Technology and photography

Lamborghini Aventador at the L.A. Auto Show

*Pictures not related.
Is modern Technology killing the art of photography? It seems to be a topic that comes up a lot these days. I've seen photographers on twitter complain about being told "it's the camera that takes great pictures, not you". If you follow the news much, there seems to be a global uproar about magazines "Photoshoping" pictures. Of course the reality is, this is not new. There is substantial evidence (see this CBS News article) to show that photo manipulation has been around since... well, before photos. The theory is that Renascence  painters would use a camera obscura to project an image of their subject onto the canvas, and then they would simple trace the projection. This would allow them to get very good detail without having to make the model pose for days. After the model leaves, the artist would go back and paint over the sketch. Sounds like Photoshop to me. I would speculate that many King and Queen left artists with explicit instructions to "trim the waistline" or "drop the double chin"
"That's Different" you say. "There was no photographic emulsion then, there were no image sensors". True, but did people stop manipulating images once photographic emulsion was invented? There are many documented cases of people being added, and removed from photos in the mid 1800's. (As seen in this discussion on civilwartalk.com). There was also a cottage industry of "Spirit Photography" where unscrupulous photographers would use double exposure, and darkroom tricks to add "ghosts" to images. (See this article by Kristi Finefield on the Library of Congress Blog).
"But what about the true artists? they didn't do that". Have you heard of Man Ray? Andy Warhol? Even Ansel Adams, the king of natural landscapes, heavily manipulated his images in the darkroom. He even wrote a very good book on the subject that I suggest all of you read. Ansel Adams: The Print . In the book, Adams goes into detail on photo manipulation and the many techniques to accomplish it (like burning and dodging... yes like the photoshop tools.) He even goes as far as to theorize that the actual taking of the photograph is just the "visualization" of the photograph. The actual printing (and manipulation of the negative) is the true creation of the photograph.

A tree on a hill at the top of Reseda Blvd

*On a similar note, early in my career when I used to work for an optical effects house in Glendale Ca, I had the pleasure of working with an effects artist named Gene Young. Gene once worked for a guy named Linwood Dunn. Linwood Dunn is one of the pioneers of motion picture optical effects. Gene told me a story once about how Linwood (while working at RKO for Howard Hughes) would take a small piece of gauze and use it to blur the cleavage on an actress while making a film print so the censors wouldn't attack the film. So now you know where photoshops Gaussian blur comes from.)

Skull Beads

I personally believe that post processing of an image is a part of the art form, but the ability to frame and capture a distinct moment in a way that conveys an idea is the true art. Does the modern camera lessen that in anyway? It makes it easier, true. A photographer can now focus on finding that moment. With a modern camera you no longer need to worry about whether you have the right speed film in your camera for the conditions you are shooting in. (Of course you could always push or pull your film in processing if you screwed that up). A modern photographer doesn't need to worry about focus with auto focus lenses. (but let's face it, if you are like me, that is set to manual most of the time anyway because the auto focus always pics the wrong thing to focus on., and auto focus lenses have been around a lot longer then digital cameras). Modern camera's automatically set the exposure... yes, so photographers don't need to pull out exposure meters every 5 minutes now... They still need to determine the depth of field they want for the image, and set the iris accordingly.

Culver City as seen from the Getty Center

The real "problem" with modern technology and photography is that it puts the tools of the professional in the hands of everyone. and since a pro can't be everywhere at once, regular people are getting great shots that they can sell, and it is cutting into the pros pockets. Even though Bob from accounting may make an extra $20.00 a month from selling his vacation photos on istock, it will still be the professional who is hired to get the shot of the couple at the romantic candle lit dinner, shot in a studio, professionally lit, with a make-up artist touching up the models, prop people making sure the food, and wine look perfect, and an agency exec in the back complaining that the out of focus deep background corner of the room is to dark. True, the professional photography industry has to adapt and change because of technology, but that is true of all industry. As a true fan of the art form, I dare say this is a good thing. Imagine for a minute how amazing it would have been if everyone had their cell phone cameras out during the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the fall of the Walls of Jericho, the construction of the pyramids, the battle of Waterloo. For the first time in history, everyone can be involved in documenting our society, and our times. In a hundred years, history students will know us because they will be able to look into our eyes, and more importantly they will be able to see the world through our eyes. That is the job of the photographer: To capture this moment in time. the more shutters going of the better, the more people sitting in front of their computers manipulating an image to better convey a thought or feeling the better.

