I get the need to make a street image special by adding that extra element, but I also feel strongly that just people, regular people, not doing anything out of the ordinary, just being themselves, are motivation enough.
A dozen stories in a frame.
Each a million moments of experiences had or to come, blended together into one understanding.
Pasts combining to make a future.
Pasts and futures passing without connecting.
Emotions, greater or lesser, caught fleetingly.
The more I revisit old Japan files, the more I find. Some are known, just not looked at. Some feel like someone else took them. I know I was there, but only the image proves it.
I guess the Capture 1 dynamic is part of it, maybe the slow burn of files and even occassionally, the finding of an idea I chased at the time, that I needed to forget and re-see to understand fully.
I am also monumentally sad that the combination of the old EM5 mk1’s and Capture 1 has been discoverred after the best of my set of old EM5’s is passed. I truly respect their low light handling and clarity, something Lightroom robbed me of at the time. Of course I have them acting in concert now, but many other files have come and gone and practices adjusted to suit.
My ideal camera now would be the EM5 sensor with newer processors, but calibrated towards the same look as the old cameras processors.
To their credit, I cannot now tell the difference between their and the newer Pen F files, something I used to be able to do. Lightroom made the EM5 files look gritty and simple. C1 has elevated them to the Pen F level.
To be honest, I would take a pair of new EM5’s right now, maybe with a thumb nubbin added and maybe a 400k shutter.
My personal comfort zone has been the G9 for video and for hybrid shooting, it is hard to beat. The EM1’s would also be great, but they fight hybrid use, lacking useful custom control settings, meaning switching quickly is not a thing.
My current G9 hybrid process is;
Set the basic settings for stills, but set all the Custom functions to video in a variety of formats.
The G9’s are decently heavy hitters in video, especially if you run them out to an off board recorder. As I have them, sans the V-LogL upgrade option, they are better than average hybrids, but I have found the contrast is higher than the GH series, probably to suit stills. I could get a Ninja V or BM off board recorders, but have chosen not to as they cost nearly as much as the cameras.
To clarify this position also, I do not want full frame for stills, M43 is my happy place, but for video, full frame with it’s much higher ISO tolerances is a genuine benefit. It is nice to have a full frame around for stills, but I just have not found a need.
M43 does all I need for stills. and has been fully supported to this point
I now intend to run the G9’s as stills cameras, with occassional mobile rig use (the inherent deeper depth of field and stabiliser advantages at play). The S5 however is just too good as a video option.
The S5 just has too many practical advantages over the G9’s.
The profile options (V-Log, Flat, Cinelike-D2 etc). Flat in particular seems to be like modified Natural, but even flatter. This is ideal for me and a decent equivalent to Cinelike-D available from my other cameras.
Continuous recording. The bugbear that short of an off board recorder, will always hold the G9 back.
Overall better “GH” like contrast. Ironically, this is where the G9 could even the field with a flatter profile. The S5 gets all the options, the G9 not quite. I could upgrade it to VLog-L or an off board, but the S5 with lens added so much for relatively little.
Dual ISO settings. Basically, the S5 is ISO free compared to the G9’s, although the M43 depth advantage does give the G9 two more stops (useable f1.8 = ff 2.8), making up for the natively better FF ISO performance, but the dual option puts it into another league.
Both valid, but the S5 just works better for me. The red record button is a bit lost, but I don’t use it anyway. The only minor issue is the cage is very smallrig biased, so other brands cold shoes and handles do not always fit ideally and the handle is slightly off balance when mounted centrally.
Better video camera settings. This is the big one, from Wave forms, Vectors, shutter angle, many, many more video menu settings, including sound and visual assists. Honestly I could fill a page. The difference between a G9 and the S5 is the same as the G9 to an EM1 mk2, which is to say, there is daylight between them. The EM1’s are stills cameras with capable video hidden inside, but little effort to make them comfortable to use in that space. The G9 is the true hybrid favouring neither at the expense of the other, the S5 is a video camera first, the easier stills options is effortly added by default, but is not a priority.
Little things like no top panel screen, which may seem odd, but for video the real estate is better dedicated to useful buttons and vision relegated to either the rear screen or in my case the 5” Portkeys. In a cage, the G9 screen is partly obscured anyway. The on-off switch is separate to the shoot button, and protected under the cage, the smaller card door, but bigger other flaps.
The only exception is the Smallrig cage, that is a better fit than my GH5/G9 Niceyrig one, but lacks a few screw mount holes on the left side. I have fixed this to a point with a Smallrig plate bolted to the side, but just one set of matching screw threads would have been good.
Of course, there are down sides (accounted for in balance with the price), like new batteries, new lenses etc, but these have mostly become non issues, absorbed into the equivalent options in M43 (the dearer GH6 also needed an expensive card etc, GH5 an off board and gimbal).
