M 4/3: A Couple Years Behind the Lens (err . . . Camera)

IT HAS now been a couple years since I embraced the m4/3 system for travel photography. I have used it around the world, in various travel conditions during that period, making several thousand images. Having post-processed most of those images, I have recently begun to notice a couple trends in my shooting and processing.

Aspect Ratio

I FIND myself cropping about 99 percent of the images I make, to achieve - for me - a more pleasing look. I am a fan of the rule of thirds for composition. I also make frequent use of leading, and curved lines. Because of my use of often wider-angle lenses with architectural elements often being in the image, I know I will be doing perspective correction during post processing on many of my shots. I suppose one of the reasons for recurring cropping is that I am consciously (and maybe also sometimes subconsciously) leaving "room" in my images for these corrections. I think though, that there is another, more fundamental reason. I don't really care for the 4:3 aspect ratio. It is just a little too square for my eye. You may have also noticed (I have) that more often than in the past, I tend to display my travel images wide - leaning to a more panoramic look.

Difference between 4:3 and 3:2 Aspect Ratio

PERHAPS THE fact that I "grew up" with a 35mm SLR in hand is the most dominant influence of this "preference." It is what I saw for so many years. Even now, my "serious" camera has the same native 3:2 aspect ratio as my old 35mm cameras did. So does "APS-C" format I shot with for several years. When I return from a shoot with my Sony A7rii (3:2), I find that I make much less frequent use of cropping (at least for changing aspect ratio). I find the 3:2 ratio pleasing. It is not coincidental that the 3:2 ratio is also the one that most often shows up in printing (when that gets done these days). In order to print one of the m4/3 images at its native aspect, a standard print will necessarily crop the image. As you can see, given enough "headroom" in the original image, the difference is subtle.

I don't really care for the 4:3 aspect ratio. It is just a little too square for my eye

 MY OWN thinking on cropping and post-processing "composition" has evolved a great deal since the old days when we would send our film out to Kodak (or some other commercial processor) for prints. Traditional darkroom enlargers were physically limited and most of the time "normal" prints (which were what were offered by commercial printers - unless you were doing, often expensive, custom work) would fit within the 3:2 ratio. When I first started working with digital images, I was more or less "married" to that concept. Eventually, I owned (several, actually) a high-quality Epson photographic printer, and even though still somewhat physically limited (the largest print/paper combination I could easily do with it was 16 x 19, which worked well for me for most of my wall-hung prints), I began to think more "outside the box." I realized that I could cut print paper (and mats, with my mat cutter) to almost any aspect. Frames were a bit more of a challenge, unless I made my own. I did that a couple times, but it is much more difficult than one might think, even for an experienced woodworker. A commercial framing miter cutter and good frame stock was just too expensive - as was custom ordering. Newer approaches to displaying work (like stretched canvas and metal prints) have certainly given us greater flexibility.

THE (meandering) POINT is that we are not really constrained to a particular aspect ratio these days. My current approach is to crop to what looks good to me, using my own visual guidelines. Given that, I can (and for the foreseeable future will) continue to work with my Olympus (M4/3) gear. It is not because of the aspect ratio or format though. It is because of the physically small size of the hardware.

Native Camera Resolution

Comparison of Sensor Sizes

AT THIS point, the largest resolution m4/3 camera available is 20 megapixels. Comparatively, my Sony a7rii is 46 megapixels. Not only is that +2x the megapixels; those pixels are physically larger. As a general rule, larger pixels yield more detail and less digital noise. They are also capable of deeper crops. I often shoot leaving a fair amount of "headroom" for later processing (primarily perspective and cropping). Having a quantum more digital "space" to work with in larger megapixel images means - as I said - deeper cropping. I have noted here a couple times just how much (and it is substantial) latitude my 40mp "full frame" Sony a7rii gives me for cropping. On the Olympus m4/3 at 20mp; not so much. With the lower resolution sensor I can already detect (at least at the "pixel peeping" level)  some inferior image quality as compared to the Sony gear. When I start to crop, it becomes visibly noticeable. While I am still satisfied with the quality vs. convenience comparison between the two, I would certainly prefer the quality of my Sony images - if only I could get that in the much smaller and lighter package of the Olympus outfit.

