photographic culture
A new definition for photography
23/03/09 22:08
A new proposal for the definition of photography
The new e-book readers, like the Kindle, will for the first time in history, separate the reading experience from the printed page. In the past, reading was directly coupled to the availability of the printed pages and the printed book. From now on, reading a text can be done from a screen where the text is digitally projected on a screen.
Books will loose part of their use, but will continue to be printed as objects of design and art. Reading a text can be done more easily with an e-book reader, but the physical pleasure of leafing through a well printed book will be lost.
When discussing photography, classical or actual, digitally captured or chemically preserved, the focus has always been on the technique of capturing and the available instruments. Perhaps it makes sense to change the focus: a painting is only then a true painting when there is a canvas and a brush and paint. It does not matter who or what operates the brush: a human or a robot. The final result is a physical object: a canvas covered with paint that is deposited on the surface by a brush.
The inventors of photography were focused on the final result, the print or the Daguerrotype. A negative was just an intermediate step to get the final result. As Ansel Adams noted, the negative is the base, but the print is what counts.
But there was more: the technical base of photography was the proportional response of chemical matter to the intensity of light. And the whole process of development and printing was focused on preserving tonal values and tonal range.
The negative was not always perfect and some changes in tonality were accepted: dodging and burning, matching the characteristic curve of the negative to the gradient of the print emulsion. The whole process of photography was dedicated to get a range of tonal values into the physical print that resembled to a large degree the tonal distribution of the original scene.
In fact the only changes allowed (or possible) in the chemical process were changes in tonal value and range/contrast.
Let us now try to define the true photographic process: the process reproduces the tonal values and range of the recorded scene/subject and produces a physical print with a comparable range and factual distribution of tonal values as are seen in the original scene. The claim that the distribution of tonal values in the print should be identical to the original distribution in the scene rules out any manipulation of the image other that a change in tonal values.
This definition is independent from the technical process: a digital camera and a digital print do qualify as a true photograph if the restriction to tonal changes is accepted and the final result is a physical print that cannot be manipulated.
To be concrete: A picture with an M8 and developed with a certain program and printed with the Epson 3800 on Hahnemühle baryta paper is equal to a picture by an M7 loaded with TMax100 and printed on Ilford baryta paper with the Heiland Splitgrade system.
In both cases there is a very restricted range of changes in tonal values and tonal range/contrast.
In the digital procedure we must be sure that the program only allows tonality changes and contrast changes based on matching characteristic curves and that the final result is a physical print. programs like RAW Developer in the Apple environment and Capture One would qualify as ‘chemical’ developers as they only offer a restricted range of manipulations closely related to the traditional darkroom process. And we must ensure that the in-camera processing is limited to tonal preservation. The Leica M8 in Raw modus would qualify, the Olympus E-30 would not, nor the Canon 5 D II: their software is too sophisticated!
A true photograph then is a physical print where the tonal values and contrast range are recorded as available in the scene and the subsequent processing is restricted to dodging, burning, toning and curve matching between negative and positive.
What we need in the digital realm are post processing programs with less options and manipulative capabilities than are offered currently by Photoshop and clones.
In the past this approach of direct recording and un-manipulated representing of the scene was referred to as straight photography. We could re-invent this approach and define true photography in this philosophy. Any departure would be called image manipulation or digital photography.
The new e-book readers, like the Kindle, will for the first time in history, separate the reading experience from the printed page. In the past, reading was directly coupled to the availability of the printed pages and the printed book. From now on, reading a text can be done from a screen where the text is digitally projected on a screen.
Books will loose part of their use, but will continue to be printed as objects of design and art. Reading a text can be done more easily with an e-book reader, but the physical pleasure of leafing through a well printed book will be lost.
When discussing photography, classical or actual, digitally captured or chemically preserved, the focus has always been on the technique of capturing and the available instruments. Perhaps it makes sense to change the focus: a painting is only then a true painting when there is a canvas and a brush and paint. It does not matter who or what operates the brush: a human or a robot. The final result is a physical object: a canvas covered with paint that is deposited on the surface by a brush.
The inventors of photography were focused on the final result, the print or the Daguerrotype. A negative was just an intermediate step to get the final result. As Ansel Adams noted, the negative is the base, but the print is what counts.
But there was more: the technical base of photography was the proportional response of chemical matter to the intensity of light. And the whole process of development and printing was focused on preserving tonal values and tonal range.