My goal was to take the easiest route to easy to take, quality 1080 and occassional 4k footage within a realisticly achieved envelope. The S5 achieves this easily with a minimum of fuss and upgrade paths if required are many. It also meshes well with the OSMO as the full gimbal-odd angle option. The S5.2 AF is not a draw as I manually focus and the slightly higher upgrade options are well beyond my needs.
If I went again, I may have gone the GH5.2, just to keep it sane, but the saving at the time was only about $400au, which did not even cover the S5’s extra lens. I would have All-i recording and live streaming, neither of which seem to matter that much.
If I ever upgrade any of my cameras, a G9.2 would likely be the way, adding hopefully better video options than the G9, phase detect AF and stabilising that all my M43 lenses could take advantage of and GH6 level stills performance (or better).
So, I did my little podcast video the other day and it well……ish.
Considerations made so that a workable “anyone can do it” system is achieved;
No sound treatment in a bare little room, a melamine table top and covering four panelists with my Lewitt 040 matched pair in X/Y config, overhead on a boom into an H5. Sound was clear but “boxy”.
No control of lighting apart from a little fill light from an ancient Bowens flouro unit (found in the work store room). Light was flat, unexciting, but even. More light is not an option becasue I am not hauling it in every Wednesday and the idea is to be able to adapt, not control, so we can go on in the future.
The camera was a G9, lens 12-60 at 12 (not a big room), with a 0.5 Black Mist Kenko filter on in Natural mode (-5, -5, -2, -2). Not enough post control and the filter was too soft.
This in mind, we managed a 30min single take, with a 1 min over-run thanks to the G9 limit.
What I would have done differently with this setup.
I would have used a single mic, as the X/Y was not required (subjects quite far away, but tightly grouped).
I would have at least sound treated the table.
Can’t do much with the rest, as it needs to be sit and go.
What I am going to try though, with a desire to up the ante a little, but make the whole thing less difficult to set up is;
Switch to the S5 in Flat mode (like V-LogL/Cinelike D, but closer to useable OOC and better skin tones probably set to -2 contrast). The 20-60 will also give me more framing options.
Treat the table with a cloth (a big blue rug to match the backdrop).
Use the F1 and SSH-6 mid/side shotgun, probably on about -5 M/S, but I will play around with it, placed about 4 foot back, low and in front (hence the table treatment). The SSH-6 is more focussed and tonally resonant than the highly sensitive Lewitts and considerably easier to set up. I can also hide 1 3.5 cable easier than 2x XLR’s.
There will also be a backup H1n X/Y mounted. This may even be on the backup G9 incase all this goes pear shaped.
I will also take the X/Y capsule for the F1, in case hiding it behind a football prop mid table is a better idea. It has a shock mount, so the table should be fine.
Last time I went in with a backpack, roller case and shoulder bag. This time, the whole lot will fit in a backpack. The isea is to shoo this every Wednesday, even if I am off, so the whole kit needs to be simple and easy to use.
Easy as………….
So, after the second recording, sound was better, but I will push it in a little closer. I have ordered a foamy to make the F1+SSH6 look more table top-like, the dead cat was a little distracting. The mic was more resonant than the 040’s, but I can reduce noise (self and ambient) and improve depth if I get just a half foot closer. The SSH-6 on 30 degree mid/side covered everyone evenly.
Video quality was fine. The S5 in flat mode was far more flexile than the Natural G9 files. Lighting is still rubbish, but it is what it is. We have a dedicated room, it is shared by the whole team though.
We did another 12 minute single take.
There are plenty out there who can shed more light (!) on this, but here is an example of a useful trick.
If you asked to take a night candle lit vigil image in the middle of the day, there is a relatively simple way of doing it.
Set you camera to manual and (1) choose a shutter speed within your flash sync and ISO/Aperture combination (low ISO/small aperture) to make a dark exposure. Go for 1-2 stops under, or dark to the eye, so basically useless as is. You are exposing for the background here, so ignore the subject. An ND filter can be useful here also, allowing shallower depth of field if desired.
Then use a flash to put light on you subject only. I used TTL, which is painfully twitchy, but Manual would work also. The flash was also in a 26” soft box, slightly feathered, but straight or bounced flash would work.
For this file I then vignetted the edges and used the brush tool to warm up and lighten the front of the subject to exaggerate the effect of the relatively useless candle. This worked well against the cooler surrounds.
So, I took the Leica 15mm with me the trip to Perth, because I wanted to see if my feelings on the lens are a little in my head or actually a creative consideration.
There is that snappy sharp/soft dynamic. The Oly usually lacks the snappiness of this lens, adding in a more natural, less obvious transition. It is no less sharp, just less showy about it. This technique was a common trick used to increase the illusuion of sharpness in the film era, basically increasing the perception of sharpness with contrasting softness.
