Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Tag: digital photography

  • They Told You Wrong About ISO

    They Told You Wrong About ISO

    Many of us have a wrong idea about ISO settings. I will just say they told you wrong about ISO. It was a misunderstanding. Whoever “they” are.

    Statement of faith

    It is stated as a “strong suggestion“, especially when we are learning landscape or portrait work. Never shoot with ISO over 100. Maybe it is stated as only shoot at the native ISO setting for your camera. Either way, these are given as rules.

    I hate rules, especially for my art. Rule of thirds. Rules of composition. Never put the subject in the center. Never shoot at midday. Always use a tripod. The list goes on.

    Like with religion, most of the so-called rules are based on good ideas, but over time they are repeated as commands and the underlying reasons are lost. Just do it. (I don’t think that is what Nike meant.) The rules become a statement of blind faith that cannot be challenged.

    What is noise?

    All digital cameras have noise. Noise is randomly generated in the sensor and in the electronics of the signal path until the pixels have been digitized by the analog to digital converter (ADC). The noise is a fundamental property of physics.

    The question is how much noise is there relative to the desired data. This is called signal to noise ratio in engineering. When we amplify a signal by increasing the ISO setting, all the signal including the noise is increased. This is why images shot at high ISO settings tend to look noisy. The image is usually not less sharp, but there is more noise obscuring things.

    It is true for a low cost point and shoot camera or a high end medium format camera. What changes are the relative amounts of noise and the limits the image can be pushed to.

    What is ISO?

    You’re familiar with the exposure triad: the combination of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO that determine exposure. That’s it. Many other things affect the composition and quality of an image, but only those 3 control the exposure.

    Aperture is the size of the diaphragm opening in the lens. It controls, among other things, the amount of light coming in. Shutter speed is the length of time the shutter is open to let light come in. And the ISO setting is kind of like a volume control. It sets the gain or amount of amplification of the sensor data.

    Going way back to early film days, there were no agreed on standards for the measure of how sensitive film was. So a couple of the largest standards organizations (the ASA and DIN scales) came together and created a standards group under the International Organization of Standards. They adopted the acronym of the standards organization (in English) as the name. By the way, officially “ISO” is not an acronym, it is a word, pronounced eye-so.

    Long way around, but now there are defined standards for exposure. For a given combination of aperture and shutter speed, the ISO settings on all cameras give the same exposure.

    Why use higher ISO settings

    OK then, in concept, the ISO setting is a volume control for exposure. Turning it up (increasing the ISO value) amplifies the exposure data. But as I mentioned, it is not free. Amplifying the exposure also amplifies the noise in it.

    It is true that low ISO settings produce less noise in the captured image. Modern sensors are much better than early ones. This is one of the wonders of engineering improvements that happen as a technology matures.

    Then, we should not use high ISO settings, right? Well, everything is a tradeoff. We need to use a minimum shutter speed to avoid camera shake when hand holding or to stop subject movement. We need to use a certain aperture to give the depth of field we want. These decisions must be balanced in the exposure triad, often by increasing the ISO.

    Can’t I just underexpose?

    When you accept that we must use the lowest ISO setting, the logical conclusion is that you could massively underexpose the image and “correct” it in post processing. Unfortunately this doesn’t work well. You are still boosting the noise unacceptably.

    The camera manufacturer knows more about it’s sensors than your image processing software does. The camera’s built-in ISO amplification can take into account it’s characteristics and do a better job. And modern sensors and electronics do a very good job.

    Are you wrong about ISO?

    If you are following a rule dictating you must or can’t do something, yes you are wrong. There are no rules in art. No ISO-like standards body specifies what your image must look like. There are always groups wanting to do this (are you listening camera clubs?), but they have no authority.

    If you are hand holding a shot, it is better to boost the ISO to steady the movement than follow a rule about using low ISO. The noise will be secondary to the reduced shake. Or I sometimes use the lowest ISO setting in my camera to create blur. I enjoy intentional camera movement (ICM) shots and will occasionally force an artificially slow shutter speed.

    If it is night and you want to shoot stars or street scenes, are you not going to do it because you would have to violate a rule by the ISO police?

    Use the ISO setting that lets you express what you want to do. It is your art. There are no rules. Besides, luminance noise looks like film grain. It can be an interesting artistic technique in itself. Do what feels right to you.

