image. Many of these edits are destructive, that is, they cannot be undone. But if that is what I want to do, that is the tool that will do it.
And in Photoshop, the masking is even more powerful. Learning to use masking in Lightroom creates knowledge that carries over, in principle, to Photoshop.
Example
Here is a simple before and after example of Lightroom Classic adjustments. There is nothing special about the image. It is just one I shot last week in the Rocky Mountains. The first image is a raw image right out of my Nikon Z7-II. The second is after some quick adjustments, many using masks. No Photoshop was involved. Which one, if either, would you rather show people?
©Ed Schlotzhauer
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Put on your mask
I hope I have convinced you that masking is one of the power features everyone needs to become confident with. Accept it. Learn it. Masks create magic. They are one of the simplest image editing tools to make your photographs stand out.
I think you will find your images will look better and have more impact when you get familiar with digital masking.
October 14, 2026
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 scenes. Yes, this is 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.
©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.
The hype told you AI would change everything overnight. The reality is slower, messier, and far more expensive than anyone admitted.
The AI Coder, Medium
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, 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. We no longer had to suffer to be a photographer.
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. A side effect is that now everyone is a photographer, and photography tends to lose its identity as an art.
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.
©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. They have grown to hundreds of sensors that can work singly or cooperatively together to achieve near perfect focus. I very rarely focus manually. Some of the systems 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.
©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 (AI training?). 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. Often it will push the image in the direction I want to go.
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.
©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 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 many of 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 to create a purple elephant in my image. I will not allow it to create significant imagery itself. If I did not photograph 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. 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.
July 1, 2026
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.
©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
©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
©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.
©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.
January 28, 2026
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.
©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.
©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.
©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.
©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.
October 15, 2025