THE LOW light performance's advantages are perhaps obvious enough not to spend any time. Many of the same factors hold here. Larger sensor and photosites yield less digital noise in an image. This equates to better low light performance. However, I have recently opined (in "What's All the Noise about 'Noise'") that I think some of us spend too much time obsessing about noise (though I agree with my friend, Kerry Leibowitz that this is one of the many areas where personal taste is the deciding factor). I have made many images with the 20mp M4/3 in low light and I probably haven't applied any kind of noise reduction to more than a small handful of them.

Olympus EM10 - M4/3 - Lisbon, Portugal - Copyright Andy Richards 2022 - All Rights Reserved

I AM working on a series of (stay tuned) posts about some of the basic measures of image quality. One of them will cover the topic of "resolution." It is a concept that is often misunderstood and involves a number of factors which make up the photographic "system" we use to record and present our digital photographs. For purposes here, suffice it to say that it is pretty apparent to me that the "full-frame" sensor on my Sony a7rii yields noticeably (to the naked eye) more detail than the 20 M4/3 sensor does.

From an aesthetic perspective, the Olympus is certainly my favorite camera

Ergonomics

I MENTIONED in another blog (Do Looks Matter?) the look and feel of the Olympus system. I think it is as traditional looking (a plus for me) and good-feeling a setup as can be found. From an aesthetic perspective, the Olympus is certainly my favorite camera. I like its handling and controls (mostly) as well as any camera I have every owned. Most importantly, it gives me all of this in a very small package. For packing and carrying on trips that are not solely dedicated to photography (usually with one or more other shooters), it is a joy to have. And probably a must. Today that is the overriding factor, in spite of some negatives I have identified above.

Takeaway

NOT LONG ago, I was satisfied with my Sony RX100 "point and shoot" with its even smaller 1" sensor - still at only 20mp. Though capable of shooting in 3:2 format, the very small sensor made it difficult to even begin to compare with the image quality provided by the m4/3 and APS-C sensors. Yet it gave me some wonderful images and a lot of "joy." I may well not have made as many images on our trips had I continued to "lug" the Nikon and then Sony full-sized gear around. The M4/3 - gearwise - has been a wonderful compromise between the point & shoot and the full-sized gear. It gives me the feel of my comfortable old SLR camera system with interchangeable lenses and a very small footprint. At the same time, as has been said many times here, this whole adventure is one big compromise. Most recently, I became disillusioned with the image quality produced by my most used M4/3 lens. A "consumer" grade lens, the M.Zuiko 14-150 f3.5 - 5.6 zoom probably falls within the category of "superzoom." I have yet to own a so-called "superzoom" that didn't disappoint me when it came to overal image quality. I eventually came to that same conclusion with the M.Zuiko. I have now replaced it with their so-called "pro" M.Zuiko 12-100 f4 zoom. My small sampling demonstrates to me that its IQ is markedly better. Unfortunately, it is also 2x as big and heavy, somewhat defeating my goal to get "smaller." There's that compromise again.

Portability will continue to be a prime factor in my travel gear

NONETHELESS, THERE have most certainly been times I wish I had better quality equipment along. There are also times when I seriously consider which gear I would prefer to have with me. When we cruised in South Africa in 2023, we learned the primary attraction there is its wildlife and the "safari." That is not to say there aren't other things to shoot. I thoroughly enjoyed Cape Town as a city-shooting destination. And we could easily see that there are some pretty great landscape opportunities. We also concluded that cruising is not the way to see South Africa. I have resolved that any additional trips to that continent will be land-based and will include a substantial "safari" component. I wouldn't return under those conditions without my best gear (i.e., my bigger Sony setup).