The negative was not always perfect and some changes in tonality were accepted: dodging and burning, matching the characteristic curve of the negative to the gradient of the print emulsion. The whole process of photography was dedicated to get a range of tonal values into the physical print that resembled to a large degree the tonal distribution of the original scene.
In fact the only changes allowed (or possible) in the chemical process were changes in tonal value and range/contrast.
Let us now try to define the true photographic process: the process reproduces the tonal values and range of the recorded scene/subject and produces a physical print with a comparable range and factual distribution of tonal values as are seen in the original scene. The claim that the distribution of tonal values in the print should be identical to the original distribution in the scene rules out any manipulation of the image other that a change in tonal values.
This definition is independent from the technical process: a digital camera and a digital print do qualify as a true photograph if the restriction to tonal changes is accepted and the final result is a physical print that cannot be manipulated.
To be concrete: A picture with an M8 and developed with a certain program and printed with the Epson 3800 on Hahnemühle baryta paper is equal to a picture by an M7 loaded with TMax100 and printed on Ilford baryta paper with the Heiland Splitgrade system.
In both cases there is a very restricted range of changes in tonal values and tonal range/contrast.
In the digital procedure we must be sure that the program only allows tonality changes and contrast changes based on matching characteristic curves and that the final result is a physical print. programs like RAW Developer in the Apple environment and Capture One would qualify as ‘chemical’ developers as they only offer a restricted range of manipulations closely related to the traditional darkroom process. And we must ensure that the in-camera processing is limited to tonal preservation. The Leica M8 in Raw modus would qualify, the Olympus E-30 would not, nor the Canon 5 D II: their software is too sophisticated!
A true photograph then is a physical print where the tonal values and contrast range are recorded as available in the scene and the subsequent processing is restricted to dodging, burning, toning and curve matching between negative and positive.
What we need in the digital realm are post processing programs with less options and manipulative capabilities than are offered currently by Photoshop and clones.
In the past this approach of direct recording and un-manipulated representing of the scene was referred to as straight photography. We could re-invent this approach and define true photography in this philosophy. Any departure would be called image manipulation or digital photography.
|
Pianissimo versus fortissimo
07/03/09 15:03
The discussion which medium is best silver halide or silicon) occasionally pops up here and there on the internet and the press.
To give a useable answer to this question one meeds to become pore precise about what is being compared. The lens in a mobile phone has a much higher quality than a lens used on a classical 4x5 inch camera. There is no doubt which imaging chain produces the best result when an A4 print is used as final arbiter.
In most discussions the format that is implicitly targeted is the one used in the camera bodies that have picked up the heritage of the 35mm precision miniature camera. Here we find formats form APS to 135, or roughly from half frame to full frame on 35mm film.
My tests indicate that the best film/developer combinations can deliver resolution values from 100 lp/mm to 150 lp/mm, 60 to 80 being the minimum on average. This value is higher than can be found in current d-slrs where the lowpass filter will cut off all frequencies above 60 to 70 lp/mm.
The superiority of film in the reproduction of fine detail with smooth gradation is still unchallenged.
But to see fine details in subtle undulating luminance differences is not easy and requires patience. It is the same with paintings: you have to look and you have to open your mind to the art work.
Digital signal processing is optimized to enhance the edge gradients in the visually critical 10 to 30 lp/mm. Here the digital camera work flow is at its best and here the eye is easily triggered and biologically adapted to. The sharpness impression of a digitally produced image is much higher than what film can do, unless you are using a large format camera with a direct positive copy.
It is simply fortissimo against pianissimo. Digital is aggressive where film is subtle.
You do not use film because you get better results, whatever 'better' is in this context.
You use film because you like the result and the process and yes, on 35mm format film you can get higher resolution and precise definition of fine detail.
Digital capture gives you the easiest way to get attention with your picture because the mage is made up in such a way that the eye is triggered to give attention without effort.
Digital imagery implies effortless picture taking and effortless viewing.
Film is much more demanding, in taking the picture, making the print and viewing the result.
That is why digital is successful and film is a niche.
To give a useable answer to this question one meeds to become pore precise about what is being compared. The lens in a mobile phone has a much higher quality than a lens used on a classical 4x5 inch camera. There is no doubt which imaging chain produces the best result when an A4 print is used as final arbiter.
In most discussions the format that is implicitly targeted is the one used in the camera bodies that have picked up the heritage of the 35mm precision miniature camera. Here we find formats form APS to 135, or roughly from half frame to full frame on 35mm film.
My tests indicate that the best film/developer combinations can deliver resolution values from 100 lp/mm to 150 lp/mm, 60 to 80 being the minimum on average. This value is higher than can be found in current d-slrs where the lowpass filter will cut off all frequencies above 60 to 70 lp/mm.
