LightCentric Photography Blog: 2024

Saturday, October 12, 2024

Whatever Floats your Boat

[Just yesterday, we returned from 17 days in Europe (Zurich, Munich, Prague and Berlin). In addition to the usual "jet lag" from a 6 hour time difference, we had a lot going on here, with our home more or less in the direct pass of the second of two hurricanes hitting our coast during the time we were gone. We were fortunate in both instances, as we are on high ground and the eye of the second one shifted slightly south of us, sparing the highest hurricane winds (though we did have sustained winds in the 65+ mph range with gusts up to 100mph) and the first one skirted north of us. She (Helene) produced unprecedented storm surge along the coast (we are but a mile from there but well above sea level). Our airport was closed until Friday morning, so we were delayed a day - and arrived yesterday at noon, safe, but exhausted. It will take me a while to "curate" all the images from this wonderful trip, so I am posting the following blog on boating which I have had in the qeue. I expect to have some material from the trip coming up next week].

I GREW up on Lake Michigan and have spent many hours over the years on "small" boats of various sizes and description. In addition to the Great Lakes, both my paternal and maternal grandparents, as well as a number of family friends, had vacation homes on some of Michigan's hundreds of inland lakes. During much of my adult life, I lived within a few miles of Lake Huron and have logged some hours there, too. Here in Florida, on retirement, I have family and friends with boats and have been given boating opportunities on and around the Gulf of Mexico (mostly the intercoastal waterway). I am no stranger to boats. Whether or not these experiences have prompted it or not, I have always had an appreciation for boats (though more recently we have spent more time on ships than on boats).

Sailboat Basin in San Francisco is reminiscent of the harbor on West Grand Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan where we kept our 19 foot Sailboat when I was growing up
Copyright Andy Richards 2011 - All Rights Reserved

WHEN YOU maintain an archive portfolio, website, and blog over a number of years, you spend a fair amount of time organizing, categorizing, re-categorizing and even re-working images. I think the current term of vogue for all this stuff is "curating." I probably do that in a somewhat comprehensive way about twice a year. I have my LightCentricPhotography main website where my images are displayed and are for sale. I also keep a LightCentric Flickr site (once a "pro" subscription, but when SmugMug, who already hosts my main site, bought Flickr, it didn't make sense to me to pay them for 2 sites). Since I already had a Flickr presence established and had put a fair amount of work into setting up albums and geo-tagging images there, I decided to keep the free site and so I need to curate that site also. I have been blogging since the mid-2000's. That means hundreds and hundreds of images to keep track of. And knowing some of the pro photographers, my image collection is but a fraction of theirs.

Port - La Corun'a, Spain - Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved
It never ceases to amaze me that wherever in the world we travel (often on cruise ships) the ports are full of personal pleasure craft

A BIT off-topic I know, but I'll bring it around. The curating process means I routinely come across images I have not looked at, nor thought about for years, and sometimes images I kept, but never really considered doing anything specific with. On my LightCentricPhotography site, I do have a gallery entitled, "Marine." As I write this blog post, it occurs to me that I probably need to revisit that gallery and do some maintenance. But some recent work tweaked me to look at, and post some of my "boats and boating" imagery. So here we go.

This Clearwater sunrise image was made from our fishing charter boat as we left the docks in the pre-dawn
Copyright Andy Richards 2012 - All Rights Reserved

I CAN'T think of a subject matter any more compelling to an outdoor photographer than boats and marinas. Any time I am near a marina, port or any other large concentration of boats (see Newport Boat Show, below), you will find me walking around with my camera in hand. Like any other subject, dramatic photography of these subjects is dependent on light, and getting to these places during the best photographic light conditions is a treat, but is not always easy to do. Especially when traveling. Yet I have recorded some of my favorite images during the day's most dramatic lighting.

AN IMPORTANT point to make here, is that there is a distinction between "boats" and "ships." There is, however, no clear-cut definition or standard for distinguishing them. Rather, there is a combination of factors, including size, the type of waters being navigated, and the use of the craft. Ships tend to be commercial working vessels which are used for fishing, passenger transportation, and cargo shipping. Boats tend to be smaller, more likely to be used on inland waterways, and often used as pleasure craft. They can be anything from a very small dingy used to get back and forth to a larger craft from the shore to a larger craft that is moored out. Oh, and one more huge use of both boats and ships: military. So how do you tell the difference? Perhaps the best way I can voice my own view is to quote U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his famous line which is the closest anyone has come to defining obscenity: "I know it when I see it." 😏 In this post I am discussing primarly what I call "pleasure craft."

ONCE WE we have made that "distinction," though, it seems that there is no end to the variety of boats around the world. "Recreational" boats number around 30 million worldwide (nearly 22 million are registered in the U.S. and Canada). For perspective, there are about 130 million "vessels" in the world (not including military vessels). We should note that these numbers include only "registered" vessels and do not take the too-many-to-account-for small canoes, kayaks, dingies, and other small boats. If you do the math, that means there are 100 million some commercial boats and ships around the world. Not surprisingly, it is difficult to find a single source for military ships, but including carriers, surface warships, submarines, tenders, and patrol type boats, those surely number well into the thousands. Lots of boats.

GETTING BACK to the pleasure craft boats, I was surprised (though not shocked) to see that more than half of them are in the U.S. and Canada. When you look at the world's most populous places, maybe it isn't so much of a surprise. Private ownership of watercraft in places like China, Russia and India is not commonly found. The U.S. has huge seacoasts on three boarders, and both the U.S. and Canada have a very large number of inland lakes (including the freshwater "oceans" known as "The Great Lakes." Not surprisingly, Michigan (#2) and Minnesota (#3 and they are almost a "dead heat") are among the top states in personal craft ownership, with Florida (#1) and California (#4) - both having huge coastal coverage. As I researched this topic, I also became aware that many countries outrank both the U.S. and Canada in terms of the per capita ownership of boats. Even though the raw numbers of boats is much larger in the U.S. and Canada, not as many people (on a per capita basis) own boats. Boat ownership is much more common in other parts of the world. It is just that they are much less populated places. That brings things into perspective for me.