THERE IS little doubt in my mind that I will continue to look at new options, especially as technology continues to improve. Portability will continue to be a prime factor in my travel gear (of all kinds). In September, we will be making a land-based trip to Switzerland, Germany and the Chech Republic. Personal gear needs will be much less varied. No "formal" or semi-formal clothing. I am looking forward to traveling with only a carry-on sized piece (along with a smaller personal bag) for this entire trip for a change. It is all about portability - to the extent possible, whenever airline, train, or bus travel is in the mix. The camera gear is no exception to that.

Re-Visiting Raw (Should You Shoot Raw? - Reprise)

 I FOLLOW some photography-related groups on Facebook, including several purportedly devoted to the equipment I own and shoot. To my mild disappointment, many of them are what I would describe as (sometimes thinly veiled) "fanboy" groups. Don't get me wrong. I do find useful information in most of them, about the ins and outs of a particular genre (I mostly shoot "full frame" Sony and M4-3 Olympus equipment), and tips and tricks about the brands and models I shoot. Notwithstanding that, there is way too much emphasis by "apologists" for particular systems (my mind goes to: "my father can beat your father playing dominoes"). Too much: "those 'X' users obviously haven't picked up one of our 'Y' cameras and cannot possibly appreciate the fact that the "Y" is far superior to "X" in every way," kinds of comments.

commentary sometimes bordering on the ridiculous and uninformed

ONE OF those sites recently gave rise to another age-old argument, which begat in my (ever so 😇) humble opinion, commentary sometimes bordering on the ridiculous and uninformed. That argument: should I shoot raw or jpeg?  Long time readers here know that I am a perennial advocate of the raw file. In my prior, years-old, blog on why I think (thought?) you should shoot raw, I answered that question in the clear and outspoken affirmative. Is that still my answer? read on to see where I stand today. But first, let's put it in the context of the online argument I recently read. Here are some excerpts from the thread on the group feed:

OP (a new owner-shooter): "........ I was advised to start shooting only in jpeg (because the format is less forgiving) to learn all the basics ...."

1st commentator:  ".... whoever told you so, the reason to shoot JPEG has nothing to do with the format being less forgiving, but rather to help you pre-configure your camera settings ahead of time so that the output is essentially what you wanted to create, and so that you can deliver final results with minimal effort—no need to spend additional time, money, and effort on raw photos."

2nd commentator: "jpeg is more forgiving, but much more difficult to edit"

3rd commentator: "My biggest regret in Digital photography was wasting lots of money on RAW processing software. Wasting masses of time learning how to get around so many arcane processes. Wasting time actually processing RAW images at all. I don't regret spending a max of 30 secs processing JPGs. I don't regret the cost of all that storage space either. I don't regret all the extra time I have to enjoy life and take photographs!"

Some "doozies" there. From a site that is avowed to help users of the brand (irrelevant which one it is), we learn: "Jpeg is less forgiving. Jpeg is more forgiving. Jpg is harder to edit than raw. Raw files require expensive additional software, storage, arcane processes and masses of time." Mostly hyperbolic and misleading commentary (in fairness, there were also some very good suggestions - but I was surprised at how many there were that I considered opinionated, but uninformed).

I  HAVE written about the difference between jpg and raw files here before, but it bears a brief discussion for perspective. A "raw" file is the closest thing to true, unprocessed data recorded by the camera sensor. It is still not truly and completely unprocessed, however. For technical reasons well beyond my ability to either completely understand or explain, a "raw" file delivered by a digital camera is at least slightly processed, in order to put the recorded digital information into a useable "container" (for lack of a better description). My research suggests that raw files are based on a very rudimentary TIFF file. Each camera maker is reputed to have put some of its own proprietary data in that "container." As such, each camera produces proprietary "raw" files. "Raw," by the way, is not a three-letter abbreviation. It is a word. As in "raw" food. I cringe when I see people continously refer to "RAW" in all caps in their writing (though I suppose there is something to be said for "shouting it out" 😃). Third party software manufacturers eventually are given the information to "decode" those files in their own software. No matter. I only mention this for the sake of precision and clarity. Based on my own (arguably limited) sampling (I have worked with variations of Nikon's NEF raw files in a half-dozen of their cameras - remember each model's raw files are different - 5 different Sony ARW raw files, 3 different Olympus ORF raw files, and a couple Canon versions). I don't think there is that much difference in the raw files produced from different cameras, once you run them through a raw software converter. Raw files are not capable of being viewed on a computer or tablet or phone without being "processed" by some kind of raw processing software. The primary advantage of the format is its flexibility and depth of digital information recorded and stored in the file. Every other file format has been processed by the camera. Not even the built-in screen on the camera is capable of displaying the camera's native raw files. Those thumbnails are actually a jpeg rendering by the camera. I am, and have historically been, an advocate of recording raw files. Several follow up comments on the above string note that it "doesn't hurt to shoot in JPG + raw. Then you always have the raw files to work on later once you up your skills." A corollary to this is that you can always render a jpg copy from a raw image in post-processing.