The superiority of film in the reproduction of fine detail with smooth gradation is still unchallenged.
But to see fine details in subtle undulating luminance differences is not easy and requires patience. It is the same with paintings: you have to look and you have to open your mind to the art work.
Digital signal processing is optimized to enhance the edge gradients in the visually critical 10 to 30 lp/mm. Here the digital camera work flow is at its best and here the eye is easily triggered and biologically adapted to. The sharpness impression of a digitally produced image is much higher than what film can do, unless you are using a large format camera with a direct positive copy.
It is simply fortissimo against pianissimo. Digital is aggressive where film is subtle.
You do not use film because you get better results, whatever 'better' is in this context.
You use film because you like the result and the process and yes, on 35mm format film you can get higher resolution and precise definition of fine detail.
Digital capture gives you the easiest way to get attention with your picture because the mage is made up in such a way that the eye is triggered to give attention without effort.
Digital imagery implies effortless picture taking and effortless viewing.
Film is much more demanding, in taking the picture, making the print and viewing the result.
That is why digital is successful and film is a niche.
Progress
15/02/09 19:18
The best method to expand your intellectual horizon and to progress in your thinking is to read books and articles that do not support your vested interests and contradict your current thinking and opinions. Most people do not wish to indulge themselves in this exercise and the internet forums are the best example where you can find persons defending their cast-iron views. I did read a very recently published book by Fred Ritchin, After Photography, who claims that the digital revolution in photography can only be appreciated and implemented after abandoning the classical notions of conventional film based photography. This approach is defined as post-photography, in analogy with post-modernism. I did suggest a similar idea a few years ago and was not taken seriously by most photographers who erroneously assume that digital photography is conventional photography with other means in analogy to the famous words by von Clausewitz who noted that politics is a continuation of war by other means.
Conventional (classical) photography is film based photography, like it or not. Recently I visited a well-known Dutch photographer, Rutger ten Broeke who stills works exclusively with film, he has a huge darkroom with 5 enlargers, from small negatives to 8x10 inch. His view is quite sensible. He knows how to work with chemicals, the results are what he expects and what customers want. So why change. His recipe: developer D76 and FOMA printing paper. Compare this with the interminable options that are facing the digital worker. The true craftsman is only interested in the results not in the tools, but tools are needed to create the results. The simpler the tools, the more attention you can give to the result.
My first results with the new Spur DSX32-64 developer and Copex microfilm are very promising. The useable sensitivity of the film is EI 50, where you get excellent densities over a range of ten stops. The curve looks quite normal and brings a good CI value. This is a much improved result compared with previous attempts to introduce the Gevaert Copex film into pictorial photography. I would prefer ISO32 as exposure index, but that is a matter of taste.
Resolution is outstandingly good with 140 lp/mm, twice what you get with the M8 and the current crop of digital top SLR cameras.
A full report is in the making, but the results show that film has a deep potential compared to digital. But you need patience and a sense of craftsmanship to appreciate the results.
Current research shows that people in this period of recession and crisis want a combination of quality and classical values. The Leica film loading cameras are prime examples of this combination and the new DSX technique delivers astonishing good results.If you are interested in classical vales, read Sir Kenneth Clarke's, The Nude, (1956). You will learn more from this book than from attending the internet forums for a year.
Conventional (classical) photography is film based photography, like it or not. Recently I visited a well-known Dutch photographer, Rutger ten Broeke who stills works exclusively with film, he has a huge darkroom with 5 enlargers, from small negatives to 8x10 inch. His view is quite sensible. He knows how to work with chemicals, the results are what he expects and what customers want. So why change. His recipe: developer D76 and FOMA printing paper. Compare this with the interminable options that are facing the digital worker. The true craftsman is only interested in the results not in the tools, but tools are needed to create the results. The simpler the tools, the more attention you can give to the result.
My first results with the new Spur DSX32-64 developer and Copex microfilm are very promising. The useable sensitivity of the film is EI 50, where you get excellent densities over a range of ten stops. The curve looks quite normal and brings a good CI value. This is a much improved result compared with previous attempts to introduce the Gevaert Copex film into pictorial photography. I would prefer ISO32 as exposure index, but that is a matter of taste.
Resolution is outstandingly good with 140 lp/mm, twice what you get with the M8 and the current crop of digital top SLR cameras.
A full report is in the making, but the results show that film has a deep potential compared to digital. But you need patience and a sense of craftsmanship to appreciate the results.
