UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL EXPOSURE:

Part 1: Exposure Reduction for Highlight Retention
Part 2: Digital Exposure & Noise
Part 3: When Blocked-up Shadows Aren’t Really
Part 4: Take a Balanced Approach to White Balance
Part 5: Dynamic Range
Part 6: Extending the Tonal Range
Part 7: What’s the Real Difference Between RAW and JPEG?

GENERAL:

1) COST-EFFECTIVE PHOTOGRAPHY
2) CONTROL THE RANGE OF FOCUS
3) IMAGE INTERPOLATION
4) LOSE THE DEAD SHOTS
5) SCANNING 35MM FILM
6) THE RAW vs. JPEG DEBATE…
7) IS PHOTOGRAPHY EASY?
8) MUST EVERYTHING HAVE AN ADOBE SLANT?
9) A CAMERA TO PAINT WITH
10) WHAT'S THIS COMPOSITION THING ABOUT?

Cost-effective Photography

"Great meal. What pots did you use?"
Petteri Sulonen

Before we get into this very important subject, a word to the wise:

The point being made here is simple enough: many amateurs, especially those shooting within financial restraints, don't need pro gear and top glass. They can get great prints and TV slideshows much more cost-effectively. Only those overburdened with cynicism would dare claim that manufacturers want us to spend lots of cash on stuff we don’t actually need. What an outrageous idea!

This article is mainly directed at those who have two bothersome afflictions:

1) They are unwittingly influenced by the flawed rationale of the gearhead who thoughtlessly tells us all, “Great shots need great lenses!”

2) They can't afford a set of very expensive pro lenses.

I've been there.

So the conclusion is obvious, isn’t it? If you can’t have great lenses and pro cameras and software, you can just forget about getting great results. Well, this is baloney, for want of a better word. Advice like this can be a significant blow to the hobbyist’s morale. But just for the record, it would be ridiculous to claim that it's wrong to prefer and buy pro lenses. If you can afford the best gear and honestly believe you'll use it to its fullest potential, go ahead.

But right here, right now, in the enthusiast's real world, the vast majority of us don't need to worry about the heavy, critical stuff — let's just enjoy our photography without constantly feeling the need to expensively expand our gear. Many of us can succeed with what we already have, especially if we are dedicated DSLR users.

So, let me ask you: Are you an amateur photographer shooting on a tight budget? How much do you have to spend to get quality prints? Is it possible to create impressive images using less expensive equipment? Yes, it’s possible, although much depends on your goals and even your style of photography.

Over the years I’ve come across examples of photographic elitism, with inner circles within inner circles where you’ll find talented pros (and somewhat deluded amateurs) who have spent a fortune on equipment. Too many amateurs are needlessly referring to detailed charts, graphs and the associated ins and outs of MFT testing. They get hung up on sharpness, contrast, colour correction, relative illumination, spectral transmission, distortion and lpmm. Don't worry that you don't know what some of these terms mean exactly—I don't either. And I've no reason to care.

Don’t get me wrong—I know that there are circumstances where more money may well need to be spent: professional top gear for glossy images in classy coffee table photo publications; high megapixel full-frame DSLRs and top lenses, or quality medium format cameras, for specialised subjects demanding large presentation prints or posters; l-o-n-g fast lenses for breath-taking wildlife and sports photography; Nikons and Canons in protective housings for crystal clear underwater images, and so on…

But beyond all of this, and of equal importance (and much more common), are the zillions of dedicated amateurs who love their hobby dearly but are strapped for cash. At times it must seem to them as if there’s no chance of getting impressive results with their Nikon or Canon consumer SLRs/DSLRs and less expensive Sigma zoom lenses. After all, those lenses just aren’t sharp enough and the cameras not robust and fully-featured enough.

Will you get great results without top quality lenses? Yes, in fact you will! Will your SLR or DSLR shoot impressive images you can print to 18x12 and frame, and even sell? Yes, in fact it will. The absence of eminent sharpness and glass contrast doesn’t mean that a print will lack impact. Sweating over how critically sharp a lens is is questionable if you plan to routinely expand (interpolate) images from consumer DSLR images for large digital print sizes.