    Apology

    I used fairly strong language about this. The reality is that most photography writers have softened their recommendations on ISO. Most of them freely recommend using high ISO. This is healthy.

    But I know many of us were “imprinted” by early mentors who left us feeling there was something dirty about going above 100 ISO. I want to free you if you still have those self-imposed limits. Using even a very high ISO and getting the shot is always better than missing it because you wouldn’t want to chance increased noise.

    Today’s image

    Since I’m advocating it, here is an extreme case that I’m happy with. This was shot hand held with an old Nikon D5500 camera – at ISO 22800. I have corrected out some of the luminance and chromance noise and I am perfectly OK with what remains. Getting the shot made me happy, even if the noise is high.

  • The Histogram is Just Data

    The Histogram is Just Data

    I don’t mean to be insulting, but I cannot understand when people look at histograms as some magical, mysterious, and intimidating technical artifact. It is not. It is just data about what our sensor is seeing. The histogram is just data, and it is useful. Use it. Do not be afraid of it.

    Trigger

    A newsletter I received today triggered this semi-rant. But looking back, I see it has been over 3 years since I wrote about histograms, so it is probably time to revisit the subject. This actually is a subject I feel some passion for and believe it needs to be better understood by photographers.

    The newsletter author declared that our histograms lie. I realize that click-bait is commonly used to try to get people to read articles, but I still feel it is being somewhat underhanded. Now, in fairness, the newsletter author made some valid points – except for the part about histograms lying.

    What is a histogram?

    We see this graph of some data and maybe it does look complex and mysterious if you are not used to working with data and don’t know where the data comes from. Let’s get over that by understanding how simple but effective it is.

    By convention we play like our cameras measure light in a range of 0 to 255. There are no units: 0 represents black and 255 is pure white. The convention came from the history of early digital cameras. It is obsolete today, but still used. That is a topic for another day.

    So there are 256 possible values of brightness (0-255). If we go through and count the number of pixels of each value – the number of pixels in the image that have value 0, the number of pixels in the image that have value 1, etc. – and put them on a graph, we have a histogram.

    Here is a simple example:

    Again, black is on the left going to white on the right. Even without me showing the actual image, we can see that there is a “bump” of dark values on the left and a larger hill of bright values on the right. In between is a relatively low and even count.

    What can we learn from this? It is a black & white image, because there is no separate data for red, green and blue. There is high contrast because of the hills at the dark and bright ends. It is bright but not overexposed. There are deep blacks, but not enough to have lost important information. So, even without seeing the image, we can tell a lot about it. Is the image exposed “correctly”? Ah, that is the question my rant is based on.

    This is why histograms are useful. They are useful data about our image. It gives simple information to help us understand our exposure better.

    Benefit

    Today’s mirrorless cameras bring us the amazing benefit of real-time histograms. We can select to see the histogram live in our viewfinder or on the display on the back.

    What is the benefit? We see an immediate graphical view of the exposure the camera is determining. In the example above, we can see that the light tones are very bright, but not overexposed.

    I routinely use it to watch for “clipping” of brights or darks. If there is a large hump of data jammed up against the left or right edge, that is probably a problem. I will often choose to override the camera’s exposure determination to avoid these peaks.

    Again using the example above and knowing that my camera was in aperture priority mode, we see that it chose 1/750 second as the shutter speed. That works OK in this case, but if I did not agree, I would have easily used the exposure compensation dial to adjust the exposure. I do this a lot.

    So the histogram is a quick and easy to get a feeling for the “shape” of the exposure.

    They don’t lie

    Now coming to the basis of my rant: histograms do not lie (actually, they do; I will say how later and why it doesn’t matter).

    The newsletter author gave the example of a picture of some fruit on a dark table with a black background. She said the histogram lied because the camera did not give the exposure she wanted. It tried to make the whole image evenly exposed.

    No, the histogram is just a straightforward measurement of the data. If you take your temperature but don’t like the reading you get, it is silly to say the thermometer lied.

    What the author was describing was that she wanted to expose to have the same look as the scene she saw. This was a case of disagreeing with the camera’s matrix metering calculation. It was doing it’s job of trying to capture all the data that was there and preventing blown out blacks. But she decided to use exposure compensation to force the camera to expose the scene the way she wanted.

    The histogram did not lie. As a matter of fact, she relied on it to do her exposure compensation values. She used the histogram to determine how to override the camera exposure calculation.

