Filters. Old school? No longer relevant?

GENERALLY, I do not use many accessories. My camera and lens do the bulk of work. Kind of a "captain obvious" statement, I know. But there are so many accessories on the market when you browse photographic equipment sites.

IN MY case, the only accessories I use regularly are a variation of an "L" bracket, and polarizing filters. On more rare ocassions, I use neutral density filters. Over my 45 or so years of photography, I have accumulated some "stuff" including a pile of polarizing filters I do not use any more. They are good quality (B&W/Schneider Optics) filters. The primary reason I don't use them any more is that I have gone to a different system for attaching them. So, thinking maybe I could get a few bucks for them, I asked all "the regulars" (MPB, KEH, B&H, Adorama, and Used Photo Pro) for a quote on a pile of them. They declined all of them. Every filter. I was surprised.

nobody uses filters anymore

I COULDN'T help wondering why. I have had good success selling cameras and lenses. For filters, there is clearly no demand. I can only draw a couple conclusions. First, folks have - like me - completely gone over to a different filter attachment system. Personally, I highly doubt that is the reason. My second conclusion, though, is probably the more likely one: nobody uses filters anymore (obviously an overstatement - some of us still do).

WHY? I think there is a general gestalt that digital photography has eliminated the need for filters. We can now do it all, either in-camera, or post processing. I kind of understand that thought process. There is undeniably lots of editing we can do to digital images. Some of it can reproduce what some filters might do. But I think the idea that filters are no longer relevant is dead wrong!

there is a general gestalt that digital photography has eliminated the need for filters. I think that . . . is dead wrong!

THERE IS a good (even compelling) argument for some physical, on-the-lens filters. Two of them, in my view. The first, and most important, is the polarizing filter. Yes, there are methods of reducing contrast, and even some glare in most post-processing software. As well, there are many "preset" filters out there, some of them purporting to be "polarizing filters." I have used a couple of them. They are not the same thing. They aren't filters at all. They are "preset" applications (referred to as "presets"). The word, "filter" implies that it is something that is affecting the image before it is recorded (i.e., on the front of the camera lens). In very simplistic terms, what a polarizer does is filter some of the blue light waves reaching the front element of the lens and blocks them from entering. Blue light waves are very short and generally are scattered, in random directions. This scattering can cause glare. By filtering out any that are not parallel, the polarizer actually cuts the glare the lens "sees" before the image reaches - and is recorded on - the sensor. There is just no way to do this after-the-fact, in any post-processing algorithm I know.

POLARIZATION PROBABLY applies most often in two scenarios: reflective surfaces like flat water and glass; and foliage (especially fall). If you attach and rotate the filter (on a TTL viewer or one of today's EVF viewers) you can actually see it at work. There are, of course, caveats. First, if you aren't careful, you can "over-polarize" an image. This can show up as clear blue skies going from natural to unnatural dark cobalt blue. The second is that most polarizers will also cause you to lose at least a full stop of light.

There is just no way to do this after-the-fact, in any post-processing algorithm I know

THERE IS another filter that I think has (albeit occasional) utility: the ND (neutral density) filter. What this filter does is cut down on the amount of light entering the lens. Its usefulness is - in my experience - limited to those situations where you want to shoot very slow shutter speeds in ambient lighting that is just too bright to do so. I carry three of them a varying densities. I have only found two cases where I have found them personally useful. First and foremost is when shooting moving water (like waterfals or drops in streams). Even then, I find it limited, as my personal view is that the "cotton candy" waterfall look can be overdone. The second is when I am shooting a scene with clouds and would like to get some streaking as the clouds move. There are some other, very limited instances in which a filter may be recommended. If you are shooting in certain conditions (salt water comes to mind for me), you may want some protection for your lens. But in general, today's lenses are very well made and the front elements are not that easily damaged.

I never put any glass in front of my expensive lens unless there is a reason to do so

OTHER THAN the above instances, I never put any glass in front of my expensive lens glass.Having spent hundreds (or even thousands) on that expensive, high-tech glass, my feeling is that I don't want to put a cheaper piece of glass on the front of it - unless I have a good reason. But the polarizer and ND filters are worth carrying - and using for aesthetic reasons. And digital processing will not replace them.