If we believed all we read we might assume it’s almost impossible to produce impressive images and prints with consumer DSLRs and independent lenses. There are times when serious amateurs need to immunise themselves against the “I’m-in-the-top-gear-club” snobbery that they encounter here and there. We need to be aware how much this nonsense about pro equipment dependence can make it seem like there’s no other way to get impressive quality. There are plenty of talented and creative photographers who have already shown by their images that great shots are possible without top-end pro gear.

In reasonably priced image-editing software, to a significant extent, we can manually override noticeable chromatic aberrations, such as red/cyan fringing. We can usefully improve image softness caused by mid-range lens' deficiencies. (You may get these in an expensive lens, by the way!) The dedicated amateur can improve the quality of his or her less expensive lenses by using a variety of corrective software techniques and then go on to produce large prints that look excellent at typical viewing distances. Achieving this is not particularly difficult and often it's not even necessary.

Now, before we go any further, there’s no point in anyone saying, “Yes, but shoot the same subject with pro gear too and put the prints side-by-side!” Apart from the fact that after processing there wouldn’t be a clear gulf between the two, this line of reasoning proves nothing since the amateur may not be able to justify very expensive gear anyway. And besides, the impressed, interested viewer won’t be thinking about irrelevant comparisons he or she can’t make.

As Adams has said: "...in discussing mechanical or optical issues we must not lose sight of the much greater importance of image content..." (Ansel Adams, The Camera, p.73) "True resolving power,” he went on, “is the ability of a lens (or a film) to render separate, fine detail distinguishably."

With that in mind let's consider the advanced amateur who buys a very expensive top quality high resolution prime lens. By consistently using a tripod, mirror lock-up, and mid-apertures he should be able to enhance his small format SLR image resolution. But in the real world we should ask ourselves, how much of this improved "fine detail" will actually give the image content more impact? Will it even make it through to the print? Printing standards vary, both at home and commercially. On each and every photo forum, top quality lenses engender excessive praise and irrational longing in equal measure.

Corner detail reveals unhelpful chromatic aberration from a pro level lens (Canon EF 17-40 L).

I’m not belittling those who need top gear for their trade, but in too many cases pro equipment alone doesn’t guarantee impressive results. The vast majority of wedding photographers produce humdrum work, though they have to be commended for having the guts to do it! And I’m reminded of a pro medium format photographer who took a large group photograph and gave us shots that were focussed on the tree just behind where we stood. It’s very significant that nobody noticed but me! Seriously, on the day I could have produced equally acceptable and better focussed results with amateur gear.

I'm regularly asked and paid to shoot glass objects, and it's usually very demanding. But I've seen the work of a professional who spent several hours photographing glass creations and charged an absolute fortune for rubbish shots. And I do mean rubbish. I still have access to the images and dearly wish I could share them here... To crown it all I recently I saw a pro scenic calendar with a landscape shot that included a large cardboard box in the foreground. Let's get into the real world here!

Someone on a DSLR forum wrote: “We've compared photos back and forth many times and it does take top of the line lenses to make The Photo happen.” And someone else said: "You will find that better lenses do help take better pictures." And another: "It's generally held that DSLRs need the best quality lenses to produce the perfect results." And a pro, who’s evidently not on the same planet as me, wrote in a photo magazine: "...many amateur photographers forget that great shots need great lenses" (Digital Photography User). How about this from Sigma: "A photo is only as good as the lens it was taken with." Really? That's exactly what the big manufacturers want us to believe.

Let’s boil it down. Can glass resolution and contrast in small format SLR photography really take us this far? For me as a dedicated amateur, this somewhat dated and questionable reasoning only reminds me how relative everything can be in the context of image-editing techniques and how prints actually appear at typical viewing distances. The true professional has unique priorities, of course. For example, top of the line lenses are better constructed and will tolerate heavy use.

However, let's not get carried away here: we must remember that beyond doubt some lenses in some contexts are best avoided. Struggling with them simply adds disadvantages the amateur photographer could well do without. Generally however, many less expensive lenses can deliver very good results even in larger prints, particularly after the careful application of excellent SLR techniques in the field and the use of corrective image-editing tools at home.