The 180-degree opposite opinions that "jpegs are less forgiving" and "jpegs are more forgiving" are neither accurate nor particularly revealing of the true nature of the jpg file.

SOME YEARS back, I posted a blog about "Why you should shoot raw." Digital sensors, files and processing have all come light years forward from the time when I wrote that. The latitude and image quality produced by today's camera sensors is significantly better than say, my original Nikon D100 6mp camera. The Sony A7rv is, for example, 10x the megapixels but equally (or more) significant is that it is also a physically larger sensor, with each pixel being larger. At the same time, technology has substantially reduced noise and has allowed us to not only plumb the depths of the "dark side" of digital files, but control and record more of and cleaner renditions of the rest of the mid and highlight tones in an image - even with the jpg files rendered from most cameras. Digital files, including jpgs, are much higher quality these days, making the divide between a camera-generated jpg and a native "raw" file smaller. How much smaller may be a matter of personal taste. No matter where we are today, that divide is certain to become narrower over time (a good example is the newer jpgXL file that for some reason hasn't caught fire - yet).

GIVEN ALL this, why not just shoot jpgs? They are smaller. They are already rendered in a form that can be easily displayed on digital devices, and easily transferred from device to device and user to user (my cameras have the facility to send jpg images over wireless transmission networks - i.e., the internet). There are times when I am out in the field when it might be fun to post something on my social media (though there is that pesky "connection" issue). Most cameras' (especially smartphones, it seems to me) do a pretty nice job of producing snappy, colorful images, out of the box, so to speak.

THE 180-degree contradictory opinions that: "jpegs are less forgiving" and "jpegs are more forgiving" are neither accurate nor particularly revealing of the true nature of the jpg file. Yet both conclude that jpgs are more difficult to edit. I am not sure what to make of those arguments, so instead, I dismissed them both. 😏 For me, the term and concept: "forgiving," dates back to the days of film. We usually discussed it in terms of "exposure latitude." Some films (especially negative, or color-reversal films) had a fair amount of "exposure latitude" (forgiveness). That meant that if your in-camera exposure was off a bit, it still might come out fine in the final development. In other words, forgiving. Other films (particularly slide films) had essentially no latitude and any exposure mistakes were instantly and - for the most part, irreversably - highlighted in the developed image. Most of us never thought the above "forgiveness," was a reason not to get the exposure correct every time, in-camera. But it did mean that in certain conditions, you might be able to push the (exposure) envelope a bit. While digitally recorded files are a very different process and medium, the concepts of forgiveness and latitude translate. Most high-quality digital sensors today have a dynamic range (the darkest to lightest tones it can record) of around 6 to 6 1/2 stops. Once the file has been rendered to jpg, however, you will no longer have that latitude for working with the file. However, correct exposure in-camera at the time of making the image is still always the best practice (no matter what file format you decide to use). Once the file has been rendered to jpg, to my way of thinking, it isn't any "easier" or "harder" to work with. I suppose when he said: "more difficult to edit," the commentor really meant that it is difficult (or impossible) to make substantial changes to exposure, color, contrast, etc., including targeted changes within the image. If that is what he meant, I don't disagree.

. . . debunks . . . the comments about "wasting time" converting raw images [and] "arcane" processes.