I photographed this yacht in the marina in Monaco in 2022 - While it is pretty small by megayacht standards, it is large enough for a hot tub on the stern
Copyright Andy Richards 2022 - All Rights Reserved

THE MAJORITY of these boats are smaller craft (probably somewhere under 50-ish feet). I am not sure what the definition of a "yacht" is, but most internet sources suggest that the number of true luxury yachts is around 10,000. Of those, Wikipedia lists an interesting category of owners of yachts 150 (ish) feet or longer. The majority of those owners - it shouldn't surprise you - are of some kind of Arabic descent, with a handful of Russian Oligarchs, and a very few American and European billionaires - and a few others - mixed in. One article suggests that most of these luxury yachts spend their time in the Caribbean in the winter and the in the Mediterranean in the warmer months. My own empirical observation backs that up, as most of the ones I have seen have been in those two places.

THOUGH PERHAPS not "mega-yachts," there are certainly some impressive boats to be found elsewhere in the world. In 2016, I spent a few days in Newport, Rhode Island with my buddy, Rich. He was on a part-business-part pleasure trip and I joined him. During the mornings, I wandered around Newport, a very affluent town which is very marine-centric. The weekend we were there just happened to be the annual Newport Boat Show, and there were some big players there. I saw some of the biggest sailboats I have ever seen (50-60 foot long with twin masts) being put in at the Newport Shipyard. Most of what I saw during those days were monohull sailboats, though catamarans are a pretty common sight in the Caribbean.

During a Cruise Ship stop in St. Kitts in the Caribbean in 2013, my wife and I took an island tour that finished with a catamaran sail around part of the island - while used for a retail commercial venture, this large cat is cleary within the definition of pleasure craft and is very much like the privately - owned large cat sailboats that seem ubiquitous to the Caribbean
Copyright Andy Richards 2013 - All Rights Reserved

MY OWN experience has all been on smaller inland lakes - mainly The Great Lakes, and the boat sizes more from about 20 - 45 feet. I have sailed monohull boats and operated small (mostly outboard) boats in those waters over the years, including several multi-day sailing cruises on Lake Huron and in the Canadian "North Channel" of Lake Huron. I was fortunate to know a few people who owned boats and were gracious enough to invite me along to join them. Not only did I get sailing and navigating experience I hadn't had before, but there were some really great photo opportunities for me on those trips. Lots of good memories.

I made this image from the bow of our 38 ft sailboat on a multi-day trip into the Canadian North Channel of Lake Huron. We were anchored for the night in a small protected area called John's Island.
Copyright Andy Richards 2008 - All Rights Reserved

WHEN IT comes to photographing marine subjects - particularly boats and harbors - I am a pretty much non-discriminating photographer. I will shoot anything that seems the least bit photogenic. That includes all boats whether large or small, old or new.

This is the Catalina 36' sailboat owned by my good friend and business partner of 30 years, made on a "day sail" on Lake Huron near the "Mighty Mac" (Mackinac) Bridge that crosses from the Michigan Lower Peninsula accross the Mackinac Strait to the Michigan Upper Peninsula
Copyright Andy Richards 2007 - All Rights Reserved

ONE OF the best perspectives to photograph marine subjects is, of course, from a boat. I have often noted the unique opportunity to shoot parts of cities from the deck of a cruise ship. The same advantage can be gotten from smaller boats, as they will often get you a view of your subject that you cannot get anywhere from land. Before the advent of drones and drone photography, that was particularly true.

BOATS AND harbors can also make wonderful contextual venues for photographs. In the fall of 2010, I joined two of my great photography buddies, Rich and Al for a several day trip to Minnesota's "North Shore" along Lake Superior. The North Shore borders the western coast of Superior the largest and northernmost of the Great Lakes. There are wonderful sandstone cliffs along the shore, and to the west are several great rivers with thundering drops and really nice foliage during the fall months. One of the best photographic scenes on the shore (and part of the reason for our choosing the particular dates we were there) is one of the most picturesque lighthouses in the world, Split Rock Light. Once a fully working light, it is today part of Split Rock State Park and is only lit for ceremonial ocassions. Fortunately for all of us, the light has continued to be well maintained by the Minnesota State Parks and the Minnesota Historical Society. I cannot remember the occasion, but it was an anniversary of some description, and the light was going to be lit the night we were there. We decided to scout the location for good composition points early in the afternoon. We were surprised to see a large crowd of tripods on the beach we had determined would be the best vantage point. Asking around, we learned that not only would the light be lit, but there would be fireworks. It was a great night for me as a photographer, complete with a little serendipity.

Split Rock Lighthouse - Split Rock State Park - Two Harbors, Minnesota
Copyright Andy Richards 2010 - All Rights Reserved

YOU MAY be asking at this point, what has this got to do with boats (other than the obvious). Again, I'll try to bring us back to the point. One of my favorite shots was made in the late afternoon (long before the main event), while looking at composition. There were a few boats that decided to scope out the lighting, anchoring in the tiny harbor where we stood viewing the light. One was the sailboat (under auxiliary power) pictured here in the foreground. There is little doubt what the subject in the photograph is. The boat, however, had nice color and late afternoon lighting, and makes a really nice context-setting compositional element. As well, it is very typical of the sailing boats frequently seen in the Great Lakes.