Under average to strong contrast conditions, a less expensive lens will almost certainly cause red and blue fringing around the edges of the image. But, as we have already mentioned, if a shot is particularly important, fringing can be removed. Fringing, especially at wide-angle settings, is also caused by light striking the image sensor at a steep angle. Barrel and pincushion distortion are quite noticeable with cheaper zooms, especially at extreme focal lengths. Independent zoom lenses need to be assessed in context — they will never outperform prime lenses from leading manufacturers.

But a bag of top lenses can add up to very little. Keen amateurs should take note that there are pros and too many amateurs working with top equipment who fail to make the most of their investment primarily because their image-editing skills are lousy. You may well find examples on their websites of garish colours, inappropriate sharpening, poor contrast, drab B&W conversions, and so on. Their prints could be interesting! You can see this anomaly for yourself on photo forums when some 'more experienced' photographers share their images or try to help newcomers with their editing skills. Shooting is the first part of the DSLR story.

Falling at the last hurdle can make a total nonsense out of expensive preparation:

1) Buy a very good pro or semi-pro DSLR and the "best lenses you can afford" that have reassuring lpmm and excellent spectral transmission and contrast qualities.

2) Use outstanding technique: tripod, MLU, commendable DoF, correct exposure...

3) Instead of shooting JPEGs (and "throwing away" all that valuable image quality) be sure to always use the RAW format so you will have maximum control over tonality, noise, colour-correction and colour strength.

4) Invest heavily in Photoshop and Lightroom so that anything's possible.

5) Process images until they're inappropriately sharpened, inordinately saturated and tonally imbalanced.

It happens... Consumer equipment in the hands of someone who's a good photographer and image-editor will result in strong image content that's been properly manipulated. Excessive colour and unusual tones can of course be part and parcel of Artistic Expression—whatever that term may mean—but it's an exception to the rule.

Here's something else to think about. If you're shopping for a new lens should you "buy the best you can afford"? This advice is rampant on forums, but it's not very clever. In truth it's too easy to buy into much more than you will ever need, especially if money isn't a problem. I'm living proof of this. Today I could go online and order the very best DSLR available and add to it a set of top grade (very heavy!) lenses. I'm very fortunate and I don't take it lightly. But the truth is I don't need that gear. It wouldn't take my amateur photography any further.

For most dedicated amateurs the best solution is to put their brains in gear and think realistically about what they actually need. What we want is a different proposition! What are your goals? How far do you intend going with your amateur hobby? Do you really need long lenses with big apertures? What will the final product be? Are you going to exhibit or sell really large prints?

Some of us need to stop and realise that image-editing can accentuate the performance of our lenses. Call it partly an illusion of sharpness and contrast if you will, but it works very well indeed. It's definitely worthwhile spending time at the computer adjusting curves, levels and the sharpening values. You can end up with quality images that look sharp, even at larger sizes, all taken with a lens and camera combination that costs a lot less than the professional equivalent.

So let’s backtrack and stay realistic. Software manipulation plays a significant role here for the dedicated amateur who, for whatever reason, will not be buying the best small format gear. If necessary, he or she can remove or minimize some of the lens’ more obvious flaws and so help to create an excellent image that soars at typical viewing distances. How many will get nose grease on an exhibited print just to assess critical sharpness? Is that why the shot was made? And, if side-by-side comparisons are made, the difference is not as obvious as it used to be.

‘Gadgetitis’ is a psychological condition induced by the desire to compensate
for an inferiority feeling… I believe that photographers should
pay far more attention to studying photographs than apparatus.

Emil Otto Hoopé
(1878-1972)

The bottom line? Learn to identify elitist forum prattle and keep it at arm's length. Don't be feeling left out because you can’t afford the pro glass or top-end horrendously pricey DSLRs you hear mentioned daily on the photography forums. Don’t be browbeaten into thinking that you must have costly accessories and unbelievably expensive software others espouse. And incidentally: images aren’t "Photoshopped"—they’re edited in whatever software you can afford and need. I don't use Adobe anything for my digital output.

May I humbly suggest a better overall plan? Get out there and work on your technique like a person possessed. Depending on your style, you probably don’t need to shoot hundreds of shots week in, week out. Take your time and hone your skills. Use your equipment to its fullest potential, and there’s no doubt that if you have a photographic eye, you’ll soon be delivering results that others will admire.

Text adapted from The Image Plane