Fall Foliage Photography - Some Personal Observations

AS I noted last week, the Fall Foliage "season" is upon us. Fall has become increasingly popular in this time of instant, worldwide media, highly capable smartphone cameras, and a proliferation of folks identifying themselves as "digital creators" and "media influencers." There is no shortage of enthusiastic posting of photos, memes trip plans and the like. Along with this comes a certain amount of angst, as folks plan (or have planned) their fall trips and excursions. What will the weather be like. Will I see the foliage. Am I too early, or too late? Where is the best place to go?

One of the terms I abhor is the word "peak."

I HAVE made no secret of the fact that fall is my favorite time of the year (for a number of reasons). We travel a lot during that time, and I try to plan at least one "serious" photo excursion to do landscape and foliage photography. Many readers know that I am a foliage fan. I have written 2 (multiple edition) e-books (no longer avialable as e-books but can be downloaded here as PDF files) on photographing two of the U.S.'s finest foliage destinations: Vermont and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. And now here we are. Right in the middle of it (actually at the end of it in many places - especially the northern parts of the country; but still early in some of the southern locations).

Chase the color. That "peak" you are seeking may turn out not to be the panacea you think it is

I PARTICIPATE and moderate on a couple FB pages and during the season spend a lot of time perusing those forums. As such, over the years I have developed a few observations about photography during this time of year. I will share them here, for what it is worth.

Timing

Be aware that this period is one of the most active travel periods of the year. Especially in some of the popular destinations (like New England), it may be very difficult and/or expensive to find suitable lodging and obtain rental cars during this time period. Many of Vermont's lodging opportunities, for example, are booked a year or longer in advance. Plan accordingly.

Of course this phenomena begets another complication. Fall photography is weather related and nobody can accurately predict conditions a year in advance. Weather not only dictates your particular time period, but also the conditions of the subject you seek: foliage. A dry or wet summer, and as well, a dry or wet fall, along with temperature conditions all affect this. Again, basically unpredictable. My thinking over the years is you have to plan and go and take what you get. And surprisingly, I have always "gotten" something.

Another positive to advance planning is that if you fly (and I often do), it is often the case that you can lock down more economical flight prices (and then with many airlines, you can watch for "better deals").

Conditions On The Ground

There are a few factors that affect your experience. We see a lot of conversation using certain "key" words that I think also, unfortunately, contribute to the angst some people feel when planning and making these trips.

This has appeared a few times on the internet over the years. I would attribute it, but have no idea who the original author is. It is laughably satirical and proves my point, though 😁

One of the terms I abhor is the word "peak." I cringe a little bit every time I see it mentioned in a post on line. "Will I be there at peak?" "When does it peak in . . . ?" What in the world does that even mean? For discussion's sake, let's say that "peak" is  a point on a continuum, when a leaf goes from turning color, to falling off the tree. That doesn't happen all at the same time. Not even on the same tree. There are times when it all comes together in a certain area and you get a wash of fully colored trees. Other times, there is a mix of different stages, with colors and greens. Both can be very beautiful. But you aren't likely to find many spots where that magical "peak" everyone talks about all comes together. My advice? Stop worrying about it and "chase the color."

Something we don't always appreciate: that mystical "peak" may not even yield your best image. In 1997 (I was shooting 35mm slide film then), I made the first of many trips to my then home state of Michigan's vaunted upper peninsula" ("U.P"). If you haven't visited there, it really is a little slice of nature heaven. It is also the subject of one of the eBooks mentioned above. As is so often the case, I didn't time the foliage perfectly. Like so many locations, factors like elevation and proximity to inflluences like large bodies of water, makes the conditions variable in different locations. There is a wonderful photo up in the northwestern part of the U.P. in the "Porcupine Mountains" State Park called "Lake of The Clouds." I have seen photos of it "floating" in clouds and fog. I have seen photos with a full "wash" of fall foliage. I got none of that on my solitary trip there. But turning away from the lake itself, I did get the image below. "Peak?" Far from it. One of my absolute favorite images? Certainly. And, to boot, my all time best selling image. Chase the color. That "peak" you are seeking may turn out not to be the panacea you think it is. 