Current research shows that people in this period of recession and crisis want a combination of quality and classical values. The Leica film loading cameras are prime examples of this combination and the new DSX technique delivers astonishing good results.If you are interested in classical vales, read Sir Kenneth Clarke's, The Nude, (1956). You will learn more from this book than from attending the internet forums for a year.
The case of Märklin
05/02/09 09:44
The Märklin company is the premium manufacturer of model trains. The company is in this business for 150 years (anniversary this year!).This week it went into liquidation. There is some hope it will be saved by a motivated investor, who knows the business.
Märklin produces extremely high quality products, has a strong brand name, a long history, and is increasingly dependent on a small group of loyal/fanatical collectors/buyers.
The company produces exclusively for the high end market, employs about 1000 persons and has a turnover of Euro 130 million. The company failed to attract new customers with innovative products and a much lower price. A new owner could save the company, not with another injection of money, but with that peculiar attribute of Herzblut (being engaged with heart and soul).
The similarity to the Leica brand name and company is very close. In today's world a long tradition, a fine brand name and a loyal customer base is not enough.
The Harley-Davidson is a company that is in trouble too. HD catered, like Märklin and Leica for the high end market with expensive products, but has difficulty persuading the market to buy the product. Luckely for HD, it is Warren Buffett who thinks that there is a market for such products as he invested a substantial amount of money into the company. WB would not WB unless the deal would be a bargain for him.
A company and its products have to match the Zeitgeist. A good example now is Apple. A really bad example is General Motors.
Leica did fit the Zeitgeist admirably in the decades 1920 to 1960. Since that period it has drifted out of synch with the Zeitgeist to become a niche player, like Märklin with cult status.
The reports from the industry are becoming quite sombre: Sony and Panasonic reported a drastic drop in camera sales, Canon hinted at a drop in sales and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the camera industry will feel the cold wind and report this state of affairs. The current crop of cameras can produce any kind of picture you want and there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to the newest model.
The fact that the Leica M8 is heavily discounted is a sign of the times.
People are more and more inclined to buy products that simply do the required job. Expensive notebooks are out and simple netbooks are in. Buy just what you need and pay the least amount of money is the current norm.
It is of course bringing water to the sea to note that Leica needs a cheaper and simpler rangefinder model. The great success of the Canon G10 (even in professional circles) is an indication that a compact and relatively simple camera with good quality can support most requirements.
There is a quiet revival of interest in the Hexar RF, a solid quality film loading camera. Just sitting out the crisis and hoping that the world will return to normal is the surest way to fall off the cliff in the next crisis.
Märklin produces extremely high quality products, has a strong brand name, a long history, and is increasingly dependent on a small group of loyal/fanatical collectors/buyers.
The company produces exclusively for the high end market, employs about 1000 persons and has a turnover of Euro 130 million. The company failed to attract new customers with innovative products and a much lower price. A new owner could save the company, not with another injection of money, but with that peculiar attribute of Herzblut (being engaged with heart and soul).
The similarity to the Leica brand name and company is very close. In today's world a long tradition, a fine brand name and a loyal customer base is not enough.
The Harley-Davidson is a company that is in trouble too. HD catered, like Märklin and Leica for the high end market with expensive products, but has difficulty persuading the market to buy the product. Luckely for HD, it is Warren Buffett who thinks that there is a market for such products as he invested a substantial amount of money into the company. WB would not WB unless the deal would be a bargain for him.
A company and its products have to match the Zeitgeist. A good example now is Apple. A really bad example is General Motors.
Leica did fit the Zeitgeist admirably in the decades 1920 to 1960. Since that period it has drifted out of synch with the Zeitgeist to become a niche player, like Märklin with cult status.
The reports from the industry are becoming quite sombre: Sony and Panasonic reported a drastic drop in camera sales, Canon hinted at a drop in sales and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the camera industry will feel the cold wind and report this state of affairs. The current crop of cameras can produce any kind of picture you want and there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to the newest model.
The fact that the Leica M8 is heavily discounted is a sign of the times.
People are more and more inclined to buy products that simply do the required job. Expensive notebooks are out and simple netbooks are in. Buy just what you need and pay the least amount of money is the current norm.
It is of course bringing water to the sea to note that Leica needs a cheaper and simpler rangefinder model. The great success of the Canon G10 (even in professional circles) is an indication that a compact and relatively simple camera with good quality can support most requirements.