The woman is sharp, her husband softer, son quite out of depth of field and the vendor a soft blob in the foreground. This is not how the Oly 17 would render this scene. Neither is better and in a perfect world a little switch on the side of one lens allowing either option would be cool.
Not a keeper on any other level, this file is ideal to show the sharp/soft/softer/softest character of the lens wide open. I would guess that the Olympus 17mm in the same space would have a gentler roll-off, making it more of a sharp, softer-sharp, soft spread.
Wide open sharpness is exceptional, snappy and crisp.
Did a little gig today, of a gig.
The Swamp Owls are a new blues band, made up of some local music veterans and they have some genuine talent.
I took the opportunity to play around with the files.
A little negative clarity, saturation and some added contrast.
The Olympus 300mm has been one of those purchases that shifted things for me, very much in the right direction. This lens has the equivalent reach of a 600mm in full frame terms, but being a lowly 300mm f4 (they are like the 50mm f1.8 of telephoto lenses), so it was much easier for Olympus to make a cracker and in larger quantities. The same goes for the 75mm f1.8.
I saw a second hand 600mm f4 Nikkor in the local camera shop window the other day and it struck me just how OTT these things are when compared to my 300 as a 600.
Even at 1/2 its own retail (about $6000au), it is still twice what I paid for the 300mm and at the end of the day, if you put a sharp 20+mp sensor behind it, it is the same in real results.
The equivalent of a full frame 1000-1200mm lens still with enough quality to print to a decent size.
The sharpness of the lens out resolves the sensor, which is ideal I guess and it makes the equation simple.
How far can you crop 20mp from any sharp and well lit sensor?
All the images below are cropped to a greater or lesser extent.
And this one just because I like it.
The real advantage of M43 is in the lenses, or more to the point, what the lenses really are in comparison to their full frame equivalents. With M43 sensors matching larger ones of the same pixel count, the only advantage of a full frame is in low light, but again, the lenses can even up the field.
150mm f1.8 ff (not actually available, but a $1700au 135 f1.8 or $8,000 au 200 f2 are the closest) = A very reasonable $600 75mm f1.8 M43 that fits in a pocket.
A $10,000 300 f2.8 = The long end of my $2,000 40-150 f2.8.
A $15-18,000 full frame 400 f2.8 = The amazing $3,000au Leica 200 f2.8 (with matched teleconverter).
A $20,000+ full frame 600 f4 = The Olympus at $4,000 and the matched TC is about $400.
Even at the other end of the range, the Leica f1.7 9mm matches some very expensive. large and optically fragile lens.
Try doing that with a 1.5kg+ full frame kit.
So, ok, the full frame camera could have a 40+ mp sensor behind it allowing the full frame to crop to equivalent reach at the same pixel density, but two things happen here (well one and one fails to change). The big lens stays the same (size, weight, price) and the pixel density gets much closer, so the sensor noise is now much closer.
What does this mean to you and I?
You can own a 150 f1.8 easily, a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 for reasonable money and put a powerful pro-end camera behind all of these for less than the cost of a full frame equivalent lens alone.
The full frame sensor does have an advantage, mostly in noise control, but only if the camera has an equivalent lens.
Depth of field.
A full frame sensor can offer shallower depth of field all things being equal, a great boon to portraitists, but what if you do not actually need that, because f1.4 on a full frame lens can be impractical.
Shooting sports or stage drama is tough, so more depth for the better light gathering settings is an advantage.
Both players sharp, the background is soft enough not to distract, but remain interestingly relevant, the lens wide open at f1.8/150mm equivalent.
Shooting with an f1.8 lens that renders the equivalent of f2.8 depth of field is a real advantage. The more expensive full frame f1.8, if it exists, when gathering the same light for a lower noise advantage, loses depth of field so it needs to be (1) more accurate with focussing and (2) there needs to be enough in focus to matter.
We have been issued Z9’s at work (ok, not me yet as it goes being the new guy, or is it because I am already sorted?), a camera that I feel is the current top dog in the full frame world, well, best all rounder anyway. It is definitely the best thing Nikon has made putting them back on the map, just a shame the rest of the system is still a little behind the competition.
Looking at my own gear, I am still happily sticking with my own system for all the reasons previously stated, probably only taking a “Z” when damage or very poor light are likely, but maybe not even then*. I am job sharing now, so the other tog will be stoked to get an instant upgrade. The deal breaker is that even though it is mirrorless, it is still weighed down by monster lenses, especially the older glass we have.
Looking sideways at the near future of travel to Japan starting up again, my kit is pretty solid. I have a lot of pro gear, lots of options and combinations, but travel has special needs.
Weight is the big one. The single easiest way to rob myself of that holiday feeling is to weigh myself down like I do at work (relative to the other guys that is). M43 was designed to be smaller, but can still get heavy with pro end gear and a 300mm f4 is a 300mm f4 in any system.