Porcupine Mountains - Michigan U.P. - Copyright Andy Richards 1997 - All Rights Reserved

The "peak" conception is one of the reasons we often speak of "chasing the color." As photographers - particulary photographers seeking images of a limited time condition (think foliage, northern lights, spring bloom) - we have to have a mindset of flexibility and mobility. We have to be ready and willing to seek out (by whatever means necessary - on-line, local knowledge, etc.) where the subjects we seek are "happening," and go to them. I have many times left my "headquarters" at 4:00 a.m. to be somewhere I have learned is "the spot" by sunrise and/or golden hour. My thought process when I drag myself upright on those mornings: I can sleep when I get home. 

Don't Rely on the Maps

The internet is a wonderful resource. It is often also a source of sketchy information. Just because you found it on line, doesn't mean it is accurate, or complete information. This is true even when apparently reliable sources. There are any number of different foliage progression maps, graphs and other resources out there. While they are a good general resource, they are just that: general. They convey in very general terms what "usually" happens. But there is no "usual," when it comes to foliage. My first dedicated fall foliage photography trip to Vermont was in 2005. I had lived there for a few years back in the early 1980s and remember the spectacular show Mother Nature put on in the fall. Not recalling with precision that months (or weeks) of the year when this happened, I reached out to my dairy farmer uncle, a lifelong resident of northwestern Vermont. In his memory, the foliage season lasted about 3 weeks, beginning at the end of Septembe (last week or so). We planned our trip for the first week in October. For myriad reasons, the color had not shown up yet. Nor did it really show up week we were there. The following week, the rains came and took all the leaves down. I have always referred to 2005 as "the year that the color never happened." Nobody can accurately predict when and where you will find color before-hand. Not the maps. Not the meteorologists. Not me. Not my uncle. Dont rely on the maps.

Found Some! - the foliage peeking from behind the right side of this covered bridge in Waterville, Vermont, was enough to convince Rich that maybe . . . just maybe, my hperbolic praise of Vermonts foliage wasn't made up.
Copyright Andy Richards 2005 - All Rights Reserved

So what do you do? You chase the color.😊Anyone sensing repetition here? But seriously, we were camped in Vermont for a full week. My long time best buddy, Rich, and had no other agenda and a car full of photographic gear. We knew there were photography opportunities along the way. We just had to find them, and in the meantime, we kept trying to find at least some fall foliage. The covered bridge image above demonstrates how pathetic our finds were. But we were determined to make the best of the outing. Ironically, that image serves as the background for the collage I made for my LightCentricPhotography logo.

Autumn Leaf Closeup - Stowe, Vermont
Copyright Andy Richards 2005 - All Rights Reserved

And if you just cannot find that subject? You go to plan B. There is always an opportunity to make pictures. You just need to let your creative side lead sometimes. The late Bryan Peterson, one of my strongest photographic influences (and though I never met him, one of my best teachers), once said: "There is always an image there; it is up to the photographer to find it." Rich and I had seen a photograph from up on high of the Village of Stowe, Vermont. We looked everywhere we could think of. One of the truisms that was driven home to me that year was that no nature scene remains static. Unless man works to maintain the photographic view, nature will continue to grow things and eventually obscure it. Apparently that is what happened with the viewpoint where our sought-after village image was taken. Looking on maps, we had an idea that there might be a spot up above that we could possible shoot through. It took some bushwhacking, but we followed a deer trail down to what looked like a shot, in the near darkness. The next morning, again in the a.m. twilight, we bushwhacked that trail again. But Mother Nature would again test our resolve, as a heavy fog shrouded the village and we could not see anything. As we stood around waiting (hoping) for the fog to clear, I started playing around with some closeup isolated images. The leaf image above is my example of "making lemonade from lemons," and is the other half of the LightCentricPhotography logo.

We eventually gave up and decide to drive back down into the village for breakfast. But the story does have a happy ending. As we were finishing, the sun popped through and we could see things clearing. We hustled back to our deer trail and for the third time, bushwhacked down, where we found (albeit challenging) shot throught the trees. I don't think I have ever seen a shot like it and like to think it is my own unique contribution to the 100's of thousands of "iconic" Vermont images out there today.