There is a quiet revival of interest in the Hexar RF, a solid quality film loading camera. Just sitting out the crisis and hoping that the world will return to normal is the surest way to fall off the cliff in the next crisis.
Less is enough?
24/01/09 21:36
For a long period in time, every modern product seemed to follow Moore's Law:performance doubles, while costs drop. In consumer parlance this meant that every year new products would be set in the market that had more features than the previous generation and this would be sold for the same price. Now with a recession storm blowing in everybody's face, a new tendency emerges: lower the price and get the same features as before. For the so called prosumer and hyper-consumer, his is bad news. For the rest of the world, this is really good news.
Some companies (Leica among them) have always followed the philosophy that the right amount of features is a better and more elegant proposition than cramming in every possible feature into a product. With less features we have to delearn a few things and relearn some old skills.
There are now two types of cameras for the serious user. The well-known distinction between cameras for professionals and for motivated amateurs is more and more becoming a no-brainer: Basically it is aspiration and drive for quality imagery that dictates the choice of a camera. Well-built products not only keep going indefinitely, exhibit more resilience, but also are engineered to a higher degree of accuracy. If you want or need these qualities to get the pictures with the content that you aspire to show to the world, you should be prepared to invest major sums of money.
The two types of cameras I am referring to are cameras that rub out every photographic mistake you make and cameras that help you to become a better photographer. To the first category belong all current high-end dSLRs. The Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3(X) are typical examples. When you have acquainted yourself with the operation of the camera, there is hardly anything that can go wrong and even if you make mistakes, the camera will smooth away your errors.
The second category is sparsely populated with the classical film-loading cameras, like the Leica M7 and MP or the Nikon F6 and the solid-state-array-fitted Leica M8(.2).
If the emerging trend continues, we may see more products that offer less and ask more form the user.
The second part of the Summilux test (21 and 24mm) will be published tomorrow. To analyze the full capabilities of theses lenses I had to use film. Not only for the uncropped viewing angle, but also to get to the bottom of detail definition. The M8 sensor has a resolution limit that does not allow the exploitation of the full potential of modern Leica lenses.
Even the current topcats of DSLR (with 20+ Mp sensors) offer less resolution than modern films developed in current hightech chemistry. Future tests will be conducted on the Spur HRX-3 developer and the very new Spur DSX process for microfilm technology.
I have to admit that working with film is a most enjoyable way of taking pictures. It is a very honest process and here is skill required to get good results. It takes a longer time to get the final result, it is more laborious and you have less options for manipulation.
There is no question that the computer based photography can deliver better imagery and spectacular results with a modicum of user input.
If the current crisis implies a revaluation of craftsmanship, the value of work and less reliance on automated features, we will all benefit.
Some companies (Leica among them) have always followed the philosophy that the right amount of features is a better and more elegant proposition than cramming in every possible feature into a product. With less features we have to delearn a few things and relearn some old skills.
There are now two types of cameras for the serious user. The well-known distinction between cameras for professionals and for motivated amateurs is more and more becoming a no-brainer: Basically it is aspiration and drive for quality imagery that dictates the choice of a camera. Well-built products not only keep going indefinitely, exhibit more resilience, but also are engineered to a higher degree of accuracy. If you want or need these qualities to get the pictures with the content that you aspire to show to the world, you should be prepared to invest major sums of money.
The two types of cameras I am referring to are cameras that rub out every photographic mistake you make and cameras that help you to become a better photographer. To the first category belong all current high-end dSLRs. The Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3(X) are typical examples. When you have acquainted yourself with the operation of the camera, there is hardly anything that can go wrong and even if you make mistakes, the camera will smooth away your errors.
The second category is sparsely populated with the classical film-loading cameras, like the Leica M7 and MP or the Nikon F6 and the solid-state-array-fitted Leica M8(.2).
If the emerging trend continues, we may see more products that offer less and ask more form the user.
The second part of the Summilux test (21 and 24mm) will be published tomorrow. To analyze the full capabilities of theses lenses I had to use film. Not only for the uncropped viewing angle, but also to get to the bottom of detail definition. The M8 sensor has a resolution limit that does not allow the exploitation of the full potential of modern Leica lenses.
Even the current topcats of DSLR (with 20+ Mp sensors) offer less resolution than modern films developed in current hightech chemistry. Future tests will be conducted on the Spur HRX-3 developer and the very new Spur DSX process for microfilm technology.
I have to admit that working with film is a most enjoyable way of taking pictures. It is a very honest process and here is skill required to get good results. It takes a longer time to get the final result, it is more laborious and you have less options for manipulation.