    Actually, I would have used the camera’s original exposure determination. I like to have all the data available to work with. This is called exposing to the right. Bringing the brightness down in post processing to the level she wanted is simple, non-destructive, and does not add noise. Capturing the compensated image the way she wanted irreversibly crunches the blacks.

    They lie

    I said they don’t lie, but they do a little. For speed and efficiency the histogram is derived from the jpg preview of the image. Same as the preview shown in the viewfinder or camera back. If you study jpg processing you will see that it alters and discards a lot of information to give a good perceptual result.

    So the histogram is not actually looking directly at the literal RAW data from the sensor. But there is little observable discrepancy. On my camera, I find that it exaggerates the highlight values very slightly. Still, I typically back the exposure off to avoid highlight clipping, so it adds a little conservatism into the process.

    Trust the data you see. It is good enough.

    They’re not the photographer

    The histogram gives you data. It does not determine exposure. People talk about “good” or “bad” histograms. This is a misunderstanding. There are no absolute good or bad ones. What counts is did you get the exposure you wanted.

    There are valid artistic reasons for shooting what some people would consider bad histograms. If it is what the artist wants, it is correct.

    Histograms give us a reading of the exposure. They do not determine what is right. It gives some insight on what the automatic exposure calculation in the camera is trying to do.

    Use it

    The histogram is a brilliantly simple and wonderfully useful tool. We are lucky to have real-time histograms available to us now. It is a game changer. But it is just data. Do not be afraid of it.

    The histogram does not lie. But it does not automatically ensure that the exposure is exactly what you want. You have to sometimes take change and override the camera settings. When you do, the histogram is there showing you the result of your decisions.

    It is not magical or mysterious. It is a great tool. Use it. A craftsman know how to use his tools.

  • Stability

    Stability

    Even the most adventurous of us need a certain amount of stability. But I’m not talking about financial or mental or interpersonal stability today. I’m referring to the never ending debate about tripods vs. monopods.

    Why do we need them?

    Many people today value crisp, tack sharp images. To achieve this requires good cameras, good lenses, and good technique. One primary factor of the technique is minimizing camera shake.

    We tend to talk about camera shake as a binary thing: yes/no, on/off, shake/no shake. The reality is that it is a range. It is kind of like focus. If something is considered in focus, we really mean it has an acceptable level of focus. Good enough for our purpose, not an absolute.

    Likewise, for camera shake, we must take the point of view that it must be minimized enough for our need.

    Most people tend to hand hold their cameras. I know I do when I can. It is much faster and easier. Achieving sharp images hand held requires special techniques that we will discuss later.

    But when we know we need maximum sharpness, the standard response it to pull out the tripod, or monopod. It’s a debate.

    Tripods

    Tripods are the three-legged things we are all familiar with. They seem to have been around forever and they tend to be pretty large. The three equally spaced legs provides an optimum stable platform in all directions.

    Tripods used to be made of wood. Classical and lovely to look at, but heavy, Then they moved to generally bring made of aluminum or alloys. These were lighter and durable. A problem they had, though was vibration. Referred to as dampening when we’re talking about stability. The metal was kind of springy. It would vibrate when perturbed by a force. Like bumping it or when the mirror of your big DSLR “slaps” up to take a picture. The metal legs would vibrate for many milliseconds before stopping. This caused distortion while the shutter was open, which was probably for those same milliseconds.

    Later, most high end tripods moved to carbon fiber construction. This material has many advantages, but, of course, it is more expensive. The carbon fiber is strong and relatively light. It has much better dampening than metal, so vibrations are smaller. And if your hand has ever frozen to a metal tripod in the winter, well, carbon fiber doesn’t do this nearly as bad. For me, that by itself is a reason to switch to it.

    I have an excellent carbon fiber tripod with a great ball head. I use it for some critical images or long exposures.

    Tripod disadvantages

    Good tripods, used correctly, provide excellent stability. But this means you have to have it, there, when you need it. Perhaps this means carrying it miles over rugged trails for that one shot.

    Personally, I don’t do that much anymore. For me, a photo expedition should be a joy. I’m too old to enjoy carrying a heavy tripod a long ways. Sure, there are small versions that strap conveniently to your camera bag, but they have their problems too. Usually the small ones are short and I have to squat down uncomfortably to use them. Or if they are tall enough, they are not stable enough.