Color and Saturation 

A few years back, I stood shoulder to shoulder with my buddy, Rich at a scene. Later, when we were back at my Aunt and Uncle's farm where we were comparing images we had taken that morning. I was a bit taken aback as I saw one of his images that was so completely different from mine. I didn't "see" it. He did. It taught me that two sets of eyes standing in the same place at the same time don't always see the same thing. I have grown to realize over time that the same is true of color. Most of the time, when I am processing a photo back home, I am trying to depict the colors and lighting conditions that were there when I made the photo. But what I really mean is that I am depicting what I saw at the time. Once again, someone standing next to me will likely see a different set of colors. It is usually nuanced, but it is there. With that, though, I think that in landscape photography, we are all striving for a certain "realism" in our photos.

One thing that I see time and again, though in people's internet postings is horribly "overcooked" versions of the images they have made. Too often the colors - while vivid - are just unreal. They are sometimes even garish. There are many reasons for this. In the end, it may go back to what I said above. We see (and I suppose remember) things differently. In our ardor to show the often amazing splendor we observed, we just get too enthusiastic with the digital adjustments available to us. In the early days of digital photography, a lot of the images were made as jpeg images and the tools we used (either point and shoot or cell phone cameras) did some of the "cooking" of the raw image (a sensor always records the image as "raw," and then something - usually the camera software - "cooks" it to a form visible on a digital screen). That was usually the end of it and the image was then posted or shared from there.

Some of us more "serious" photographers first scanned our film-based images into digital files, and later began shooting with DSLR digital cameras when they became "affordable." A lot of us used separate software to do our own "cooking." We learned basic adjustments like white and black point, and contrast. And we were able to make a well-exposed photo look pretty good in terms of color. Over time, photo software became more ubiquitous, and as they became the most popular tool for amateur photographers, the cell phone also became packed with software for "influencing" what a photo looked like. In place of the standard rendering (which is always going to be what the manufacturer deems appropriate color and contrast), the consumer began to have choices in the phone settings. Things like "natural," and "vivid." Of course, the "vivid" setting goosed up the colors and contrast to make an image jump out on your phone screen. But unfortunately, in many cases - fall foliage being one of them - it also created unnaturally bright and saturated photos. Within the camera and gallery settings of most modern "smart" phones is also adjustment software, giving the user the power to make additional such adjustments. And then some folks (and this applies to smart phones and the users of more sophisticated DSLR and MILS cameras - together with software like Photoshop) have used post-processing software to push things even further.

In my view, this trend produces several negatives. First, it gives viewers who may be using images they see on line as a measure of a place they may want to visit. They see these incredible (and by that I mean the literal: not credible) views of trees, and green pastures and red barns and white churches, for example, in New England. Or the neon yellow Aspen trees in bloom in the American West. Nice. But not real. Not even close. Another negative is that, depending on the technique used to "overcook" these images, the adjustments actually do damage to the image. I think the most abused tool in these software programs is the global slider usually labeled "Saturation." With increased saturation, the details often deteriorate. Saturation does not increase a color - especially one that isn't really present in the photo. Instead, it renders the colors surrealistic. It turns the shadows purple (I especially notice this in tree trunks). It turns asphalt blue (instead of its natural grey). The reds in foliage turn into mush, and sometimes turn purple themselves. The light greens become neon. In spite of your thinking, "it is not a pretty picture." In my prior blog post, I go into some detail about this. I really recommend (and wish) that people would make very judicious use of these tools.

Look Behind You

A great piece of advice I often read in inspirational pieces by other photographers - particularly teaching pros. We can sometimes get all wound up in the (often iconic) scene in front of us, trying to make our best image, and miss little things around us that might just turn out to be the real "best image." My Porcupine Mountains image is one of those. The main subject that everyone goes to shoot is this gorgeous lake at the top of the highest point (the "Porkies" as we Michigander's often call them, are not real mountains. But they are the highest point in Michigan at just under 2000 feet) in the park, that often appears to be just floating in the foliage and clouds. But my best image was seen by turning away from the main event. Of course, I am not advocating skipping the main scene. Just being observant about other photo opportunities.