LET ME posit a very good (compelling, in my view) continuing reason to record your images as raw files. The original poster above posted his comment along with the announcement that he was a brand-new user, with the manufacture's newest "flagship" camera body in hand. He wants to "up his photographic skills." Which leads me to wonder why someone who is making landscape, city scape, wildlife, and similar images would spend 4 figures on a camera just to produce nice jpg images? You can do that with your smart phone these days. Or certainly with a point and shoot, or a so-called "entry level" camera. One of the comments that was made to his post was by a participant who commented that she started out shooting only jpgs and as her experience and skills level improved, she wished she had recorded raw files on some of her earlier images. Her comment resonates with me. The thing is, raw files record and preserve the maximum digital information the camera's sensor is capable of. If you choose the jpg only setting, however, the on-board software renders a jpg file from the raw file and that is all that is preserved. So what? Originally designed for portability and ease of transfer digitally (particularly on the internet), the jpg file is compressed. When that is done, a significant amount of that previously recorded digital information is discarded. Once that is done, you cannot get it back. That's where the "cooking" analogy comes in. The raw file is as close to the raw ingredients as you can get. The jpg is more or less permanently "cooked." With the raw file, you have a lot to work with in post-processing, including up to 5 f-stops of exposure latitude, more pixel depth, and the ability to adjust color, among other things. While you can do some of that with a jpg, the ability to "work" the file is severely restricted.

THE COMMENT about "wasting money on raw processing software, wasting time on actual processing, and wasting money and space on storage" sounds an awful lot like justification for someone who really only wants a "point and shoot" experience, where the shots are made in camera and the output is completely display ready. That's fine. I know many photographers who take that view and it is a perfectly legitimate approach. Just own it: "I don't want to do that stuff; I just want to take pictures." That's different, however, from suggesting that it is wasting time or money to engage in more in-depth post processing. In my view, they often do not truly appreciate the depth and magnitude allowed by raw recording and processing - or just do not care (a sentiment that is certainly valid). Storage these days is cheap. Unless you are shooting high speed multiple exposures, or video, you generally do not need the fastest, most expensive memory cards. There are some very reasonable cost alternatives out there. Terrabyte for terrabyte, backup storage is not really that expensive these days. I find the "wasting money on storage" argument unpersuasive.

. . . leads me to wonder why someone who is making landscape, city scape, wildlife, and similar images would spend 4 figures on a camera just to produce nice jpg images?

PROCESSING IS something a bit different. If you just want that "point and shoot" experience, you don't really need sophisticated processing software. Nor (in my view) do you need to own your brand's "flagship" camera. If you are serious about "upping your game," on the other hand, you are going to need some kind of processing software and you are going to find yourself wanting it soon. It is also worth noting that nearly every major camera brand provides raw processing software of some kind free for those who have purchased their cameras. I have generally found these products less usable than some of the mainstream software that you pay for, but they will certainly get you started and will decode your raw files into jpg, tiff, png, or other file types that can be displayed on digital media. Most post-processing software programs are bundled with other features which, again if you are serious about the craft, you will want sooner or later. Things like file management, search and key-word features, cropping, sizing, color and contrast adjustments and management, sharpening, printing, and converting from one file type to another, are among just a few of them. There are programs which include raw processing software from around $50 for a "lifetime" license (that you load onto your own computer and own), to Adobe's premium Photoshop CC/Lightroom Classic subscription-based program which will set you back about $200 per year. The advantage of the subscription programs is their ability to push through and you to acquire new developments in real-time. The disadvantage (at least at first blush) is economic. Much of this will depend on your wants, needs, and photographic approach.