    I have a small one that fits nicely in a checked bag for air travel. I often take it. And just as often do not use it.

    And using a tripod slows you down a lot. Deciding where to set it, setting it up, mounting the camera, adjusting and leveling it all take quite a bit of time and effort. Some say this is an advantage, because it makes you spend more time considering what you are shooting and the composition of the shot. I partially agree and have experienced this. But often I am in a flow and shooting instinctively. The tripod absolutely gets in the way of this.

    Monopods

    A monopod is just one leg of a tripod, right? To some people that makes it 1/3 or less as useful as a tripod. Others (including me) would say it can be as useful or more so.

    If you are not familiar with them, try this experiment. Take a broom and hold it upside down with the handle down on the floor. How does it move?

    You will see that it does not move up or down in the vertical axis. It does more fairly freely in a circular arc left and right, back and forth. Is this minimal amount of stabilization worth it?

    To me it often is. The vertical axis is one of the most vibration prone areas for me. And being constrained on the monopod seems to add mass or resistance in the other axes. Either it is real or it is psychological. But in any case, it makes my images more stable.

    Monopod advantages

    Yes, it is unfair to only talk about tripod disadvantages and monopod advantages, but I want to make a point. There are often ways to overcome the disadvantages of a monopod.

    I have a great monopod. It extends to about 7 ft. and has a small but very nice ball head with quick release on it. It is my walking stick. I like that it is light enough and very strong to serve well as a useful and comfortable walking stick. I am far more likely to take it on a hike than I am a tripod.

    When I want to take an image, it sets up quickly – basically just attaching my camera to the quick release. It provides a decent degree of stability, and there are techniques I can use to improve if necessary.

    For instance, if a railing is handy, I can brace the foot of the monopod against my shoe and force the leg tight against the railing. I have taken very sharp 30 second exposures this way. Trees work fairly well, too. Lean the mounted camera against a tree for added stability. It can be a great tool.

    Which to choose?

    I probably seem biased. It is more of a pragmatic choice. Tripods are great for stability. It is usually the best choice for long exposures.

    Monopods are great when you are out on the trail or otherwise away from your car. If you practice and learn to work with it instead of against it, it can improve many situations to an acceptable level.

    I own a really good tripod and a really good monopod. The monopod gets used about 10 times more than the tripod. But I hand hold about 10 times more than either of them.

    Parameters of sharpness

    To put things in perspective, today’s high pixel count sensors force us to use very good technique to get the results we want. If the image moves as much as 1 pixel during an exposure, we can often detect a blur.

    Pixel pitches are measured in microns today. A micron is 1 millionth of a meter. The length of a bacterium is about 1-10 microns. A strand of spider silk is 3-8 microns in width.

    How is it ever possible to take a sharp image?

    Alternatives

    Several things can work for us. The amazing technology in our cameras provides things like in-body stabilization to minimize the effect of camera shake. It usually improves things a lot.

    And the electronics are improving to allow higher and higher ISO settings to be used. I consider 400 ISO to be my normal setting rather than the 64 ISO native value. That automatically gives me about a 3 stop speed advantage.

    The old “rule” when I was shooting film was that, if you are good, you could hand hold at a shutter speed of twice the focal length. This doesn’t work anymore for our high density sensors. People say the shutter speed should be 3-4 times the focal length. But with the better electronics allowing higher ISO with good results, this is often possible.

    Don’t overlook simple but obvious tricks. There may be something to brace the camera on or against. I often lean against a tree or a pole or a wall for added stability. Or I have put the camera on a rock or a bench and used a self timer to trigger the shot. Simple things like these can let you take amazing images in unlikely places.

    And there are simple techniques you can adapt that increase the stability of hand held shots. Things like bracing the camera against your forehead and forcing your elbows close against your body. And exhaling slowly as you slowly press the shutter. A video on gun shooting technique could be helpful. They have studied the problem a long time.

    So tripod or monopod? I lean toward the monopod. But it is not necessarily an either or choice. There are many creative ways to stabilize your camera. Unless you’re out in the desert with nothing around, there is often something that can be used.

    Today’s image

    This was shot in an airport (obviously) with no tripod or monopod. I couldn’t set the camera on the table in the restaurant where we were eating because there was a joint in the glass that was in the way. I put my camera on my camera bag on the floor. This is a composite of several 4 second shots.