Sailing in the sunset - Narragansett Bay - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright 2016 - All Rights Reserved

IF YOU are near water, you are bound to see a boat (or boats) of some description. Newport, Rhode Island may well be the sailboat capital of the U.S. (or at least of the U.S. East Coast). It is also home to an important U.S. Navy facility and the U.S. Naval War College. Historically known as "America's First Resort," it has miles of Atlantic Beach and many coves and safe harbors around its tidal lands. At one time during the "Gilded Age," (which ironically predated the Great Depression of the late 1920's and early 1030's) it was a summer home to the "rich and famous," with mansions along its "Cliff Walk," built by such notables as the Vanderbilts. Before all of that, Newport was a haven for religious dissenters during the early settlement of the U.S. as well as for artists. A pretty interesting pedigree. Maybe the most internationally famous thing Newport is known for is its hosting of the America's Cup, an international sailing competition (from 1930 - 1983). There are several large boat building facilities in and around Newport. With that kind of pedigree, it is no wonder that you see so many traditional sailing vessels everywhere you look in Newport. During my trip there back in 2016, Rich and I were photographing a small, very picturesque light perched on a rocky bank of the Narragansett Bay. We had been shooting for a while and waiting for the sunset. Behind the light, it was nice, but not sensational. I turned away to look backward over my left shoulder, noticing the golden orange light just after "old sol" dropped behind the horizon and had the good fortune to see the sailboat pictured completing its run back toward Newport. I had time to make just a couple quick exposures, but it all came together for me to make this one of my all time favorite images.

ANYONE WHO owns (or has owned a boat) knows that boat ownership is not for the faint of heart. All boats require constant maintenance, facilities for storage, and a substantial budget (over and above the initial acquistion cost). In my view, it takes a special dedication to consistently own and maintain a boat for a long period of time. There is an old saying among those "in the know" about boating, that the two best days of boat ownership are the day you first take delivery and the day you sell it. During my lifetime, as I grew up, our family owned several boats and though none of them were large or extravagant, I can attest to the above. It seemed like we spent more time maintaining, cleaning, winterizing and repairing than we did enjoying them. Looking back, I realize it only seemed so. If you are a true boating spirit, the constant maintenance, upkeep and upgrading is a labor of love, and you make the time to reap the benefits of that work. I have personally owned two boats in my lifetime, and have proudly proclaimed that they would be the only boats I every owned. Both were canoes that mostly hung in my garage. 😂 I don't own any boats today.

This classic older pleasure yacht was moored in front of an impressive homestead along the Anclote River, just outside of Tarpon Springs, Florida. I caught it as my neighbor and I cruised by on our way to lunch.
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

I HAVE said many times, tongue-in-cheek, that the best way to enjoy a boat is to have a friend who has one and is generous. I have been fortunate to have several of them. In my experience, many boat owners enjoy sharing their love for their calling, and enthusiastically welcome "crew" to join them. I have had the good fortune of having a number of such friends and my adult years' boating is all because of that good fortune. I appreciate the opportunities I have been given. Even after I retired and moved to Florida, I have had the good fortune of having a neighbor who will take us out in his boat on The St. Joseph Sound here on the west coast, Gulf of Mexico side of Florida. It is always fun.

This one - also on the Anclote on the way into Tarpon Springs - is a bit more modern, but still clearly a "luxury" boat within our definition (my friend and mine) and managing to maintain those classic lines in a more modern way.
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

NOT LONG ago, our wives were involved in some kind of social event and my friend, neighbor and boat owner decided he and I would go to lunch. We ran the some 12 miles up the gulf from his mooring in Palm Harbor to the mouth of the Anclote River, and then back down the river into the heart of Tarpon Springs. Along the way, we saw some pretty nice "shacks" on the river, and a couple of them had what we would certainly characterize as "luxury yachts" moored in front of them.

A kind of marine "boneyard" out behind a boatbuilding and restoration shop in Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2016 - All Rights Reserved

LIKE SO many of our earthly possessions (and ourselves) boats mostly have a useful lifespan and eventually wear out. Over the years, I have seen a few boat "graves." The old wooden boats at one of the boat building and restoration facilities caught my photographic eye. I actually have a more intimate shot of these that I like a lot, but here, I wanted to give a little more context.

THOUGH THEY have outlived their nautical use for the most part, there is - for the photgrapher - a strong redeeming quality here. They make truly fascinating photographic subjects. This is especially true of old wooden boats. The weathered wood, curves and shapes, and even the decay makes great fodder for studies in shape, line, texture, and in the case of the boats in Newport: color. The boat immediately above was shot in Port Clyde, Maine, at the Marina. It was beached and clearly no longer in use. It immediately drew my eye. As found, it was painted white with green trim, and well faded and weathered. I like the original color shot well enough, but from the first time I looked at this one for composition, my mind said "black and white." That's something I don't do very often, but I thought the weathered, decayed old boat had some "stories" in there, and they would best be told in B&W.

Saturday, September 21, 2024

The Best Camera

MOST OF us who have made a nice image or two over the years have likely heard from an admirer of the image: "Wow. You must have a really good camera." For years, I would patiently explain that there is a lot more to it than a "nice camera." Recently, a friend told me he just agrees and says: "yes, I do." 😁 I am so going to steal that one.

A more useful question would probably be: "what is the best camera for me?

IN KEEPING WITH the notion that it is somehow the camera, or camera system that makes our photography, in addition to the social media pages devoted to an apology for a particular brand or system, I see a lot of "which camera should I buy?" questions. Maybe not be the best place to get useful, unbiased information. Just sayin'. It's not that you won't get some good information on those pages. It's just that you are equally likely to get inaccurate, or just downright bad information. This is especially true of those pages dedicated to a system, brand or model of camera. While it is true that there should be people on there who are very knowledgeable about a camera you may be considering (and there definitely are a few such folk who are very helpful), my own experience tends to be that many of the responses you get to inquiries come from folks who are inexperienced, or in some cases are even what we used to call brand "fanboys" (do we still say that?). It stands to reason that if you are in the "Red Camera Group," and you ask if you should get a red camera, the majority of answers are probably going to be yes.