Terrabyte for terrabyte, backup storage is not really that expensive these days

IT IS also worth noting that before you can process an image in a software program, it must be converted from its raw state. Historically, that meant that if you were recording images as "raw," you would convert from raw (in raw conversion software), then bring the image into post-processing software, and do most of the changes on a file that would be saved as jpg, tiff, etc. As software has gotten better and better, my own experience is that "most" of my processing is now done within the raw converter software, and those changes and corrections are non-permanently saved to the file. I use Adobe products. ACR, the Adobe raw processing engine, is integrated into both Photoshop and Lightroom. Most of the other popular programs do the same. That debunks, in my view, the comments about "wasting time" converting raw images. It is really a seamless experience, with a lot of flexibility. Likewise, the user interface for most of these programs is (after a bit of a "learning curve") relatively easy and intuitive, generally incorporating sliders that work much like the later, post-processing interface, again debunking - in my view - the comment about "arcane" processes. The beauty of making the changes in the raw conversion program is that the changes are not permanent (i.e., they are non-destructive). You can go back any time later and re-work changes you have made to the file.

WOULD I still strongly advocate recording your images in raw format? My answer today is more equivocal; but only slightly so. Personally, it is still a no-brainer for me. I will continue recording raw files for the foreseeable future, until something compelling convinces me to change that approach. I think you should too. If you want jpegs out of the camera, use the JPEG+raw option if you can (I don't, but that is a function of my personal post-processing workflow). But keep raw files as an archive. I am betting there will come a day when you will wish you had. The digital world we live in today, nothing is "simple." There is a continuum of camera, lens, and processing equipment (software, scanners, printers) and we each fit somewhere on it. I am not for an instant, denigrating the photographers I describe in the "point and shoot," jpg -only category. You may well fit in that category. It will be based more on your "wants" (and resources) than on your "needs." Professionals who make a living from their craft may be the only ones who can truly think about this continuum in terms of their needs. I chose not to participate in the FB thread quoted above (for any number of reasons). If I were going to advise a new photographer, I would first ask them to think about what their personal goals are. I have a relative who asked for my thoughts about purchasing a camera. As we talked about her goals, it became more and more apparent to me that she should just continue using her smart phone. For what she wanted to accomplish, it was perfectly capable (perhaps in some instances better than a dedicated camera). If you want to go more in-depth, and make professional (or near-professional) quality images; if you want to make (or even sell) prints or digital images; if you want the ability to creatively work your images (including cropping, color adjustment, targeted sharpening, blurring, etc.) then you will fall on the scale more toward dedicated, higher-end camera, lenses, and more than likely: processing software. This blog is really directed more toward the latter photographer, and if you are in that category, I would personally urge you to record and preserve your images as raw files. I do not personally do so, having thought it through and concluded it doesn't serve my purposes, but there is certainly nothing wrong with recording both (using your camera's "raw+jpg" setting if you have one).

I will be recording raw files for the foreseeable future, until something compelling convinces me to change that approach. I think you should too

I'LL MAKE one other personal point. To the comment about having more time to "enjoy life and take photographs." I have heard that one before. I get it. To each his own. There are some who don't want anything to do with processing or processing software. There are also some of us who do. I have been using computers since the first DOS-based, truly "floppy" discs were the norm. I learned to program some DOS and BASIC, and when Windows came around, missed, and was nostalgic about losing some of the ability to get under the hood and do my own "mechanical" work. When the "digital darkroom" became a reality, it was a natural progression for me to embrace it. I had a slide scanner for my 100's of color transparency slides. I used Adobe Elements at first and as my own skills and desires to work with images progressed, I became a Photoshop user (at a time when Photoshop was the only choice we had). I have enjoyed the ride the entire trip so far! For me, working with my digital images in the post-processing phase gives me - in a very different way - as much enjoyment as going out and making the images does. I am pretty sure I am not alone.  I think it is legitimate to consider just how much time and effort you wish to spend after the shooting sessions are done. I also think it's "o.k." to either enjoy that or to not want to do it. It is why we are so diverse a community! Whichever and whatever way you choose, if you are a hobbyist: make sure you are having fun! Oh, and don't forget to record your images as raw files. 😎

Line, Shape, Pattern and Color - My recent visit to Japan

Daishi - do Temple; Sieryju Shrine - Aomori, Japan

AS I was processing images from our (semi) recent, nearly 3-week, trip to Japan, I - not for the first time - noted a fairly large percentage of shots with the similarities of line, shape, pattern and often color. I have made no secret of the fact that bright colors attract my photographic eye. It is so often an "in-your-face" attribute of a scene.
 