Coverage is secondary and really comes down to where and what. For Japan street, temple details and landscapes, a little wildlife and some city scapes are the core, so semi wide and short tele are fine, more is a bonus, but rarely needed. Lens speed is more useful, because we go out at night (and it is the land “Bokeh” came from).
Here is the travel kit;
2 bodies (2x EM10.2’s, or EM5.1’s or a Pen F + EPM-2). This is a little unsettled, but no big deal. Any of these would do. Possibly the Pen Mini on a long strap with 17mm, and one EM10.2 with a spare in the hotel room. On big days, I can take the second EM10 to save lens changes. Even just the weighty Pen F on its own.
9mm f1.7 Leica.
The emergency super wide or fake semi wide. It also does time as a macro, second wide and wet weather lens (depending on camera).
No Japan travel images from this one yet.
17mm f1.8.
The work horse of the lot and the only metal lens (but not weather proof). My street paragon, landscape ring-in and desert island lens.
Instinctive partner is the term.
45mm f1.8.
The low light candid and Bokeh lens, foil to the excellent but slow (aperture) lens below. I have two of theses (once 3), tending to rely on them, but rarely appreciate them enough (the other anchors my work bag).
This has been pressed into service as a wildlife lens, cropping that excellent quality to safe limits more often than I would have thought possible.
40-150 kit.
Hard to argue with a lens that weighs no more than the ones above, costs less and sometimes cannot be split from my two Pro 40-150 lenses.
As long as it does not break, the weight to quality ratio is sublime.
The reality is, the 17 and 45 or 40-150 would do, but the backups are so light, it hardly matters.
I have no qualms that any of these will let me down, optically or even physically. Light weight gear travels well and safely, is easily replaced, has redundancies (the backup 9mm and 40-150 kit could do the job coming in at roughly 300g) and stays under the radar.
I have found semi padded Domke bags (or similar), a little internal padding with light weight gear avoids hard hits and lazy drop-downs better than heavy gear, only falling on top of the lot and crushing it is a potential problem.
Bags are many, something I will likely stress over, but short listed so far are the Turnstyle 10, PhotoCross 10, Tokyo Porter satchel, a nice leather satchel I have, the Filson Otter Green Field Bag (not the camera one) or the little Crumpler or Kata satchels (I forget the models). Comfort is the thing, so this will likely sort itself out. The Tokyo Porter, ironically as it is not a designed to purpose camera bag, has proven to be the most practical, has a low profile and holds a lot of shopping.
To get there I will use the Lowe Pro, Pro Tactic 350, which will be half empty to allow for some fragile items to come back and an emergency change of clothes on the way over. Don’t love the bag, but it is useful for travelling.
Other than that I will take a bunch of batteries and cards, but no hard drives or computer. No need.
So, what better time to write a lens awards post than now.
Why?
Why not ;).
These awards may not make a huge amount of sense, written as they are seemingly randomly, but they do to me, as the lens and my instinctive reaction to it takes me.
“Lens that was bought for physics then won my heart for most surprisingly useful”;
Panasonic Leica 9mm f1.7.
This lens removed a lot of weight and some indecision from my bag packing, covering for me the “necessary evil” of a super wide angle. It covers the 8-18, but also acts more like a semi wide standard.
It focusses macro close, is as light as a feather, seems to focus by telepathy, empathy even, handles nasty frontal light, is weather sealed, makes my Domke F2 bag a perfect fit for my kit, is totally useable wide open so is almost always. The only negative is, my otherwise excellent 8-18 has become surplus.
Hanging off the ass end of a Moped doing 40kmh, this shot was easy with the super light and responsive 9mm, except at one point I actually touched one of the cyclists (still in focus).
A handy and stable problem solver, that is starting to be a creative leader.
“The lens I kick myself most often for not taking”;
Olympus 75mm f1.8.
Seriously, the amount of times I wish I packed this for low light is getting ridiculous. The 75mm makes shooting in any light possible. Super sharp, brilliantly, contrasty and colourful, yet somehow gentle with gorgeous Bokeh. It only lacks weather proofing and it can be a little perspective flattening to be considered perfect (oh and it could have been a 100mm f2).
I know that it could easily replace a short tele zoom, especially if teamed with the little 45mm.
Just yummy.
Sometimes that flattened perspective is ideal.
“The lens that was bought with some early trepidation, that just gets better over time”;
Olympus 17mm f1.8.
No technical review or test would lead you to think this lens is perfect at anything, but it has two sides, both good. On the one hand, it is the perfect street lens, offering fast AF, old school MF and ideal Bokeh or “draw”, helping to make the most of the M43 depth of field benefit.
On the other hand it makes an unlikely landscape hero. I cannot put my finger on it, but the landscape files have an organic lushness and biting sharpness, both in harmony.