That one "best" camera doesn't exist

THERE IS also a line of reasoning (largely driven by advertising and social media hype in my view) that makes people think: "I need the best" camera. I think of cameras as a lot like cars. What would you think about the question: "what is the best car?" We all know there are a lot of good vehicles out there, and that some of them are very good. We also know they have different attributes, which make them good for some things and not so good for others. We also know that there is probably not one "best" car. Likewise, cameras. That one "best" camera doesn't exist.

A MORE useful question would probably be: "what is the best camera for me?" That's really what we want to know, isn't it? The answer to this question is a mix of factors, including intended use, budget, existing compatible gear, and possibly experience and expertise.

LET'S START with intended use. I just recently read a post on one of the M4/3 group pages on Facebook (FB). It asks a kind of difficult to answer question. Not difficult because of the subject matter. Difficult because of the way the question was posed: "Looking at switching from my (mirrorless "full frame" [FF]) to M4/3. I shoot birds, and will do some macro. Are there reasons for me not to switch?" As I alluded to above, there are several factors to consider. The poster didn't really give us much to work with. Birds and Macro. Can be done with either camera. Are you going to be doing serious cropping? How do you plan to display your images. Do you want to make large prints? Will you be submitting the images for advertising or publication? Or will you be content to post the images on FB, Instagram, blogs and the like?. Something to keep in mind is that you may be going along, posting to social media sites, getting lots of "likes," etc. Then suddenly out of the blue you may get contacted by someone who wants to use your image for commercial purposes. If that happens, you just might wish you had made a larger, higher resolution image. For the most part, however, if you are just posting images, you probably do not have a need for lots of megapixels (the poster above's FF camera was 45mp and the M4/3 is a maximum of 20 mp. As well, the sensors and the pixels are physically smaller on the M4/3). Nor is a larger sensor a requirement for prints and commercial use. I know there are plenty of shooters out there using the small sensor cameras and still selling their work.

ANOTHER FACTOR is (unfortunately) budget. There are many of us who just cannot afford the best equipment money can buy. My friend Rich has the 50mp Sony A1. He shoots a lot of birds - often in motion. From his research it appears that the A1 is Sony's best equiped camera body for birds and other animate subjects. It also retails for $6500. The m4/3 OM Systems OM-1ii is probably the closest M4/3 matchup and, at less than $2,500, it is less than half of that. It is important to understand that the specifications are different, given the "FF" sensor vs. the m4/3. How much of a factor is that for you? I know from reading on line that there are 1000's of happy m4/3 bird shooters, for example, that are perfectly satisfied with their choice. It is not just the shear ability to afford it, though. In my own case, I do not shoot birds, sports, or wildlife and do not plan to do so (at least not on a regular basis). My primary emphasis is on landscape, citi-scape and travel subjects. As such, I just don't need the specs that come with those models. Most of my work is done from a tripod or, if handheld, during generally daylight conditions. For my needs, I have been able to make two bodies - two different systems - work very well for me. If I wanted - or felt I "needed" the higher "flighted" bodies, I could do it. But it doesn't make sense for me to do so just because I can. That would not, by any stretch of logic, make them the "best" cameras for me. Your photography style will dictate the specifications you ultimately settle on. Your setup may end up more or less expensive than mine.

Spend as little as you have to, and save that $$$ for glass!

IF YOU are a new shooter, (in which case, this information may be doubly important for you), compatible existing equipment will probably not be a factor. For the rest of us (perhaps the majority of readers here), we have already invested in at least one system or brand over the years. This factor is really in lock-step with the above "budget" factor. If money is no object, disregard and invest in the system that fits for other reasons. Again, for the rest of us, it does factor in. If you make a complete system or brand change, you are also going to have to change your lenses, and the bulk of your other peripherals (ironically, if you are going from FF to M4/3, all of that equipment is generally less expensive and may be a factor to consider). Don't forget to consider other things, like specialized brackets, filters, batteries, chargers, remote cables and flash accessories. They will all add into the mix. For that poster above thinking of moving from FF to M4/3, I have to wonder if he mixed that all into the decision matrix?

I ALSO added experience and expertise into the mix. This is a variable factor. If you are just starting out, there are really some fundamentals that you need in a camera. In most cases, an "entry-level" model would probably do just fine. However, it may also make some sense to plan ahead. How confident are you that you will be making this a long-term proposition, putting in the work required to become an accomplished photographer? If you are, it may actually be more cost-effective in the long run to acquire a more advanced model, than to buy 2 or 3 times just to get where you will eventually end up. This is especially a factor if you are buying new equipment. Conversely, there is something to be said for getting a "tryout" model, learning a bit about your photographic interests and then moving up when you are more certain. It brings to mind the historical beginnings of this blog. It started out with a series of e-mail answers to questions from one of my sisters, and turned that into the beginnings of this blog. She had been visiting me and she had a point and shoot camera. At some point she decided she wanted to "up her game." I helped her find and purchase a used DSLR on eBay. It seemed to make sense to do that as an entry into the interchangeable lens world, and see where things went. Turns out it was the right move, as she discovered the DSLR route was not for her. Ultimately, she traded it for a much higher-specced Point & Shoot camera, and made lots of really nice and really memorable photos with that one.

[Buying used] . . . is a calculated risk

THE ANECDOTE also brings to mind another consideration. I have had very good luck in the "used" photography market. It is funny. I once had a pro acquaintance who I corresponded with quite a bit. When I brought up used gear once, he immediately panned the idea. He didn't even want to think about having a shoot on the line using somebody else's hand-me-down gear, not having any idea about what it may or may not have been through, and having no recourse if there was a problem. Understandable. It was how he made his living. For us less dependent hobbyists, however, I have always thought it was worth the risk - at least for certain equipment. Of all the cameras I have owned, several of them were purchased used. My current "workhorse" Sony a7rii was purchased very gently used. It is a discontinued model, and if/when I have to replace it someday, if I stay with the series, I will have to buy an a7riv to get at least equivalent spec if I buy new. Used, I am confident I can find a iii or iv for half of that or less. I may not be something you are comfortable with. I have had good luck. I have also bought a few lenses used. I think it is a calculated risk. If it is a one-time purchase and you don't have the ability to replace it - buy new and insure it.

