Large Pixel Size = Large Dynamic Range, Low Light Sensitivity, Low Noise

I’ve known for the last year that the Nikon D3 is the best digital camera, not for resolution (12.5 megapixels) but for it amazing dynamic range, low light, and low noise ability. It all comes down to the size of the pixels on the D3 sensor, which are larger than in any other digital camera (including the medium format Hasselblads).

A very technical, but extremely good article on the subject has been written by R.N. Clark. In this article he compares recent camera models. All this confirms why I will not be upgrading to the Nikon D3x, unless I wish to sacrifice the light capturing features of the Nikon D3 for higher resolution.

There are two important lessons I’ve learnt from reading Mr Clark’s article, which are important for the digitial photographer…

1. Dynamic Range drops by 4-5 stops when you go from ISO 100 to ISO 10,000. That is one very good reason for shooting at a low ISO.
2. The Dynamic range of the camera is limited by the Analogue-Digital convertor for the sensor. So the maximum dynamic range for the Nikon D3 with a 14-bit A/D convertor is about 14 stops, whereas a 16-bit processor can achieve a slightly higher dynamic range.

AF Fine Tune on the Nikon D3 with 70-200mm f/2.8 lens

I usually focus on the eyes when doing portrait photography, and it is very handy to place the little red auto focus selection box in the viewfinder right on the eye I want in focus. The trouble is that often, when using the 70-200mm lens at f/2.8 the eye is NOT in focus. The actual focus point was about 5-7mm behind the place that little red square was allegedly focusing on. Now I know why… I discovered an informative lens alignment article and product on the Luminious Landscape website. Rather than buying the product advertised, the image to the left is a genuine kiwi innovation (cardboard box and a stainless ruler) which enabled me to recalibrate the lens on the Nikon D3.

On the Nikon D3, go to Setup Menu, down to AF fine tune, and then dial in your adjustements. A little trial and error determined that a -15 adjustment in the menu now has me shooting eyes in focus.

The same trick is available on the Canon 1D MKIII, 1Ds MKIII, 5DII, 50D, or Nikon D3x, D300, D700, or Sony A900, or Pentax K20.

JPEG – The Digital Polaroid

Shooting JPEGs is the digital equivalent of Polaroid instant film, that ‘write-on’ instant film. With the Polaroid camera you click the shutter button and it ‘instantly’ spits out a print that develops before your eyes over about 3 minutes. A low quality print is the trade-of for instant gratification, but then that’s all you need for a passport photo. There is no negative for processing another print with adjustments. However, with the ‘write-on’ Polaroid print, you can write, draw, or paint on the photo itself.

When you shoot JPEGs on a digital camera the process is similar… the camera instantly processes the picture which you can ‘write-on’ to make adjustments when editing on the computer. There is no unprocessed ‘negative’ for you to develop, because the camera has thrown it away while making you the JPEG. This, in a nutshell, is why serious photographers shoot RAW and not JPEGs.

PSNZ Honours – Projected Digital Images

I’ve been contemplating a submission of images to the Photographic Society of New Zealand Honours Board, to add a few more letters after my name!

The only way to make a submission of high quality images, for evaluation as high quality images, is to produce prints and submit prints. The option to submit ‘projected digital images’ does not offer this, because the digital files “must be submitted as jpegs, maximum 1024 pixels by 768 pixels and individual image files should be limited to 1mb or less.”  It would appear that the images are evaluated by projection using a data projector.

In my view this is inadequate for demonstrating so many quality features in a digital image, especially for evaluation for a PSNZ honour (Licentiate, Associate, Fellow). Instead the submission should be of digital files of the same or similar size as the camera capture (e.g. 10 megapixels) and at a resolution much higher than ’screen’ or ‘projector’ resolution (e.g. 300 dpi instead of 72 dpi). The maximum file size could be set to say 30 megabytes (enough space on a CD for 20 images). This way the Honours Board people can enlarge an image on a  computer monitor or during projection to evaluate the quality at the full size of the image. This is the only way to really see if an image is sharp and well exposed.

I wonder also about the file format, colour space, and bit depth, etc.  Why is it not possible to show an image of much higher quality than a JPEG in sRGB? Why not a DNG or PSD file in ProPhoto RGB at 16 bits. Surely the images submitted can be viewed in Photoshop or Lightroom. I just don’t want to create low quality JPEGs of my images which have automatically made settings that I don’t want in the image, namely (1) colour space, (2) colour temperature, (3) tonal curves, (4) compression and therefore discarding significant detail information, (5) 8 bits = only 256 levels of light luminosity instead of over 4000 levels at 12 bit, and (5) sharpening that I’ve had no control over.