After learning to love it for street, it then suprised me by being just great at landscape.
It is no exaggeration to say, it has taken more of my favourite images than any other lens I have ever owned. It is my desert island lens (shame it is not weather sealed for such duties).
Street-Landscape, the perfect combination. This lens is also my “taming crazy light” lens.
“The lens that empowers me to do things I previously only dreamt of“;
Olympus 300 f4 Pro.
This was close, because the 75 and 40-150 f2.8 are in the mix and the Leica 200 f2.8 a lens that I do not own, would be equally useful, but the 300 is without doubt the most dependably exciting lens I own.
Like a magic wand it snaps onto what I aim at instantly. I need to update the 1.0 firmware to see how much better it can be!
It is almost always shot wide open and I can crop the files down to ball stitching. It is effectively (for news print and web use), a hand held, bag portable 2000mm lens equivalent.
Simply only possible in my kit thanks to this lens, shot through the legs of a timing official in ugly light.
Then, when you are between shots, looking down nets you this thanks to the 1.4m close focus.
I have several macro lens options, none of them considered “normal”.
Ok, what next?
“The lens that…………deserves credit for soldiering on?”;
Olympus 12-40 f2.8.
Mechanically compromised after a trip to the beach clogged up the zoom, then replaced with the 12-60 Leica, it was pressed back into service for the paper and has been a giver, freeing up the more I use it. It still surprises me how nice the files are. It has a similar look to the 25 f1.8, lush and sharp, but not harsh, with clean Bokeh.
Teamed with the 40-150 f2.8, it covers most of my basketball needs, only being replaced by primes in low light.
Ok, next….. .
“Lens that punches about it’s weight (very literally)”;
Olympus 40-150 kit.
This could have been the 40-150 f4 Pro or the 75-300 also, as both do a lot for their footprint and cost, but the $299 kit lens (bought in a promo kit for under $100), plastic crap really, is often hard to pick optically from any of my telephoto lenses, earning the little “ED” label.
Never any doubt.
Fine art grade files, which it has no right to produce.
This file and the one above came from a series taken on a perfect day in Kanazawa Japan. The “Hollywood” light was hard to interpret, but the crappy little kit lens made the grade, I did not even think about it after the first few files.
“The lens most missed”;
12-100 f4 Pro.
I really need to let this go, but it was a stupid mistake at a low point. Other lost glass falls into this category, but with other considerations, like the 400 f5.6L Canon (last Canon lens), Panasonic 14mm f2.5 (relegated to unneeded twice!), first edition 20mm Pana (crappy focus), Voightlander 40mm f2 EF (the 5D3 fixed screen negated f2 MF accuracy) and others, but the 12-100 wins through practicality and relevance alone.
Honourable mentions go to most of the rest;
The 75-300 for great reach and quality at a budget price.
The 25 and 45 (x2) for their faultless performance.
The 15mm for nearly knocking the 17mm off it’s perch and still being relevant.
The pair of 40-150 Pro’s for being my dual work horse lenses, both excellent, and effectively interchangeable.
The 12-60 and 8-18 Leicas and 12-60 Panasonic zooms, all late comers that have done nothing wrong apart from shadowing other good lenses.
L mount 50mm S for keeping the mojo intact when I went full frame.
The 20-60 S for allowing the FF move.
The lenses that did not make the cut are the Sigma 30 which is great, but surplus it seems and the TTartisan 35 which is too small and fiddly for my video rig.
ANZAC day this year was my shift. I have no issue getting up before dawn to celebrate what is in many ways the birth of our national consciousness. The red light pushed me to try mono.
This year is also the 50th anniversary of the end of Australias participation in the Vietnam War, the veterans looking now how WW2 veterans looked to me when I was a child.
Later in the day, the main march and ceremony took place. The bugler and honour guard took their assigned places again, this time amid a massive crowd.
Finally, this is Arthur Quarrel, a veteran of South Korea, with a handshake grip like a vice and a keen eye. He was one of only a handful of men awarded a special decoration by the South Korean government.
Sitting in on the daily meeting to set the paper right, a must for a daily, I was heartened by the new digs, new editor and general vibe, but the best was to come.
Lamenting the lack of use my video kit has been getting, my ears pricked up when the sports editor resumed a conversation with the new head editor about a pod cast they were planning to try out tomorrow.
The question was asked “I hope our phone will do, maybe a better mic, but the room has a lot of echo, so any suggestions ?”. I tried not to jump to eagerly, but maybe a new S5, pair of Lewitt 040 Match overheads into a Zoom H5? Maybe a Sennheisser MKE400 or Zoom SSH-6 Zoom into my F1? Options were many, time short, fun to be had.
No relevance, but both things make me feel good.
Unlike most jobs like this at the school, I have tons of time (!), cooperative clients, who just want to get it right and a controlled environment. Wow, too easy.