THE BEST camera? As Sylvester Stallone says in his new series: Tulsa - "there's no sucha (sic) thing." 😃 There is a such thing though, as the best camera for you. My advice, find the one that does the stuff you really need/want, not just because its "cool." Spend as little as you have to, and save that $$$ for glass!

[We are off again on travel for the next couple weeks in Switzerland, Germany and the Czech Republic. I know I will have some new images and experiences to share here when we return]

Saturday, September 14, 2024

"The Dark Light"

ACK IN 2021, I posted about light. Even more recently, I posted about the effect of absence of light. Given my "brand," (for lack of a better description) LightCentricPhotography, it shouldn't be a surprise that much of my photography, thinking, and commentary centers around light. That's o.k., because light the essence of the photographic art.

I HAVE spent a lot of the waking hours over my lifetime reading. I love to read. I read every day. My reading list is broad. I like history, some current political commentary, photography, and fiction. Most of my fiction tends to be lighter, like mystery, thrillers, etc. Sometimes toward the whimsical. When my daily fiction reading collides with photography in any meaningful way, I think that is pretty cool. For a couple years now, since we moved to Florida (a state about which I knew almost nothing), I have been reading the sort of beach bum, ex-military spy, retired (and not so successful) sports figure and "gumshoe," type books set in Florida. I had already read through several contemporary authors when I found and turned to Randy Wayne White's "Doc Ford" series. For all I knew, Doc Ford's was a restaurant in Fort Myers Beach: Doc Ford's Sanibel Rum Bar and Grill (appropriately owned by Randy Wayne White). One of White's books I recently read has a passage that resonated with me. In the book: "The Dark Light," the protagonist, Doc Ford, says:

"Our perception of reality is visually based. Change the light and our reality is changed."

(Doc Ford)

PRETTY COOL for this to come up in a paperback novel. Of course, the author, Randy Wayne White, really said it, but it is more "cool" quoting Doc Ford. At least I think so (although I have probably used up my quota of the word, "cool" - for this post anyway). 😎 The majority of the images here are based on light or the absence of light. The opening image was shot at sunrise, at the Soo Locks connecting Lake Huron to Lake Superior in the Great Lakes. The locks are on the St. Mary River, which flows from Lake Superior, eventually into Lake Huron and which also serves as the border between the U.S. and Canada, at the northeastern-most part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Not surprisingly, the area around the locks is substantially commercial-industrial, and marine oriented. In the revealing light of day, it is cluttered and not particularly photogenic. The bridge is not architecturally aesthetic. In the dark, even though things are artificially lighted, there is simply not enough of anything revealed to make what I find to be an appealing photo. I think the sunrise and particularly the sun star (even the flair spots), give the scene some drama, and change the otherwise potentially drab, industrial reality of the image.

THE DAYLIGHT shot of the Port of Barcelona (actually just after sunrise) is a pretty realistic presentation of the Cruise Ship portion of Barcelona's very impressive seaport. From the top deck of our cruise ship, I went wide with this to get the sweeping curve of the access road and the engaging architecture of the bridge. It also shows the wider setting of the city's old Gothic Quarter and mountains in the background. Barcelona is a geographically diverse and large city. The image also displays some of Barcelona's unique architecture. Still, it is a pretty plain, "record" shot. Shot from the very same spot, this time in the dark of night however, the image below paints a very different, appearance. I have always been a sucker for a water reflection, and the different colored reflective lights here are fascinating to me (as well as putting something more interesting in what was kind of a blank space expanse of grey water in the daylight image). It definitely illustrates Doc Ford's point: change the light and our reality is altered.

AS I said earlier, sometimes the absence of light is fun to work with. Not the complete absence. Instead, just enough to reveal. Going through some old images a few months back, the image of the working boat in San Francisco harbor just underneath the Bay Bridge kind of "spoke" to me. It was what some might call a silhouette. My own sensibility says it's a "near-silhouette." I didn't want to completely silhouette the boat, but I didn't want any real detail either. My own ability to get this one looking the way I wanted, stems from the beauty of digital processing. The wet darkroom equivalent would have been possible but would have taken way more skill than I will ever have. So I brought the shadows up just enough to suggest the white color of the superstructure, without making it visually obvious.

WHEN I was a much younger man in my early 20's I spent a college semester in Washington, D.C. The historical part of The District is very compact - easily driven (indeed most of it walkable) during odd hours when there is no traffic - and easily walked or combined with mass transit. I lived in Rossyln (nothing more than a subway stop and really part of Arlington, Virginia). It was directly across the Potomac River from the Kennedy Center, and a short walk to the capital, the Mall, and most of the city's famous monuments. The Iwo Jima U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial is a bit more off on its own, and my favorite time to visit it is at night. This monument is in Arlington, immediately adjacent to Arlington Cemetery, directly across Arlington Boulevard (U.S. Route 50, more or less bisecting The District, north and south) from my Arlington Towers high rise. I loved to do what I called the night monument circuit, visiting - among others - The Washington Monument, The Lincoln Memorial, and The Jefferson Memorial (this was some years before the Viet Nam Wall) as they were lit by spotlights. My favorite was probably the Iwo Jima Marine Memorial. They are all impressive enough in daylight. Daylight often reveals more than it should in my view. We tend to see them - grandiose as they are - as structures built from concrete and stone. The directional, artificial illumination at night, I think, brings them to life. Especially Iwo Jima.