Occupy Protester in L.A. 2011

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Review: Canon Powershot ELPH 500 HS

 If you would have asked me about point and shoot cameras a year ago, I would have told you they are dead. With the increase of good quality cell phone cameras, why would anyone want a point and shoot?
Well recently I discovered why. I was in need of a camera with a real optical zoom, and better quality then my cell phone camera could provide, but still small enough to not be a nuisance. I wanted the total package. something with a respectable pixel count, shoots HD video, and was inexpensive.  I found it in the Canon PowerShot ELPH 500 HS .
The day after I bought this little (about the size of a pack of cigarettes) point and shoot, I went on a Google+ photo walk at the Old L.A. Zoo, and Travel Town in Griffith Park. I brought my new point and shoot along with my Canon EOS Rebel T2i . I had an old Canon 35-70mm EF lens on the T2i. The Power shot is a 12.1 megapixel camera with a 1/2.3-inch CMOS senosr. (the T2i has an 18 megapixel APS-C sensor). Although the T2i images are better in a side by side comparison, the 500HS performs very well for the drastically cheaper price. The touch screen on the back is a good size, and works well, although the touch focus can be a little off. (Often selecting an area just to the side of where I actually touch).
The auto settings work very well, and the images look really nice. The largest image setting in the camera is 4:3 and I personally find that to be an ugly aspect ratio, but I guess the logical argument to that would be to crop the image later (as I did with all the images in the post except the one on the right, and the bottom photo). The battery life is exceptional. (I charged the camera when I purchased it, and a week ( and 150 photos, and a few dozen video clips) later, it still is reading a full charge. In a standard Canon flaw, the SD card slot is in the same spot as the batter, and both are inaccessible when the camera is mounted on a tripod. This, however, has little relevance on a point and shoot that under most circumstances won't be used on a tripod. (at least not enough that you would need to change the card and/or battery while it was still on the tripod). The camera has an ISO range of 100 to 3200, and although there is noticeable noise in the higher ISO's, it is still better then I would have expected from such a low cost camera. The image stabilization on the video is ok, and it kicks in on low light stills.

The smaller sensor size (although many may disagree) is a good thing on a point and shoot as it tends to give you a wide depth of field (see my blog on the subject of depth of field). I feel when you need a point and shoot, (quick photo opportunities, vacations, etc) a wide depth of field is a good thing. This is clearly demonstrated in the bottom photo. So if you are looking for a pocket camera that can still shoot good images, and HD video, I would suggest the 500HS. It's quality is better then I would expect from a camera in this price range.

*Check back for low light and video comparisons with the 500HS.

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Everyone Needs Some Good Glass (pt-2: Prime vs Zoom)

Los Angeles's El Ray Theater

 Last month, I was in San Francisco. I took some time to go shoot the Golden Gate Bridge with an L-series 24mm lens, and a standard Canon zoom. I compared the photos shot with the different lenses, and wrote a blog about it. (You can view the original post here). It was pointed out to me that since I had manually set the L-series lens, and left the zoom on auto, the differences may have had more to do with the f-stop then the glass. I decided to re-visit the subject with a new post, and this time both lenses would be set to f/16 with the camera set at an ISO of 200. I set the my Canon T2i  to aperture priority so it would choose the best shutter speed. I set up my tripod, and shot both sets of pictures from the same position.The two lenses I used where the standard (comes with the camera) Canon EF-S 18-55mm  zoom, and an old FD L-series 24mm (f1.4). I adapted it to the camera with a Fotodiox Lens Mount Adapter . This particular adapter has an element to adjust for the difference in flange depth between the FD and EF mounts (thus allowing a full range of focus). This element however, appears to magnify the image a bit, as well as cause some light loss. (As is evident by the different exposure times.)