Ikuta Shinto Shrine - Kobe, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved]

PATTERNS, LINES and shapes, though, are often more subtle. One of the "seeing" skills a photographer (hopefully) acquires, is the ability to not only see these attributes, but to organize them ways that make the composition appealing. Doing so effectively means that the photographer must also learn, familiarize themself with, and use certain compositional guidelines. Level horizons, leading lines, non-convergence, and placement of picture elements in a pleasing and non-static arrangement are all guidelines that intersect with the seeing and using of lines, shapes and patterns.

Torii Gate Entrance to Ikuta Shinto Shrine - Kobe, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved]

 

only in America do we view art as a hobby or convenience 

 

Temple Rokuon-ji - Kyoto, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2015 - All Rights Reserved]

SOMETIMES EITHER nature, or human creators do much of that work for us. There is no place where this was ever more apparent to me than in Japan. I read recently (on FB of all places :-) ) a comment which resonated with me. The remark was something like: "only in America do we view art as a hobby or convenience." The implication is (and perhaps accurately) the rest of the world has a much greater appreciation for art. That is sad. Even though by the time I was a junior in college, I was a reasonably avid photographer, I didn't think of the craft as art. That came later. Never as a singular "epiphany," though. More like I just grew to realize it over time. Ironically, that junior year required me to enroll in an "elective" class that was unrelated to either of my dual major subjects (Economics and Business Administration and U.S. History). I looked for one that might not involve "heavy lifting," and ultimately chose an "art appreciation" class. I wasn't really that interested. It just "checked the boxes," and I underestimated the academic rigor involved in the study of art. Fortunately, I was a quick "study," and realized early on that there would be some work involved. A surprise to me; the "work" actually became both fun and interesting. I found myself thoroughly enjoying the class, the enthusiasm of the instructor who challenged me to learn, and the subject matter. I also found myself wishing I had more allocated class "space" to take more of this type of class. In years later, as a photographer trying to better understand and approach composition, I have often wished I had taken some art and drawing classes.

artists did not consider themselves "artists" at all. They were scientists, engineers, and architects

YOU SEE, "art," is really not just pretty pictures. Indeed, for many centuries, many who we today classify as artists did not consider themselves "artists" at all. They were scientists, engineers, and architects. Among the most famous were people like Leonardo da Vinci (who was perhaps much more an engineer than and "artist," per se), and Michelangelo and Gaudi, who were first architects, and secondarily "artists." As such, these talented people were highly regarded in Europe and in Asia. If you visit either place extensively, you will begin to see the pattern of some of the worlds most impressive and magnificent structures being designed by folks like this. They mostly all engaged in "art" of some form. The architecture is - indeed - art. But it is so much more. It is engineering and beauty, and balance, and it is enduring. When you approach history in that manner, the contribution of "art" to our society is stunning. Not only does it stimulate our creative and appreciative side, but it is also very utilitarian. It is also symbolic with perhaps the vast majority of amazing structures around the world and throughout history being churches, mosques, temples and shrines. 

Seiryu-ji Temple - Aomori, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved]

AGAIN, IN my observation, there is nowhere in the world that this is any more apparent than in Japan. Perhaps until the latter part of the current century, there wasn't really much "modern" looking design in Japan. Instead, they have stuck rather faithfully to the traditional look and architectural design of their culture. Interestingly, one of the most impressive of the places we visited, the Seiryu-Ji Temple in Aomori City, was built in the late 1980s. Yet if you didn't read that in their literature, you would have no idea. It is very much like other venues we saw that were hundreds of years old! 