There is no question that the computer based photography can deliver better imagery and spectacular results with a modicum of user input.
If the current crisis implies a revaluation of craftsmanship, the value of work and less reliance on automated features, we will all benefit.
Umwerfung aller Werte
01/09/08 19:22
The title of this contribution is German for “Toppling of all values” and refers to the slow, but unavoidable change in photographic values and technique. Most persons, involved in the world of photography and/or deeply steeped in photographic technique, will continue to deny the profound changes that are being forged by current cameras.
The new Nikon D90 is such an example. Superficially it is one of the many DSLR-types that have been introduced lately in a staggering pace. The commercial reason is quite evident. Between 50% and 60% of all cameras bear the name of Canon or Nikon and we may safely presume that in the high-end segment (professionals with commercial intents and fanatics/enthusiasts with equipment focus) the penetration is above 90%. We may feel sorry for marques like Pentax or Sony, but they do not have the potential to topple the big ones or even make significant inroads in their market presence.
The D90 is, according to David Pogue of the NYT, (to give credit where credit is due) is a mind-blowing, game-changing camera. It is the video capability that turns the D90 into a completely new kind of recording instrument. The possibility to create High Definition video with a DSLR and get good results with a range of lenses with Image Stability, changes every photographic reporter into a documentary movie maker. And this can be done without additional investment and additional equipment.
Anyone who still asserts that the digital revolution will not change the core values and roots of the photographic style and art, should rethink. The era of the VSLR (video slr) has begun.
Canon’s most recent introduction is the 50D. here we see gradual improvements over the 40D (we may wonder who needs these additional features). The 15 Mp sensor has pixels with a pitch of 5 micron, which asks for a level of definition and resolution that is hardly offered by any lens in the Canon stable. So here we have Canon falling into the pixel number game, which is a shame for a company with the standing of Canon. We can wait for a new 35mm sized sensor with more than 30 Mp in two years time. This camera is Canon’s reply to the challenge of Nikon in the mid segment. It seems that Canon is betting on pixel numbers where Nikon has its stake in high sensitivity.
The Canon 5D Mark 2 seems to be held off until Photokina that is being held in just a month from now. The number of image recording instruments with a high desirability factor is growing rapidly, but in the quest for market share and by the inherent nature of modern technology, the feature list will become longer and longer and the scope of the cameras will expand beyond recognition.
It simply has to be this way as there is a technological limit to the introduction of ever more features: we already have accurate shutter speeds of 1/4000, efficient AF systems with manual back focus corrections for different lenses, accurate exposure systems, hundreds of custom functions and high speed processing and 100% viewfinders. The basket of features is almost full and so we need a scope expansion in order to sell more products.
I am currenly conducting a comparison between the Nikon D3 and the Leica M8, two products that are a world apart to see which one offers the most pleasure in picture taking and delivers the finest results. It will be a technocultural comparison to fathom the intrinsic value of these cameras for the photographic craft. After all, the result is what counts and the result is defined and constrained by the emotion and skill of the image maker, not the number of options that are available.
I am still using Kodachrome and Ilfrd Delta100 in my MP and M7. Obsolete technology, most readers will say and in a sense this is true. But working with a handheld exposure meter (my Sekonic 758D) and assessing the brightness distribution of a scene and mentally viewing the characteristic curve and exploring where the brightness values are pegged on this curve and making an informed decision is a quite laborious process, but it helps to see the scene and bottom line it is a joy to exercise this craft, obsolete or not.
A few days ago I visited a paper mill situated in the middle of the Netherlands where paper is still being made with time honored processes (more than a century old) by hand and with machines driven by water and steam. The resulting products are beautiful to feel and handle and they print very well. Artists all over the world visit the factory to hand pick some paper and even ordering their own special recipe. Not a world beater commercially this factory! They produce 75 tons of paper in a whole year, an amount that modern factories produce in a day or even a few hours.
Spending a few hours in such an environment is quite refreshing and brings the necessary perspective to modern technological developments.
But I also like using the new Silver Efex Pro on my Mac.
Looking at the many websites with zillions of pictures made with superduper cameras leaves one question unanswered: why does all this high tech not enhance the quality and content of the average picture: since the first snapshots made in the USA I cannot detect any progress.
The new Nikon D90 is such an example. Superficially it is one of the many DSLR-types that have been introduced lately in a staggering pace. The commercial reason is quite evident. Between 50% and 60% of all cameras bear the name of Canon or Nikon and we may safely presume that in the high-end segment (professionals with commercial intents and fanatics/enthusiasts with equipment focus) the penetration is above 90%. We may feel sorry for marques like Pentax or Sony, but they do not have the potential to topple the big ones or even make significant inroads in their market presence.