Beverly Hills City Hall

It also deserves to be noted that the L-series lens is a prime lens, and the standard lens is a zoom. The additional elements in the zoom are most likely the culprit for the additional refraction evident in the photos shot with it. This is most visible around light sources such as the street light in the above photo of the El Ray Theater in Los Angeles. However, in the photo on the right (of the Beverly Hills City Hall) Their is an odd refraction in the center of the image of the photo taken with the 24mm. I suspect that is caused by the additional element in the Fotodiox adapter. The star pattern that you see around light sources is coming from the blades of the iris. (I am stopped down to f/16) If I had shot these same images wide open, all of the light sources would appear round. The images from the 24mm lens are sharper then the ones shot with the 18-55mm. The color also looks better to me. A big advantage to the L-series lens that these photos do not demonstrate is the speed. the 18-55mm zoom is f3.5-5.6 (changing a bit through the length of the zoom). The L-series lens is an f1.4. That is 4 full stops faster. Considering each stop is "a halving of the light intensity from the previous stop", you can shoot in lower light conditions without the long exposures I've used in these photos. (maybe a comparison for pt 3).

Paramount Pictures Front Gate

What is clear in these photos is the usefulness of a prime lens. Just because you can get a 24mm shot with your zoom, doesn't mean it will be the best choice of lenses. Every piece of glass between your subject and your image collector (be it film or a digital sensor) degrades your image. Prime lenses have less glass in them, and therefore give you a better image with less refraction, and less light loss.
The refraction is particularly evident in the photo on the left of the front gates to Paramount studios in Hollywood California, and the picture below of Wilshire Blvd.

*You may notice light streaks in most of the photos on this page. Those light streaks are the lights on the cars that drove by while the shutter was open (in some cases over 30 seconds). with a long exposure, anything moving quickly through the frame (like a car) will not be seen. However if that quickly moving object has a light source (like headlights or tail lights), they will register in ever position they were in while the shutter was open. This produces the glowing streaks in these shots.

Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

light them... but don't light them.

The incredibly talented Monique Parent

There is a trend going on that runs by the motto "light everything but your talent." What they really mean is indirect lighting.  The photo on the left of Monique Parent was taken with a soft source on the left as a key, and a window providing soft fill on the right. Despite using a very soft lighting setup, the photo still is able to produce rich shadows, while the key is able to softly wrap around the talent. Although this photo is still directly lit, I feel it falls into the indirect vibe.

Monique Parent

For an even more dramatic look, you can utilize back-lights to bounce and fill your talent. This photo (also of Monique Parent) uses a strong back light. The bounce from that light is indirectly filling her face, and giving a great edge background separation. The background material is actually 1 stop brighter then Moniques face. Motion picture Gaffer Ama MacDonald once told me that as long as something in your shot is properly exposed, the rest of the shot can be under or overexposed (including your main subject). This seems like a simple concept, but after years of setting the exposure to the talents face, it took a bit of getting used to for me. However, the dramatic look of this indirect lighting can be quite compelling.

Regina Bailey

In this next photo, I used two back lights to light Model Regina Bailey. I then used a bounce card in front of her to fill in her face. The back lights give a wonderful edge to her face and hair. The bounce provides beautiful glow to her skin. If you do not have the option to use professional lighting instruments to light your subject, this same effect can be used with sunlight. As you can see in the below photo (also of model Regina Bailey), I used the sun as a back light, and positioned the model next to a post that was being directly hit by the sun (on the side we can't see). The bounce from the post gave a beautiful warm bounce to Regina. The bounce is, of course, very soft. The intensity of the back light is also able to give a great separation between the background and the subject.
So next time you are looking for something different in your shots, try indirect lighting. Use back lights and bounce for fill. the effects can be very dramatic.

Regina Bailey

Visit my website Daviddefino.com

check me out on twitter