    I used a 2 second timer to allow me to get my hand away and not shake the fragile setup. I could have used the camera app on my phone to trigger it, but that is always so tricky and slow to set up that I seldom do it.

  • Craftsmanship

    Craftsmanship

    I have written a few times about how intent and expression are more important in a photograph than craftsmanship. I don’t want to leave the impression that craftsmanship is unimportant. It is critically important for a serious artist.

    What is craft?

    Craft is defined as skill at carrying out one’s work, or an activity involving skill in making things by hand. I believe an artist first has to be a craftsman. Proficient with his tools. Using our tools and equipment must be second nature.

    Craftsmanship is usually a learned skill rather than an innate talent. Sure, some things are easier for some people than others, but it still has to be learned. Lots of investment of time and practice.

    When we get skilled at the craft, the mechanics recedes into the background. It becomes a support and enabler for our artistic vision.

    Perfection doesn’t make a picture

    I have argued before that perfection of craft does not make a great image. The classic statement is Ansel Adam’s quote that “There’s nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept”.

    It might be better to say craft alone does not make a great image. It is a table stake. You need it to get in the game. An excellently crafted image may not be great, but a poorly crafted image is very seldom great.

    Craftsmanship is the base

    Craftsmanship is a base we build our work on. But it is only a base, one of the legs of the stool. We also have to have vision and creativity and the drive to express them. I believe this expression cannot happen without solid craftsmanship.

    I have said before that photography is one of the most technical of the arts. We are dependent on our equipment. Knowing how to use it correctly and effectively is absolutely critical to success.

    We must study and practice and drill until it becomes second nature. Have you trained your hands to just “know” where the camera controls are? Can you use them in the dark? With gloves on? Can you quickly and almost instinctively determine the exposure solution that aligns with your intent for the image? Are composition and framing decisions happening rapidly in the background with little conscious thought?

    When you’re out in the field working a scene you like, you don’t need to spend time juggling the technical tradeoffs in adjusting the camera. This distracts you from the artistic side. For instance, recognizing that this scene needs about f/8 to get the depth of focus you want and, since you are hand holding, at least 1/200th second shutter speed to insure a crisp image. Given that, are you willing to go to ISO 1600 to get these settings? These decisions should be almost instantaneous and subconscious.

    This is not to say you are operating by habit or on automatic. Quite the opposite. It is a state of flow. You are channeling all the craft you know to focus on the moment at hand. It is exhilarating.

    Photography is a craft

    Photography is a craft. Most arts are, but it seems more obvious in photography. We cannot create without our tools. And we cannot create well unless we are proficient with our tools.

    Let’s take a quick look at the chain of technologies required in photography.

    On the capture side there is the camera, of course. They are not trivial anymore. The user manual for my Nikon Z7-II is 866 pages. That just describes all the settings available, not how to use them. Becoming skilled at using one of these is formidable. Luckily, most of us only use a subset of the capability.

    And how much data do I need for what I am doing? Shooting full frame 40MPixels and above requires much more refined technique to achieve great results. Maybe what I’m doing today would be just fine with a 20MPixel APC camera. Do I have large and fast enough memory cards for my shoot? Enough batteries?

    There are the lenses and filters to select. It takes training to understand the effects possible and how to select the right look for the situation. Should I use a zoom lens when I know it is theoretically possible get a little better sharpness with a prime lens?

    Am I in the camp that says all images must be shot on a tripod? Or am I a hand-held guy? Or either, depending on the situation? Shooting hand held, do I know the techniques to get maximum sharpness? Or the techniques to shoot moving subjects?

    What about capture file formats? White balance? Camera profile settings?

    Processing

    That’s just the capture of an image. If you shoot RAW images, which I hope you do, the images are useless until they have been processed intensely.

    First, they have to be transferred to your computer. Do you have enough storage? My main image storage is currently using over 7 Terabytes. Then there’s multiple backup of that.

    If you are processing high resolution files you will need significant computing power. Lots of memory and graphic processing power. And a great, color calibrated monitor. Hopefully of 5K or more. That power is required to be able to process images fluidly without having to wait for the machine to catch up. Waiting really breaks your concentration.

    And of course, you use a color balanced process. Your camera and monitor are calibrated and you are using a wide color gamut system like ProPhoto RGB. A wide gamut allows lots of freedom in editing.