Wow, way to be over confident.
Now I just have to remember how to use it all. Huh, joking…...well, almost.
I have not actually plugged any of this into the S5, so maybe the G9 would be sensible. The Zoom is battery hungry with the Lewitts, but I have the AC adapter, also untried. Lots of new, so keep it simple, work up as needed and arrive early, like an hour early, maybe more.
I will start simple and work up, or should I do the opposite. Should I go for the best I can, then work back with some idea of the bar I have to meet? I have a night to think on it.
If this works out, it will be my regular Wednesday gig, which is ideal as I work every Wednesday on the new roster, with two other photographers most of the time.
Tonight I will be testing, checking, packing. Tomorrow is the day. Glad I am reading “The Real Deal” by Joe McNally. Lots of resolve after failure, lots of bouncing back and moving relentlessly forward. I need that message drummed home at the moment.
The time of character filled alleys, bizarre people and veiled danger is gone from many popular street destinations, but I am ok with that.
Regular people, just being themselves can scratch the itch for me.
Technical stuff was the usual. EM5 Mk1 with the 17mm f1.8 wide open and a combination of MF and AF used.
Lots of phones.
A couple of favourites from the weekend that I want to share.
Technically going out of bounds, but not yet called.
Looking back at old files, some taken with cameras as many as four generations old (normal generations not Sony generations), basic lenses, a format some are suspicious of and sometimes “loose” technique to say the least, I am drawn once again to the question, “what is it we really need, and how do we get there?”
The first characteristsics we are often presented with when looking at cameras are pixel count and sensor size.
What does pixel count effect and how and where does sensor size come in?
Quantity of information.
The number of pixels mathematically defines the maximum resolution a sensor can produce which effects the maximum theoretical enlargement size (depending on viewing distance, image contrast, reproductuon limits etc) or the maximum realistic cropping of a file (or usually a combination of both) before pixels become visible.
I used “mathematical” and “theoretical” because to put it simply, this is only one form of measuring quality which can be affected by so many other factors. Printing has the ability to hide some degradation and has its own limits as do screens, ideal viewing distance and firmware/software is the future reality, so pixels are effectively de-throwned as the critical element. The big one is, very few viewers look as closely or a critically as photographers do.
The sensor size then determines how large each pixel is in relation to the sensor real estate. Larger sensors make pixels relatively bigger so allow the greater pixel density to be less destructive. The pixels on a 12mp full frame sensor (which some still consider to be ideal) are many times larger than those on a 20mp compact camera sized sensor, thus gathering more and cleaner light and better base image quality.
Ironically, the bigger the sensor and the greater the pixel count, the higher the bar for lenses, meaning that unless you get the best available (big, expensive, rare), you may loose some of what you gain.
The images below were taken with an older 16mp M43 sensor (EM10 mk2). They are plenty big enough to make decent sized gallery prints.
Noise.
The other feature (or benefit?) of pixel size is control of digital noise production. Larger pixels naturally create less noise as the light gatherings ability of the individual pixel is increased. Noise (grain) is created by light starved pixels failing to render information then bleeding into their neighbours, creating a “blotch” of colour or black pixels instead of harmonious colours and tones.
Think of each pixel like a little bucket. Big pixels are more hole than edge and the bottom of the bucket (the sensor) is less angled, letting in more information, smaller pixels are realtively more edge than hole (but same height) and tiny pixels are like a straw that only gathers light when the sun is directly over head. This is where the sensor size really pays in.
Again there are other factors like sensor design, processing electronics and the actual light available, but at the end of the day, all things being equal, bigger pixels gather more light.
There is a catch though. More pixels may indeed produce more digital “noise” reducing image quality, but they also produce smaller noise. This can be beneficial in certain circumstances, but is generally considerred to be less ideal than no noise at all.
What pixels do not effect are;
A file taken with a 12 year old, 16mp M43 sensor, hand held with a basic prime lens.
Visual Sharpness.
Sharpness is a product of contrast in colour, texture or light, the subject matter, focus, depth of field, clarity of glass/air/sensor, sound technique, viewing distance/light/expectations and more. Resolution, often caught up in that pool is actually not the same thing. Pixels are how much information is gathered, but not necessarily how well it is translated.
This has always been the case. With film, bigger negatives produced clean, grainless enlargements even at higher ISO ratings, but on close study, the lenses used were often less sharp inch for inch than smaller SLR lenses. What we were seeing was clarity, often shallower depth of field and the benefits of a relatively smaller enlargement size, not extreme sharpness, but it did the same thing.
Quantity can matter, but quality does also. From memory the Hassleblad 80mm for example was measured at around 65-70 line pairs per millimeter resolution (the measure we used before pixels), the Nikkor 55mm Micro managed 80-90.
Image power.