WE PHOTOGRAPHERS often say (perhaps because it is true) that the best photographic light is during the relatively short period from just before, to about an hour after sunrise, and then again, about an hour before sunset until shortly after the sun has completely set. "The golden hours." One of the best subjects for shooting during these times are marine scenes. I have a favorite little spot, just a couple miles up the road from my Palm Harbor, Florida home: Crystal Beach. The Crystal Beach Pier, in my opinion, makes a very nice subject to frame the warm, soft light of sunrise, as well as the golden sunset hours. The images here are just 2 of the many that I have made (and will surely make in the future) of this scene.

THE TWO images set completely different moods (or realities, according to Doc Ford). The first brings a calm, new day just before sunrise. The quality of the light is brighter (it will be too bright in the cloudless, clear blue sky almost as soon as the sun comes up above the horizon). The sand seems cleaner and lighter, and the greens bright. The reddish color of the wooden pier is apparent. The pink horizon foretells the sun soon rising. Our eyes tell us this is morning; the dawn of a new day. The second image is taken on a night that threatens to storm. The first picture feels calm. The second image is - in my view - more dramatic. The colors are deeper; less bright, and more mysterious. The mostly silhouetted pier is obviously wood, but its reddish color not now apparent. The shadows reveal just enough light for us to see the green vegetation, and the gentle wave action tells us intuitively that there is a breeze in the air.

AS I look at the shadows area in the Crystal Beach after- sunset photo, the Bay Bridge photo, above, and the Soo Locks photo, it occurs to me that there could be a lot of different approaches to presenting those areas in final image. This is just another reasons why I love this art form, and the ability it gives us to each bring our own vision. I know that if 5 people were asked to "process" one of these images, we would get 5 different interpretations of the light. Especially in the shadows. That thought brings up one other comment on the subject here. Recently, for about a month, I joined a page (supposedly) dedicated to Photoshop and Lightroom on FB. I left the group recently. I found it to have a majority of persons who had "agendas," were just using it to show their work, or in many cases gave anything from incredible ignorant, to just kind of sophomoric - and certainly myopic advice and commentary. One of the things I saw people post time after time, with nearly no regard to the question asked or advice being sought, was the old "get it right in the camera, and you don't need post processing." O.k. I don't disagree with the "get it right in the camera" sentiment. I agree with that and try (though don't always succeed) to do that. But this was - after all - supposed to be a forum dedicated to post processing software (specifically LR and PS). So yeah. Lets all get it right in the camera, but then photos still yield some great oppportunity to process for your vision!

ANOTHER "REALITY" is that there is usually much more human activity at sunset than at sunrise. In the sunset fishing pier shot, there are people on the pier mainly for the purpose of watching the sunset. On the shot of our Key West - bound boat in the early morning hours from Fort Myers Beach, Florida, there is almost no activity yet, as our part of the world was waking up.

OH, AND the final image? Kind of a drive-by snapshot. but I just couldn't resist tying it all together for Doc. 😊

Saturday, September 7, 2024

Confusing Concepts - Digital Image "Sharpness"

HOPEFULLY, THIS final installment of my 3-part series will tie some things together. The concepts of resolution, diffraction, and image sharpness are integrally related, and difficult to discuss separately, even though I have attempted to do so. In my view, the last concept is the most important. If an image looks acceptably sharp, I normally do not care how it is effected by the other two concepts. They are still part of the equation, though. In my own photography, I try to achieve sharpness in the parts of the image that I think should be sharp. That doesn't mean every photo must be sharp across the entire image. In some cases, we are purposely trying to have parts of the image remain out-of-focus. Also, in the very rare case, we may not want any part of an image to be in sharp focus.

There is no perfectly "sharp" digital image

THE MOST common approach, though is to try to ensure that our photographs are in sharp focus. What does that mean, though? As I have noted here in the past, lack of sharp focus will usually ruin an otherwise nice photograph. In the numerous times I have discussed "sharpness" here, I have often described the concept as apparent sharpness.

WHY DO I call it "apparent?" There is no perfectly "sharp" digital image. There are many things that influence our perception of sharpness in a digital image, including contrast, viewing distance, focus, camera and/or subject movement, lens quality and design, image sensor size and design, and of course, resolution, and diffraction.

The concepts of resolution, diffraction, and image sharpness are integrally related

THERE IS a more fundamental element that goes to the heart of "apparent sharpness:" the way a digital image is recorded and displayed. Most of us remember a little bit of computer-programming science from way back, and are familiar with the way a computer compiles information in "bits and bytes," or 1's and 0's. That is the same basic building blocks that make up digital images. They start out as black and white 1's and 0's, which are recorded and as they accumulate, they stack against each other, to create shape. The "line" we see that creates the outer outline of detail in an image is created by contrast between these "pixels." The contrast is created by a black and white pixel opposite each other. Now that is really a kindergarten (maybe even pre-school) explanation, but it is probably the best I am qualified to do.

There are many things that influence our perception of sharpness

IN THE first installment in this series ("Resolution"), we introduced two filters that are used in the above process. By the time our final recorded image is made, the light rays must pass through a lens (which almost always a series of glass lenses constructed together to "bend" the light a certain way), whatever filter(s) we might be using in front of the lens, an "anti-aliasing" filter, and a (color) Bayer filter. All that glass in front of the sensor means we are going to have some inherent softness in any digitally recorded image. If we want color images, there is no avoiding the Bayer (or some other substitute) filter. We can, however, exert some control over the other physical elements. Many (if not most) newer cameras no longer use the anti-aliasing filter. When I selected my own Sony a7rii, I did so in large part due to Sony's purposeful exclusion of an anti-aliasing filter on their "r" versions. That does introduce another potential issue (moire) which is normally easily fixed by the photographic approach and with post processing. I have said many times here that I only rarely put a filter on the front end of a lens. My thinking is that I don't spend the money on quality glass, just to put another piece of glass on the front of it that will surely effect the image quality. I applied the same reasoning to the anti-aliasing filter.