    All that processing takes a lot of time. So when you go out and shoot 1000 images, don’t forget that they have to be processed, and culled and keyworded and filed.. For me, processing an image takes anywhere from 1 minute to 8 hours.

    Output

    How you process an image depends on what you are using it for. Getting something ready to post on social media probably just requires some color and tone correction and maybe cropping. Preparing an image for a print could take a long time.

    Let me take the path of going to a print, since that is my preferred utilization.

    A print is a physical object that is perceived different from an image on a screen. The viewing time of a print is usually much longer than an image on screen. As such, it generally needs to be processed to a higher standard. Very careful spotting – removing sensor dust spots – is critical. Spending time removing or mitigating distracting elements is usually important.

    Many of the remaining decisions center on the characteristics of the final output. What size will the print be? What paper will be used. All papers have different properties and strengths and weaknesses. The paper can make the print look very different. Is it matte or glossy? Coated or uncoated? Heavy or thin? What color is it – papers aren’t necessarily white.

    To get an estimate of the final result requires turning on proofing during the editing. The computer attempts to simulate the final printed result. Of course, to do that, you need accurate profiles for the paper and printer combination. But that is just an approximation. It may need more than one attempt. And what about out of gamut colors on your print? Handling those can be tricky and exasperating.

    Build on it

    That is a lot! And this is just talking about still photography. Photographers have to be expert at most of what I described. That is some of the craft involved. All of this craft has to be used intelligently in the process of making a great image. It’s why I say that photography is one of the most technical and craft-based arts.

    But as much as we sometimes like to burrow into the fun details, the craft is a base. Build your base solid. But on top of the base, we need to build our artistic sensibility, our vision. We have to establish our style.

    Craft means knowing how to use your tools to achieve the results you want. Maybe that is an ultra crisp, tack sharp image. Maybe it is a flowing abstract with no sharp pixels. Yours might run to dark and moody and underexposed. Somebody else might be bright and high key. Those are your choices. Whatever your vision leads you to do, it is your craft that allows you to achieve it.

  • Throw It Away

    Throw It Away

    This is a controversial subject. I have touched on it before, but it is time to circle back. My assertion is that most of us should throw away more of our work. Horrors! Kill our darlings? Sounds terrible! But I am convinced that one excellent way to improve our work is to throw it away.

    We probably overshoot

    It is so easy now days with digital cameras. There seems to be no cost for shooting a lot of frames. We “work the scene”, taking many shots at different angles and positions and focal lengths. Refining it to find the best view. And then shoot a few insurance shots, you know, in case one doesn’t record properly or we jiggle the camera. You know.

    That’s a pretty typical process and can be useful. But the reality is these shots are not free. We have to edit them, cull through them to select the best, do some “quick” processing to see if they seem worth investing more in. This takes a lot of time. They take up disk and backup storage space.

    So where with film, we might have taken 3 or 4 images of a scene, now we come back with 15 or 20 or more. That can be good. If you really have to work through different views to determine what is best, then do it. Or increased experience might help to get you there in fewer attempts.

    For example, you come to a nice waterfall. So you shoot brackets of apertures from f/ 2.8 to f/22, and brackets of shutter speeds from 1/1000th to 10 sec, and exposures from -3 to +2 stops. Just in case. Why? You should know from experience what you prefer. You should know that f/8 +/- a little is what you like with this lens at this distance. The amount of blurring you prefer is usually achieved at around 1/4 to 1/10 second for this kind of subject. You should know how to expose to the right and prevent clipping of highlights.

    Just that takes it from shooting all possible combinations to intelligently determining what to do. You have a style and preference and you should be comfortable with the craft. Why shoot things you know you won’t like?

    Overshooting creates a huge backlog of work. And lots of wasted disk space. And a cluttered Lightroom catalog. Simplify.

    We keep too much

    OK, let’s say you intentionally shoot a lot of images of a scene as you work it. How much of that do you really need to keep?

    Are you going to keep all the shots in case you later change your mind later about what you like? Don’t. Make an artistic decision and stick with it. Don’t keep that full bracket of apertures “just in case” you change your mind.

    We make it hard on ourselves by second guessing our decisions. Decide what you like in the group, what matches your intent at the time, and throw away most of the others. My experience is that if I didn’t know what I liked at the time, one of the variations seldom captures “it” either.

    The great gets lost in the sea of good

    Are you drowning in a sea of pictures? So much that you can’t locate the shots you like best? I get the impression that this is an increasing problem for a lot of people.