Fushimi Inari Shinto Shrine - Kyoto, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2015 - All Rights Reserved]

JAPANESE ART and architecture can be described as being endowed with simplicity. There is an abundance of straight lines and repeating pattern, more sparsely punctuated with some complementary curves. Lots of geometry. The curvature of the top of the ubiquitous "Torii Gate," and many of the roof lines are an example of subtle curves designed to complement the mostly geometrically straight lines in the balance of the design. The Torii Gate, most often found at the entrance of a Shinto Shrine, symbolizes the transition from the human realm to the spirit realm, and it is proper etiquette to bow before proceeding through the gate. The observant will note the similarity between the design of the gate and some of the kanji symbols. The gate (which, by the way, does not always have the upswept curved "lintel" - but sometimes has a straight, or other geometric shape) is a combination of two kanji, one of which means "bird" and one of which means "existing."

Fushimi Inari Shinto Shrine - Kyoto, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2015 - All Rights Reserved]

IN SOME cases, interest and even excitement is added with bright colors. Often it is gold and green. Sometimes is is real gold (as in the Temple Rokuon-ji, in Kyoto - illustrated above). Perhaps most often, though, it is perhaps the most popular color in Japan - "red." I put red in quotations because it is not really red. At least not what I consider red. To me a pure red would be the color of a freshly painted barn in Vermont, or the red stripes on the U.S. flag. To me the "red" used in Japanese architecture is more of a blend of red and orange; leaning slightly toward orange. Red, in Japan, is symbolic of power, peace, prosperity, and good luck. It is the imperial color which is used in the Japanese flag, as well as not only some of the imperial architecture but importantly: Shinto Shrines. In some cases, the repeating patterns are found in both a "macro" and "micro" part of the design, as in the Fushimi Inari Shrine, whose grand design features repeating architectural shapes on the grounds of the shrine. 

Stable - Sorakuen Garden - Kobe, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved]

IF IT is not really red, and not really orange, what color is it? Vermillion. Until the 20th century, vermillion was the closest pigment to red that was available in Asia. It was also the most expensive pigment. Because of this, it was only common to see the bright vermillion color in limited places, like imperial palaces and residences, Shinto Shrines, and occasionally the homes of the very wealthy. To me it is very distinctive shade, and always brings me back to Japanese architecture. 

Sorakuen Garden Gate - Kobe, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved]

THE FUNDAMENTAL elements, though, of Japanese design and architecture, are still basically line, shape and pattern, arranged simply and geometrically. That is why we see so many examples of Japanese architecture that are not brightly colors and are often even nearly monochromatic. Here, they add interest by using contrasting shades, and sometimes, gold. The "stable" in Sorakuen Garden Kobe is a great example of wonderful Japanese architecture without even a hint of bright (pigment-based) color. But the beautiful, burnished, natural wood, with light accents and brightly finished brass fittings make up for it in my view. 

5-storied Pagoda - Seiryu-ji Shrine - Aomori, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved]

LIKEWISE, THE gate to Sorakuen Garden in Kobe, while characterized by the same architecture as some of the more colorful and ornate gates around the country, boasts the original wood used to build it in the 18th century: Japanese Zelkova. The contrasting colors of off-white panels and the natural, dark wood are the only color here, giving it an almost monochromatic look. Still, it is visually interesting as a result of its repeating lines and patterns.

Until the 20th century, vermillion was the closest pigment to red that was available in Asia

ANOTHER COMMONLY appearing repeating pattern in Japanese architecture is found in multiple roof lines. Most traditional rooflines in Japan show that gentle, upswept curve (much like the curve on the Torii gate). Most commonly seen is the 5-storied pagoda. The 5 stories represent the "five elements" of Buddhism consisting of earth, water, fire, wind and sky.

Daishido Shinto Temple - Seiryu-ji Shrine - Aomori, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 All Rights Reserved]

THE REMAINING buildings of Kanazawa Castle are another example of multiple, repeating roof lines. When you look at it in this context, it is perhaps not so different from multi-story residential construction in the U.S. Repeating, varied sized roofs which are not only interesting looking, but also utilitarian. Again, you can see the geometric and repeating pattern and shape in this very much traditional Japanese structure.

Kanazawa Castle - Kanazawa, Japan - [Copyright Andy Richards 2024 All Rights Reserved]

I
  POSTED some of these images on my FB page over the past month and thought there was enough material there to create a full blog post. Hope you enjoyed the images!