NO MATTER what, though, the other factors above are going to result in some softness of an image. Our goal is to obtain as much apparent sharpness as possible. One way to do that is to create more well-defined contrast between pixels along the edges of an image. Generally, this means making the contrasting blacks more pure black and the whites more pure white. Every software sharpening process involves an increase in contrast along those edges. There is a lot of nuance to the process. For years, sharpening in Photoshop was a process of almost alchemy. The generally agreed best tool in the drawer at the time was called (ironically) "unsharp mask." That goes back to a traditional wet darkroom masking process that is not only beyond the scope of this blog, but beyond my ability to explain. 😅 For me (and plenty of others, I am sure), using the "unsharp mask" was mostly trial and error. The trick was to make the adjustments subtle, or your "sharpened" image could become a ghastly looking mess.

All that glass in front of the sensor means we are going to have some inherent softness in any digitally recorded image

OF COURSE most of us are working with color and of course there are many images where the edges do not consist of pure black and white pixels. Often, we do not want the pixels in between (which we usually refer to as mid-tones) to have high contrast, and part of the "unsharp mask" alchemy was adusting so only the parts we wanted to sharpen were effected. Left to their own mischief, sharpening tools can not only effect an image's apparent sharpness, but they can also introduce color casts. One approach to this was to sharpen in just one of the color channel which make up the rgb color image; a channel which contained only brightness information and no color information (the "Luminosity" channel). Applying this to selected portions of the image required some skill that not all of us found easy to master. Thankfully, some of those who did - and were really good at it - provided us with some pre-made masking tools. In the early 2000's, a photographer named Tony Kuyper made the luminosity mask popular by offereing his Photoshop Actions for a very reasonable nominal cost. I have them somewhere, but never really mastered them - though I know some others who have.

I DID spend an awful lot (too much) of time studying and trying to master the art of sharpening on my own. The best (and still seminal, in my opinion) text resource is "Real World Image Sharpening," an Adobe Photoshop and Light Room focused book, written by (the late) Bruce Fraser, and Jeff Schewe (two of my favorite digital processing authors). It is a $50 purchase on Amazon, so it is not inexpensive. Nor is it "Readers Digest" level reading. If you like technical "under the hood" stuff (I do), it is a fascinating read. Fortunately, there have been some folks (including Fraser and Schewe themselves) who have - over the years - provided us with a relatively easy to use pre-programmed version of their handi-work. Today, most software post-processing programs contain sharpening utilities. Some are better than others. Years back we didn't have the number of post-processing choices. In 2009, PK Sharpener was introduced by a company called Pixel Genius, founded by Fraser, Schewe, Seth Resnick, and a few other known Photoshop gurus (interestingly, the Nik collection contained Nik Sharpener Pro and was brought to market in 2006 - but I had not yet been introduced to Nik at that time). Like Photoshop itself, most of the utilities in the package were beyond my needs (and ability to understand). But what I could use, did a better job than I had ever been able to do before. A couple years back, I did some of my own empirical experimentation between the Nik and PK Sharpen. I found the differences to be "nuanced." I ultimately stayed with the PK Sharpen program (which I believe is no longer available). The point is that we don't have to become "under-the-hood" sharpening experts, as that has been done for us and incorporated into virtually every software out there today. The Nik and PK software can be easily loaded as "plugins" to Photoshop and Lightroom (how and if they work with other software, I don't really know).

WHAT ALL this work done by the experts on digital processing has given us is a nice collection of tools to achieve the most "apparently sharp" images we can with our own recorded digital images. In their Real World book, Fraser and Schewe brought a sharpening process to light. There are "recipes" in the appendix of the book for Photoshop Actions that will accomplish the process they espouse in the book." I don't know if very many people even write their own actions anymore. But if you are that type, it may be worth the $50. Their process, the one that seems to be the accepted approach today, posits that sharpening should be done in three separate phases or steps. The first phase is what they referred to as "pre-sharpening," and is (mostly) applied to raw files to account for the issues I spoke about above that were created by the lens and sensor filter issues. Every raw image converter I know of contains a pre-sharpening algorithm. In my "empirical" testing above, I concluded that the Adobe Raw Converter "default" sharpening tool does as well as any of the others (including my PK Sharpener), and so I leave it at its default setting (25%) to save myself the step of presharpening in my workflow. If you prefer a more "hands-on" approach, the setting can be set to zero. I put "empirical" in quotes because - of course - there is going to be some subjectivity in this analysis. It is what my own subjective conclusion is, but you should probably do your own.

THE SECOND phase of sharpening is best done, in my view, with a more "hands on" approach. It is sometimes referred to as "Targeted Sharpening." Targeted sharpening can be applied globally to an image, or to just select parts of it. Some images benefit from only sharpening certain areas. Shadow areas often won't benefit from sharpening, and sharpening them can sometimes make the image worse, as the sharpening "highlights" unwanted noise in the image. In some images with areas of of shallow depth of field, we want to leave them out of focus and unsharp purposefully, while sharpening other parts of the image that we want to be in critical focus. The beauty of the targeted phase is that we can use various masking techniques to selectively sharpen the image. This can be done manually, or some of the software has algorithms that do a pretty decent job of doing that for you.

FINALLY, WE should consider whether every image should be sharpened for "output." For many years, I made my own inkjet prints. There are major differences in the way an image is "projected" on a screen from the way it is printed with ink. Ink is laid onto paper in microspic droplets of colored pigment. Because they are liquid, even though microscopic, those droplets are going to have some "runout." They are also a reflective media, and as such, are going to be percieved visually very differently than projected media. I often found that I needed to apply much stronger sharpening to my print files. On screen, they would have an oversharpened look, but on paper, they were just right.

TODAY, WE have another new approach to sharpening denominated "AI" sharpening. This sharpening algorithm uses so-called artificial intelligence, using a memory bank of hundreds of thousands of images, to sharpen by replacing pixels with sharp(er) new pixels. Personally, I have not been as impressed with it as all the testimonials seem to suggest. I have tried it a couple times and have either felt it didn't live up to the hype, or it looked fake. I have consistently said you cannot fix a truly blurry image in digital processing. With AI, that view will undoubtedly change. I have seen so much "progress" with AI in just a couple short years. In my view, it is not there yet. But it is certainly worth keeping an eye on. It is coming.