Peacham Cemetery - Peacham, Vermont
Copyright Andy Richards 2005 - All Rights Reserved

In Vermont, the quaint village of Peacham is probably my favorite place in the state. The iconic photograph there (if you "Google" Peacham, you will undoubtedly find many photos of the scene - and probably want to make your own) is of the white church and red barn with mountain ranges in the background. It really is a wonderful scene and almost looks like it was set up for photographers. I have photographed it, and other parts of Peacham many times over the years. But on my first visit there, I turned around and across the street was the Peacham cemetery. Remember, this was the year color never happened in Vermont (2005). And there in front of me was probably the best color we saw all week. And a nice photo!

FALL IS a very special time of the year for photographers. Maybe some of my thoughts resonate with you. Maybe you have some of your own (would love to here about them). If it is not too late in your "neck of the woods," or where you plan to travel to this year, I hope you can get out and make some (realistic) pictures! 

    

 

Let's Talk Saturation!

IT IS that time of year. Fall. Bright, multi-colored leaves. Dramatic landscape. Crisp, cool air. It is my personal favorite time of the year, and I believe I am not alone in that feeling!

. . . way too many of these photos are just "unreal"

LEAF PEEPERS and photographers get out in large numbers during the foliage season which usually starts some time in September and goes on into early November, depending on which part of the country (world?) you are in. Most of my own time has been spent in Northern Michigan, West Virginia, and the Northeast (New England), where the colors seem to most often be the most brilliant.

IS WHAT you see, what you get? Usually some time in September we start seeing pictures of these wonderful fall locations. Some are advertisements. Others (perhaps the majority) are just photos published by people online (places like Facebook and Instagram in particular). And way too many of these photos are just "unreal" (not in the positive sense). As I see these often grossly oversaturated images posted, I am convinced that most people don't understand color and how it is presented on a digital image meant for the screen.

The culprit is . . . "Saturation"

COLOR IS either there in an image, or it is not. There is no "magic slider" that will create color where it didn't exist. Yet I think many people believe that the saturation adjustment is that magic slider. At first blush, an oversatured photo might seem spectacular. I so often see the "just beautiful," or "breathtaking" commentsa on some of these photos. Often, the viewer doesn't have any realistic standard to compare the image they see to. If they did, they might see that in reality, there are no purple-colored tree trunks (at least not in North America). Nor is asphalt blue. There are relatively few neon-green vegetation examples in North America either. But that is what we all too often see on-line!

IN THE the 3 photos above, the first is uploaded from raw with Adobe's "Neutral" profile Adobe Neutral). In the second example, I purposely grossly oversaturated it, using just the saturation slider. In the final a version, I adjusted the contrast and brightness. I then "tweaked" the saturation to compensate for the flatness the software rendered in this case. But we are talking somewhere between 0 and about 8% on the slider. I can agree that the original image looks a little flat, and that a touch of saturation may be warranted. I think maybe represents what I saw with my natural eyes that afternoon. But look at the middle copy. Note the neon look of the greens. Note the funky color of the gravel road. Even the tree trunks look unnatural. When a scene is less bright, the greys and shadow often turn purple when saturation is applied. And, when compared to the other two versions, look how "fake" the color of the weathered barn is (even considering the strong lighting on the front of the barn. As noted above, the primary culprit for these unreal and often garish colors is a digital adjustment available in most software for saturation. Saturation is not the same as color! Once color in an image is identified and sometimes separated from other colors, saturation just changes the intensity (how much of a color is present) of the color. It doesn't make reds more red. The saturation adjustment was never intended as a fix-all for colors you don't think are colorful enough on their own. It, like all other adjustments available in photo-processing software, was meant to be applied very, very judiciously (if at all), and often targeted to only one color, or one part of a photo. The "saturation" slider that you seen in software is a "global" adjustment. That is, it changes the saturation in every color and tone in the image. Which creates those purple barked trees and blue roads and sometimes garish magenta tinted reds.

The photo on the left is a disappointing photo result. There was color, but not bright or vivid. On the left, I applied only the saturation slider to the image, and it is way overdone. Note how the reds are purple, the tree trunk is magenta and the lighter greens and yellows are neon. This doesn't depict any reality that I know.