Certainly a digital file submission is going to cost much less than making prints and posting them. But until PSNZ changes the rules on submitting ‘Projected Digital Images’ to lift the benchmark for the quality of such images, then in my view the respective ‘honours’ awarded is somewhat devalued. Or have I got this all wrong?

Wanganui Bed & Breakfast

Here’s the place to stay a night or two if you’re visiting Wanganui, NEW ZEALAND.

The idea started from the successful one day photography tution sessions that I offer. Brochure is here. Then I found a number of artists around New Zealand do a similar art ‘course’ over a weekend, and at the same time provide ‘bed & breakfast’.

So here we are ready for guests, even those with no interest in photography.

The image is the home page of the website. Lots of photos are still to be taken for this!

markbrimblecombe.com

www.markbrimblecombe.com

I’ve just revised my website… a job which has taken a few days.

The first big task was creating different categories and respective pages for photo galleries.

But then I struck a problem. I created a ‘Fine Art Photography’ category, then had to think about which of my photos to show in these galleries. Hence the article which is the last blog, and no photos yet on this page on my website.

The latest great leap forward for the website is a new look photo gallery. This has all the images watermarked and the option to purchase a photo directly from the options under the photo using PayPal. It is taken me a few days to work out how to do this… but it will have two significant results (1) far less people copying and printing my photos without permission and paying, and (2) more orders because it is so easy to do. See what you think by going to http://www.markbrimblecombe.com/galleries/BWTest/index.html

What is Fine Art Photography?

What is ‘fine art photography’? There is no universally accepted definition, because there is no such genre in either art or photography. All photography is art, and if photography is defined as ‘writing with light’ (the two Greek words photos and graphos) then all art is photography. Therefore I resist categorising a selection of my photography as ‘fine art’ when all of my photography is ‘fine art’.

In my view, art and aesthetics go together. There may be little or no evidence of technical competence with a camera (the photo is out of focus, over exposed, etc.), but a photograph has aesthetical qualities. This is where the so called ‘fine art’ photographer and the ‘camera club’ photographer diverge, and where aesthetical snobbery begins toward each other. I sometimes fall into this mental assessment trap, though even then I ask myself “do I like this photograph?” There is also gratification when others say they like my photographs. What is likable or not likable about a photograph?

I like the images made by Andris Apse, but he will always fail in his quest for a perfect landscape photograph. It doesn’t exist. Reality is the combination of opposites, order and chaos. I don’t like many of the images made by ‘fine art photographer’ Laurence Aberhart, but there are many that I do. Others like the ones that I don’t, and vica versa.

There are some photographs that I just don’t understand, irrespective of the photographic process used to make them or the level of technical camera competence demonstrated. But then, should I like a photograph because of these considerations? On one level the answer is “yes.” Some so called fine art photographers haven’t got a clue about how to use a camera. Their best photos, technically speaking, are lucky mistakes. Some are technically very competent, and create very likable ‘artistic’ images that demonstrate few if any of their technical camera skills. This seems to be a similar observation as to why I like some of the paintings by Colin McCahon, some of which could have been painted by a child or by a great artist who is an expert in the medium but chooses a genre as seen on the walls of a pre-schooler’s room. The same goes for graffiti.

So the issue of liking or understanding a picture really shouldn’t be governed by the medium used, or the artist’s technical competence with that medium. It is hard, nevertheless, to shake some snobbery in this regard, especially if one has strived to become camera craftsman, and when some photographs classified as ‘fine art’ demonstrate little evidence of technical ability. But is it snobbery? Reality is the combination of another pair of opposites, the objective and the subjective, the scientific and the experiential. Some would add the ‘left’ and ‘right’ brain perspectives. This could be the key to overcoming the snobbery, and appreciating anything… both reality and any depiction of reality or imagined/interpreted reality.

But in regard to one side of the dipolarity, the objective and scientific side, we may still differentiate between the novice and the expert. In regard to the other side, the subjective and experiential, we cannot. Everybody ‘sees’ things differently; everything is differentiated; we are all different. This brings me to another universal dipolarity: reality is both being and becoming. Everything includes both static/unchanging reality (e.g. electromagnetic forces, speed of light) as well as change and flux. Hence the dipolarity of order and chaos.

So what should I do with this category of ‘fine art photography’? The photographer in me likes recognition and applause from friends who have ‘made it’ in the art world, so I will stick with it for now, even if does entail a degree of social snobbery. The philosopher in me often says it is nonsense on the objective/scientific level (and this could be technical snobbery), but ‘always’ great art on the subjective/experiential level. This hasn’t really helped me to differentiate those images in my collection of photos which are ‘fine art’. They’re all ‘bad’ (the modern euphemism for ‘good’)!