The D90 is, according to David Pogue of the NYT, (to give credit where credit is due) is a mind-blowing, game-changing camera. It is the video capability that turns the D90 into a completely new kind of recording instrument. The possibility to create High Definition video with a DSLR and get good results with a range of lenses with Image Stability, changes every photographic reporter into a documentary movie maker. And this can be done without additional investment and additional equipment.
Anyone who still asserts that the digital revolution will not change the core values and roots of the photographic style and art, should rethink. The era of the VSLR (video slr) has begun.
Canon’s most recent introduction is the 50D. here we see gradual improvements over the 40D (we may wonder who needs these additional features). The 15 Mp sensor has pixels with a pitch of 5 micron, which asks for a level of definition and resolution that is hardly offered by any lens in the Canon stable. So here we have Canon falling into the pixel number game, which is a shame for a company with the standing of Canon. We can wait for a new 35mm sized sensor with more than 30 Mp in two years time. This camera is Canon’s reply to the challenge of Nikon in the mid segment. It seems that Canon is betting on pixel numbers where Nikon has its stake in high sensitivity.
The Canon 5D Mark 2 seems to be held off until Photokina that is being held in just a month from now. The number of image recording instruments with a high desirability factor is growing rapidly, but in the quest for market share and by the inherent nature of modern technology, the feature list will become longer and longer and the scope of the cameras will expand beyond recognition.
It simply has to be this way as there is a technological limit to the introduction of ever more features: we already have accurate shutter speeds of 1/4000, efficient AF systems with manual back focus corrections for different lenses, accurate exposure systems, hundreds of custom functions and high speed processing and 100% viewfinders. The basket of features is almost full and so we need a scope expansion in order to sell more products.
I am currenly conducting a comparison between the Nikon D3 and the Leica M8, two products that are a world apart to see which one offers the most pleasure in picture taking and delivers the finest results. It will be a technocultural comparison to fathom the intrinsic value of these cameras for the photographic craft. After all, the result is what counts and the result is defined and constrained by the emotion and skill of the image maker, not the number of options that are available.
I am still using Kodachrome and Ilfrd Delta100 in my MP and M7. Obsolete technology, most readers will say and in a sense this is true. But working with a handheld exposure meter (my Sekonic 758D) and assessing the brightness distribution of a scene and mentally viewing the characteristic curve and exploring where the brightness values are pegged on this curve and making an informed decision is a quite laborious process, but it helps to see the scene and bottom line it is a joy to exercise this craft, obsolete or not.
A few days ago I visited a paper mill situated in the middle of the Netherlands where paper is still being made with time honored processes (more than a century old) by hand and with machines driven by water and steam. The resulting products are beautiful to feel and handle and they print very well. Artists all over the world visit the factory to hand pick some paper and even ordering their own special recipe. Not a world beater commercially this factory! They produce 75 tons of paper in a whole year, an amount that modern factories produce in a day or even a few hours.
Spending a few hours in such an environment is quite refreshing and brings the necessary perspective to modern technological developments.
But I also like using the new Silver Efex Pro on my Mac.
Looking at the many websites with zillions of pictures made with superduper cameras leaves one question unanswered: why does all this high tech not enhance the quality and content of the average picture: since the first snapshots made in the USA I cannot detect any progress.
The lost Pianissimo
10/08/08 20:31
In music theory ‘Pianissimo’ refers to the sound level of a piece of music. Music can be played loud or very softly. Pianissimo is the softest sound possible. Current culture is invaded by loudness, visual and acoustic and even sensory. It is known that the spirit of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (but not exclusively there) have been broken by lengthy exposure to very loud rock music. Not only music is becoming very loud and even aggressive. The whole of culture seems to be invaded by tumultuous noise and aggressive behavior. In politics (as in weblogs and user forums) brutal verbal attacks are commonplace and in our culture aggressive language is almost naturally followed by senseless acts of violence. The idea of pianissimo seems to be expelled from society. This is really bad: the art of allusion, the subtle reference and the sensitive note are gone from culture.
In photography the same phenomenon can be seen: current pictures are often raw, corporeal, and colour-saturated. Modern pictorial language is of course very intensely influenced by the technological possibilities and these are predominantly digital nowadays. The poster-sized grain-free (clean) and sharp images, often manipulated, present a glamorous reality that is almost palpable.