The disappointing image on the left above can be salvaged, though. This is my processed version. I didn't even look at the saturation adjustments. The color you see was there. I used the contrast and exposure adjustments to decrease brightness a bit and to "separate" the colors. Contrast works on the pixels that board the changing shapes and colors in the image. Those "red" leaves in the far background don't "pop" like they do in the image on the left above. But they are real. No neon and no purple that wouldn't likely occur in nature. 

THERE ARE those who purposely push the saturation envelope, and may or may not understand what they are doing. But I am again convinced that most posters don't even realize they are doing it. One of the phrases that makes me chuckle when I see a photo is "posted from my (i-Phone, smart phone, camera) . . . no filters added."  Well. They really aren't "filters." Back in the film days, we somtimes used colored or tinted filters on the front of our lens to create different tones and colors. Today, what we refer to as "filters," is really processing adjustments. And for those who didn't already know this, the jpeg image that comes "straight out of" your iPhone has been processed. "Enhanced." Even if you (think you) have it on "no adjustments." Every digital photo file as recorded is flat looking. Some kind of software has to take that flat digital file and convert it into something that looks good and can be seen on most devices (generally, jpg). In your smart phone, that software is built in - with all the "biases" the manufacturer builds into what "looks good." Many phones have choices (like "vivid"), that can be user-selected, and is often selected by default without the user even realizing it.

Is "what you see what you get?

THERE REALLY isn't any such thing as a "no filters or adjustments" image posted on the internet. It is more of a matter of what and how much adjustments are being made. And if you have the opportunity and inclination to make your own adjustments, I think it will often result in a better and more realistic final product. Since we said saturation doesn't put colors that weren't there in, there is probably a better adjustment you can make to "enhance" the colors that do exist (and perhaps make the image look on your screen more like it did when you were standing there. I generally find the two best (and most realistic) adjustments to color is "contrast" and "brightness." I am often amazed at how just those two adjustments will make the colors (especially in foliage) "pop." I have even found some images that benefit from a saturation reduction after processing.

In your smart phone, that software is built in - with all the "biases" the manufacturer builds into what "looks good."

OH AND those of us who are shooting with our sophisticated DSLR and Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras? Many of us, too, are guilty of not really understanding the color process as we move our images from our memory cards to our computer. First, I will assume that we are all recording our images in the camera's native "raw" format. If you are not, I think you should be, especially in the case of landscape (and particularly foliage) photography. So those colors - when transferred onto our computers - should be totally realistic. Just like Mother Nature made them, right? Well. No. Not necessarily. I was reminded of this this morning, as I processed my Vermont 2025 images. In every raw converter, there are some things that happen. One is that when the processor brings the image in, it assigns it a color profile! I use Adobe's ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Lightroom - probably the most popular image editing software - uses the exact same raw conversion engine as ACR. Both of them assign a profile - if you haven't changed it, one of the default Adobe profiles (neutral, standard, vivid, etc.).

Color Profile Ilustration - Profiles from left to right clockwise: Adobe Neutral; Adobe Standard; Adobe Color and Adobe Vivid - There are others, including camera specific and even flat profiles that you can download. When you open the image, it is important to be cognizant of just which profile your editor is applying.

IF YOU haven't, you really need to check what your software is doing in that context. It is affecting color. So even when we say "straight out of the camera," "no filters applied," "no saturation applied," that is very likely not exactly true. 😓 There are completely flat profiles (designed for your particular camera's sensor) that can be downloaded. For a while I tried that. At first blush they look really ugly. The require some color and contrast adjustment. The purveyor of those profiles suggests first clicking on Adobe's "automatic" profile assignment. I eventually decided I couldn't see enough difference to warrant this longer process and went back to Adobe standard. But make no mistake. It is applying adjustments. Including saturation and contrast.

So even when we say "straight out of the camera," "no filters applied," "no saturation applied," that is very likely not exactly true

THINK ABOUT the above as you process and post your images of your fall foliage trip this year! In my view the best thing you can do is turn off all built-in enhancements on your phone and try to get the most "natural" look you can. If you are shooting with a camera (or phone) that is capable, record your images in raw format (there should be a setting for that). Then, if the image doesn't quite get you to what you "saw" at the time, make some judicious adjustments (just because it goes all the way to 100, doesn't mean it is a good idea to push it that far). Don't push things too far. Natural looks better!