    A solution is a more disciplined filing and catalog system. This is made much easier when there are fewer images competing for our attentions.

    You don’t need 20 decent pictures of that scene. You need the one that represents your best artistic sensibility at the time. And that one should be processed to bring out your vision as you saw it then. It should never be a case of wading through many competing images to pick out the best one.

    Here is a hard lesson I have had to learn: good images are usually worthless. Only great images have any chance of making it. You seldom need the ones that are only good.

    Declutter

    I am arguing for decluttering our catalog by removing images you aren’t going to need. But yes, that means you have to kill some of your darlings. Delete perfectly good images.

    This hurts. Why should you delete good images? Because as I said earlier, we are artists. We have to have the confidence to make a decision and a statement. This is my vision of that scene. None of the other attempts matter. DaVinci didn’t paint 20 variations of the Mona Lisa.

    If you have a catalog of 100,000 images, are they 100,000 excellent images? What good are all those OK images that you will never use? Wouldn’t it be much better to only have 10,000 great images? The numbers are just for discussion. My point is, declutter your environment.

    But, we say, I need insurance shots in case my great image gets corrupted. Really? How often does this happen. And if it does, that is what your backup strategy is there to correct.

    But I really like all those shots. Yes, but when is the last time you used one of them? Why would you use one of them? If they are not the great image you love, their value is close to zero.

    To use the example from before, if you have 100,000 pretty good images, how do you locate that 1 great one you want to submit to a gallery? It is hard to find the signal in the noise.

    Declutter. It hurts at first, but is healthy.

    Tighten up that portfolio

    The same applies to our portfolios and projects. Less is usually more. This is another of those painful lessons experience teaches if we listen.

    Your portfolio should have a max size you pick. If you want to add a new image to a portfolio, make yourself decide which one you will replace. This is hard. But here is a truth: every time you take one out, you make the remaining set stronger. Taking out a picture you love doesn’t mean you don’t love it anymore. It just means that it is not the strongest in the group.

    I don’t think I have ever damaged a portfolio by taking something out.

    Same with projects. That is a little trickier, because sometimes we need images to set a context or help tell our story, but still, they should all be strong. Less is still usually more.

    A personal example. I recently needed to pull together a group of images for an exhibit. The subject was one I love, so I had a lot of images I really liked. In my first pass, I pulled out 162 images I loved that I thought would be great for it. I knew that was a ridiculous number for this exhibit, but I really liked all of them.

    So hard core culling mode on. After my next pass, it was down to 125. Progress, but way out of range still. I had to remind myself that deleting an image from the set doesn’t mean I don’t like it, just that it was bumped by a stronger image of mine. So with a great struggle, I was down to 69. So far I have taken out nearly 100 of my favorite images!

    Narrowing my focus and getting even more selective got it down to 44. It hurt, but now I have narrowed it to 23. I’m kind of stuck right now, but I know I need to get it down to about 15.

    A funny thing has happened, though. At this point I believe ALL of them are great images and I could almost randomly select the next 8 to cut. That is an interesting realization.

    Be reasonable

    In all things you have to make reasonable judgments for yourself. I’m not saying never keep alternate shots of a scene. I routinely keep a few. But I don’t keep duplicates that do not add any value. And I don’t keep alternate images that I know from experience are not my style.

    And there are those shots you know are flawed, but you just love them. Fine. I have a lot of those. Generally they are segregated from my “main” images, but they are important memories for me. Or they tell a behind the scenes story that is valuable to me.

    I use a multi-pass editing process and I usually let images age some before making many final judgments about them. But I figure if I don’t delete about 1/2 of my shots, either I am on a great run (it happens sometimes) or I’m not being critical enough. Often it runs to 2/3 deleted. And by deleted, I mean really gone, erased, trashed, removed, never to be seen again, digital dust.

    It hurts, but the remaining ones are stronger. I want to always be biased toward making the survivors stronger.

    Today’s image

    The project I described above is on France. More about the joie de vivre rather than a tourist view. To present more of a mirror than a window, to refer back to a recent post. This picture is one i am struggling with. Would you keep it? So far I have. I think it says a lot about the environment and culture and spirit of the people. I love it for a number of reasons. If it doesn’t make it into the final set, I will be disappointed, but it means the overall group has a higher bar.