This kind of images is a world apart from what was being the norm several decades ago. The recent book about Robert Capa, “This is war”, shows five series of photos in different theaters of war, taken at very close range (Capa-style). The pictures themselves are in a strange way reassuring because of the quiet composition of the image, the seriousness of the photographer and the subject that is treated with respect. Some days ago, Mr. Karadzic had a press conference and a photographer had taken a picture of the scene, where dozens of photographers had coagulated and were trying at pointblank range to get a memorable picture of that person. The scene had strong reminiscences of an execution, so massive and aggressive were the photographers approaching the person. Eisenstein’s pictures of the Nazi bosses are very thought provoking but in a quite subtle manner: this photographic style, the true pianissimo, is no longer seen nor appreciated. Our culture is totally nuts about images, but what is lacking is respect for the image.
The great masters of Leica photography, from H C-B to Robert Frank and all those others in between, worked in pianissimo. The pictorial content is heavy with content and visual richness, but the world that is inhabited by the subjects is treated with great respect, however gruesome the scene.
A culture that has expelled pianissimo, is doomed. It is certainly no accidental coincidence that the Leica rangefinder camera is the preferred tool for these photographers: the instrument is the message. Looking again at the Karadzic picture, I cannot help associating the equipment of the photographers with an arsenal, an armory of image hunters. Current high tech Nikons and Canons are very impressive instruments, heavy and large, and invariably equipped with a large flash unit and a large zoomlens. Compare these tools with a diminutive Leica RF with a simple 90mm lens. A bigger contrast between ‘pianissimo’ and ‘fortissimo’ is hardly possible.
I do not wish to revive the quiet picture style of the fifties out of nostalgic feelings, but because I think that Leica has a patrimony to refer to, not only in camera manufacture, but also in picture style. The Leica photographic culture has more to offer than a simple transgression from film based photography to digital image processing. The fading away of the Leica icon from the photographic presence has its roots in Leica’s view that putting a sensor at the location of the film gate is all that is needed to catapult the Leica camera to the forefront of the photographic world. This is not true: the Leica name does not inspire the same amount of enthusiasm and respect that it used to command.
In photography the same phenomenon can be seen: current pictures are often raw, corporeal, and colour-saturated. Modern pictorial language is of course very intensely influenced by the technological possibilities and these are predominantly digital nowadays. The poster-sized grain-free (clean) and sharp images, often manipulated, present a glamorous reality that is almost palpable.
This kind of images is a world apart from what was being the norm several decades ago. The recent book about Robert Capa, “This is war”, shows five series of photos in different theaters of war, taken at very close range (Capa-style). The pictures themselves are in a strange way reassuring because of the quiet composition of the image, the seriousness of the photographer and the subject that is treated with respect. Some days ago, Mr. Karadzic had a press conference and a photographer had taken a picture of the scene, where dozens of photographers had coagulated and were trying at pointblank range to get a memorable picture of that person. The scene had strong reminiscences of an execution, so massive and aggressive were the photographers approaching the person. Eisenstein’s pictures of the Nazi bosses are very thought provoking but in a quite subtle manner: this photographic style, the true pianissimo, is no longer seen nor appreciated. Our culture is totally nuts about images, but what is lacking is respect for the image.
The great masters of Leica photography, from H C-B to Robert Frank and all those others in between, worked in pianissimo. The pictorial content is heavy with content and visual richness, but the world that is inhabited by the subjects is treated with great respect, however gruesome the scene.
A culture that has expelled pianissimo, is doomed. It is certainly no accidental coincidence that the Leica rangefinder camera is the preferred tool for these photographers: the instrument is the message. Looking again at the Karadzic picture, I cannot help associating the equipment of the photographers with an arsenal, an armory of image hunters. Current high tech Nikons and Canons are very impressive instruments, heavy and large, and invariably equipped with a large flash unit and a large zoomlens. Compare these tools with a diminutive Leica RF with a simple 90mm lens. A bigger contrast between ‘pianissimo’ and ‘fortissimo’ is hardly possible.
I do not wish to revive the quiet picture style of the fifties out of nostalgic feelings, but because I think that Leica has a patrimony to refer to, not only in camera manufacture, but also in picture style. The Leica photographic culture has more to offer than a simple transgression from film based photography to digital image processing. The fading away of the Leica icon from the photographic presence has its roots in Leica’s view that putting a sensor at the location of the film gate is all that is needed to catapult the Leica camera to the forefront of the photographic world. This is not true: the Leica name does not inspire the same amount of enthusiasm and respect that it used to command.