Perfect technique is irrelevant without image impact. Great photographic images have been created for well over a century. Some, especially early ones had obvious technical short comings, but regardless had the ability to hold our attention, to tell their story. Better technique was always the ideal, but a powerful image in its time was still iconic. Ironically, older, less technically perfect processes have one huge advantage, increased longevity.
The digital era heralded a period of technical improvement (much needed early on), that became infectious, addictive even. It became the habit to compare “X” to “Y”, empowering many web sites and a sub-hobby in its own right. That time has passed folks. All cameras are good enough, too good even, lenses are getting to point where their perfection is robbing them of character and the reality of end use seems to be forgotten.
Realistic needs.
Ok, lets be honest. Who among us ever prints fine art prints bigger than 16”x20” and if we do, do we leave our technical prowess at the door and throw ourselves to the mercy of just pixel counts and auto correct? Independent tests have proven that even this size cannot reproduce the full information of a 36mp sensor without unrealistic efforts being taken and if they do, we are down to viewing with a loupe. Who does that?
Maybe a book or two is your ambition, a decent web site, maybe displaying on a decent sized screen? The good news is, these all have their limits and in most cases, you have surpassed them.
Future Proofing?
I can guarantee you, your images will have to stand on their own two feet artistically or for their relevance before anyone cares a hoot about the technical issues. Issues likely only you see anyway. Things age and change, something you cannot stop. More future-proofing quality is a very small part of that picture.
I love the work of the early colourist photographers like Haas, Herzog or Leiter. I do not like the more modern takes some publishers have forced on their work, much preferring the originals for their gentle authenticity.
The truth is, the future will bring ever more powerful software to increase quality short falls, but you may actually choose to avoid that. Let them be what they are, representatives of their time and place.
This shot actually reminds me of colour images taken in the 1980’s except that the quality is too good! To capture that feel, something I like as it stirs memories of early discovery in a favourite time in my life, I would have to degrade the colour, the sharpness and brilliance of the image to increase its ‘70’s character.
We all do look too close at our images, which is our right and our bane, but we alone do that. Clients, friends, admirers look at our work on its aesthetic merits, not its technical ones. Take a bad photo perfectly and see how far you get.
There is a younger generation who seem to be split between the two opposed camps of more is better and those chasing that elusive something extra, the something that even those who lived through the many past transitions have forgotten.
So, what do we need?
Speed, accuracy, reliability, enough of everything else, which is less than the maximum possible and ourselves. Nothing more.
I read somewhere that an image should marinate for a while.
Not sure what time frame this meant, I let things run along as they do, but recently, I think I have discoverred the true meaning, but also, I realise I may have monumetally stuffed up.
Re-visiting the many Japan files, some almost a decade after they were taken, I have found some of them are better than I remembered, some even blipping on the radar seemingly for the first time.
It looks like two things were at play.
The first is, Capture 1 is definitely treating the mostly EM5 Mk1 files more respectfully, taking them from simple, sometimes gritty and often marginal files to more mature and forgiving ones, on the whole more giving.
The second thing is, sometimes it seems when you are embedded in the process, like taking seven trips to the same place in five years, many images were subconsciously filed into “same as others, ignore for now”, or even worse “won’t ever use it, delete now” categories.
Part of a series taken walking into late afternoon light in Kyoto, this one slipped through after a couple of others were chosen and thanks to poor filing and laziness, may never again have seen the light (!) of day. It is to me one of the best of examples of a people able to be “in the moment”.
The fact is, my perspective has changed, I am more respectful of my own efforts, better in touch with my “shooting head”, allowing me to recall why I took them, the hopes I had, the ideas I was chasing and the instincts I was following.
I almost needed to see them as a distanced stranger, to be able to re-see them as my own.
Closer me was clearly blinkered.
In the months following the trip, only some images, often the ones I remembered taking then reviewing with excitement were cemented in, the rest were simply part of the wave of information I consciously blocked out. I do not process while I travel, treating the whole thing like shooting film, which has its benefits and it seems, its down side.
There is also the reality that many responded better to Lightroom than others, something that is no longer an issue as C1 treats them all equally. I honestly believe that if C1 was a more main stream and friendlier to use system when the EM5.1 was launched, it may have become a legend in its own time, but LR held it back.
Many street grabs seemed too simlar to others to be of interest. Methodically working through them has allowed some to talk to me, to re-state their case, some have even lost thier voice.
So many garden shots for example, were taken almost out of habit, instinctively, but not with the type of mental commitment I would have applied to landscape images at home. No tripod, a single prime lens and often no time (or timing), combined with a head space that said “lots of gardens, all been done before and not what I am here for”, meant I took them, but gave them little thought.