Saturday, August 31, 2024

Confusing Concepts - Diffraction

OF THE 3 different concepts in this 3-part series, this one is probably the most technical, the most difficult to understand, and the most difficult for sure to explain. Sensor resolution, we saw, was really just a matter of the relative size of the "container" (the sensor size), the size of the individual photo sites (pixels), and the number of photo sites within a given sensor dimension. We also said, however, that these things don't work in a vacuum. A sharp, detailed (resolution) image is affected by not only the pixel number and size, but also by diffraction. The creation and presentation of a digital photographic image is not a precise science. In fact, I am going to introduce a term that will be central to the final post about image sharpness: "appearance." We probably really ought to refer to image sharpness in a digital photo as "apparent sharpness." The reality is that there is no absolute sharpness - only apparent sharpness). What do I mean by that? Stay tuned for the third and final installment of this series: "Confusing Concepts - Image Sharpness."

The creation and presentation of a digital photographic image is not a precise science

THE EFFECT of diffraction on a digital image is a strongly related concept, however. To make a photographic image with virtually any camera and/or medium, we must focus rays of light through a lens. We mentioned in the previous installment that almost all lenses are circular. A primary reason for this is that the circular coverage provides the most consistent coverage of the rays of light smoothly from side to center. The round lens, however, "bends" the light rays, which generally requires a series of glass elements to - if you will - "unbend" them.

WHY DOES any of this matter? Diffraction occurs during the process of "bending" the light through the lens. What causes diffraction is the light waves that diverge from parallel. As a general rule, diffraction is effected by the size of the opening that the light waves pass through, and the length of the light wave. Let's address opening size first. There are going to be two mechanical factors: First, the physical size of the lens circle at its widest aperture (which is what brings relevance to the above "coverage" discussion) is constrained by design. It follows that we should experience less diffraction from the larger openings of lenses designed to cover larger sensors. Confoundingly, as our apertures get larger, the depth of field of an image gets more shallow, so from front to back the apparent sharpness of the image seems less. Somewhere, "the twain shall meet," creating the "sweet spot" I talk about below.

THE OTHER mechanical factor is lens aperture (within a given system). Generally, the smaller the aperture (for the same reasons as the size of the physical lens circle matters), the more diffraction, and vice versa. Note that I have referenced lens "size," and lens "aperture." I did not say f-stop number. Why? Because a given f-stop varies in physical size between different lenses. This is true both in terms of focal length within system, and different system lenses (i.e., an M4/3 lens f8 will be physically smaller than a "full frame" lens at f8).

ANOTHER THING that effects diffraction is the length of the light waves. Again, as a general proposition, shorter waves diffract much sooner than longer waves do. Think about the spectrum of light. Blue light waves are among the very shortest (those who understand polarizing filters are probably familiar with this). This explains what certain light conditions demonstrate the effects of diffraction more than others.

Every Lens has its own "sweet spot"

EVERY LENS has what we sometimes refer to as its "sweet spot." That is where it is at its absolute sharpest performance. Most of us have an awareness that many lenses are not sharp across the frame at their most wide open apertures. We also have a general awareness that as we stop down the aperture, we tend to get increasingly (apparently) sharp images. Some of us have been aware, over the years, though, that there is a point of no return, where not only does the lens no longer render an increasingly sharp image, but the image might even degrade some. This degradation is due to diffraction. Recall above that we said diffraction increases as the lens opening gets smaller. This is why it is important to keep that "sweet spot" in mind. Generally, a "full frame" (35mm equivalent) lens will be at its sharpest at f8 - maybe f11. An M4/3 lens will probably be at somewhere between f4 and f5.6. We will talk about why there is a difference shortly. All of this is, of course, also limited by lens design and overall quality. So-called "cheap glass," or zoom lenses trying to encompass too much zoom range, will mechanically and optically also negatively effect image quality, sometimes introducing optical and color aberation, and lack of contrast.

THERE IS another factor in the diffraction discussion other than lenses. Perhaps the most significant factor is sensor and pixel size. Once again, smaller pixels will be more susceptible to the effects of diffraction. That is the primary reason we find that "sweet spot" in M4/3 lenses to be at a wider aperture (f4- 5.6).

THE CONTRIBUTORS to diffraction mean that there is an aperture on each lens that is that "sweet spot." While we have generalized, each lens has its own "spot" and you may need to do some empirical testing of each of your lenses to arrive at that spot. It is important to acknowledge that there will always be some diffraction at every lens aperture. That point where it becomes visibly deleterious to image qualilty is referred to as the point where the lens is "diffraction-limited." My definition here is, of course, overly simplified. The simplest "technical" definition I could find was: "The diffraction limit is the maximum resolution possible for a theoretically perfect, or ideal, optical system." Think back to our discussion of "resolution." They are interdependent, and this "technical" definition feels awfully circular to me. The ultimate conclusion for me is that diffraction is one of the primary factors which effect image quality (without regard to the quality of the equipment being used), along with resolution and sharpness.

We shouldn't let all this technical jargon get in the way of our creativity

DOES THIS all mean that you should always and only shoot at the "sweet spot" aperture of your lens? Of course not. As I am fond of saying here, all of photography is a compromise. The artistic part of composition means that we must work with the limitations of the tools. Sometimes we want very shallow depth of field. Sometimes we want the image to be crisp from front to back (one of the ways photographers have been dealing with this issue in still photographs, by the way, is a phenom called "focus stacking"). But we shouldn't let all this technical (sometimes pixel peeping) jargon get in the way of our creativity. It is just useful to know the limits of our equipment when applying it to our craft. Next time we will address that third factor: Image Sharpness.

LightCentric Photography Blog

Pages