I’ve also created a blog especially for photos by myself and Joan. It includes the following photo. Check it out here.

Joan in the Durie Hill Tunnel

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.

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.

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.

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’)!