A phenomenon we have noticed before is something we call “Czech Chrystal” syndrome. Chrystal in the Czech republic is everywhere, is cheap, but is also overwhelming, so it tends to be ignored. You get home and see the prices of even basic Czech chrystal in shops, groan to your self “why didn’t I fill a suit case?”, then return and repeat.
The same is true of Japan. Soo many temples, gardens and beautiful spaces, that they do tend to blur together unless you give each a decent bit of time. If not, the images taken tend to have the odd stand out, but otherwise they do blur, diminishing them. In reality, I would have to travel a long way to see better, even living where I do, so looking at each set discreetly, has revealed a decent if guiltily loose and lazy body of work.
Technically, they are good enough, compositionally many are worthy, so maybe I will be looking at two books, one of temples, gardens and quiet spaces, one of street and people?
Two books may make for some tough choices as many images fall into the catergory of “quiet place in the storm”.
The big stuff-up, eluded to above is that it seems that some time in my disorganised early period, when working with a camera became a reality and my amateur habits were found wanting, I may have mercilessly culled my early trip files to make more room.
One trip, which was a lightning week in Tokyo, only had 700 files. I am sure this is not what was taken as I average 200+ a day.
Hope I chose well.
It is not possible to “marinate” your files for years before processing them, but it is possible to revisit them, so I hope you have kept yours on file and are brave enough to take a deep dive into the once known.
The landscapes in Japan are stunning, which is no surprise as most, be they large or small, are the work of decades, centuries even.
In many of these gardens we have witnessed volunteers on their haunches, plucking weeds with tweezers!
Nara’s parkland, dear and all.
One of the most famous gardens in Japan, featured on Monte Don’s show.
Every stone chosen and placed by experts.
The little 17mm, a lens not considered perfect by any means is a champion in this style.
Even inperfection is embraced.
The whole hillside is planned and executed with the patience of a life time.
This deep forest scene is only meters away from walls and less than 100m from a city road.
With a fine balance of controlled randomness, the gardens of Japan are a symphony of gentle perfection.
A coffee stop under Kyoto train station.
Golden light in Kyoto is a meaningful, but brief moment in time as it shafts down the main street.
Taking my turn.
Suffering from a little creative fog at the moment.
My volunteer work has shifted to more mundane projects to finalise the end of the financial year, something I accept. The paper is hammering me with the reality I do not find the work (it’s shape, not the subject matter) at all satisfying and there is nothing else happening on any other front.
The reality is, the paper does nothing for my soul. The images are generally staged, limited and no matter how many you shoot, nothing much is used. Beware striking gold, it will mostly be stowed in the vault and forgotten (or used in a blog post). To be fair, sport is an exception, but has its own issues with captioning*, so I hope my reduced hours, leaning heavily towards the action laden weekends, will suit better.
The odd happy snap resonates, like a lone tree on an open plane. Need a forest, a big one.
The only shining light is revisiting the work of the past, Japan in particular. I believe you are only as good as your next image, but my huge catalogue of the past needs to be given its due.
Having to face the reality that I will likely be happier doing something else for a living and taking photos for myself only, these mean much as they are closer to the norm. The creative freedom of shooting for yourself is actually not a luxury when dealing with artistic endeavours, it is a must.
If I was assigned the task of taking this image two things would happen. I would shift thinking, possibly blocking the natural flow of getting it taken naturally, but secondly, I would probably be confused on assigning, because from an editorial perspective, how would you describe it?
The reality is, artistic photographers work hard and often for little reward, because they do not work to a defined, limited formula. That is the point and the problem.
To be financially successful, without selling out what they believe, artistic photographers need to be ahead of the game. They need to establish themselves, often oblivious to other influences, continue to change and evolve and offer only their perspective on their terms, not adopt those of others.
They need to make an audience on their terms, not pander to one purely for commercial considerations or the desire to be accepted. You need to accept the artist, not the other way around.
When an image makes sense to you, you often have no time to decide if it will resonate with others.
I do not delude myself into thinking that I am an artist, preferring to think of myself as a craftsman in the true sense. I am taking something un-original and trying to do it as well as I can, as often as I can, in preference to doing it well enough to be just suitably functional.
I refuse to be limited to thinking like a tradesman, doing what is instructed without any of the freedom of thinking I need to do better.
Is that art or just an illusion of the process?
I guess it does not matter really, because it is what I do.
*If asked to come back with 200 useful files of a sports match, I would not be daunted. If that becomes 10 with accurate captions, my shooting changes. I shoot less because for every action shot, I need to take several for identification and if that is unlikely, I simply do not bother. An un-captioned image is a useless image to the paper and I accept that. I just do not like it. Never thought I would say that. This actually happenned on the weekend. I covered a football match with only 50 images (no bursts), plenty for a page of images, but ended up taking 350+ to get numbers as well. Football is the best of them because at this level, the players have numbers front and back, but add in a lack of numbers, team lists and even educated watchers and it becomes a guessing game.
