Matter « 360Photography

RSS

Posts Tagged ‘Matter’

Photography Aspect Ratio: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?

12 May

The post Photography Aspect Ratio: What Is It and Why Does It Matter? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Andrew S. Gibson.

What are aspect ratios in photography? How does an aspect ratio affect your images? And how can you change the aspect ratio once you’ve taken a photo?

In this article, I’m going to give you a quick introduction to photography aspect ratios – so that, by the time you’ve finished, you’ll understand what they are and how you can use them to improve your own images.

Let’s get started.

What is a photography aspect ratio?

An aspect ratio is the dimensions of an image expressed in a ratio form. You determine the aspect ratio by comparing an image’s width and height, then writing it as a width:height ratio (such as 3:2 or 4:5).

The aspect ratio of your images is initially determined by the dimensions of your camera’s sensor. Because sensor dimensions are fixed, it’s easy to take the aspect ratio of your images for granted.

But it is important to think about the aspect ratio when taking photos. Your camera aspect ratio has compositional implications – and I highly recommend you consider this when out with your camera.

Also, a quick note: While your camera aspect ratio is technically fixed, many newer digital cameras allow you to change the aspect ratio in the camera’s menu. Plus, you have the option of adjusting an image’s aspect ratio in post-processing, so it’s more flexible than you might think!

Why does aspect ratio matter?

Different aspect ratios will produce different types of compositions.

For instance, a square, 1:1 aspect ratio tends to produce very balanced, often confined images.

A 4:5 or a 3:2 aspect ratio offers a bit more space within the frame.

And a 16:9 aspect ratio gives a lot of room for expansion along the image edges.

Of course, the effect of the aspect ratio depends somewhat on the type of scene you’re photographing, and certain scenes naturally lend themselves to certain aspect ratios. That’s why it’s essential to think carefully about the aspect ratio before pressing the shutter button; different aspect ratio choices can dramatically affect the composition.

Common camera aspect ratios

Virtually every camera sensor offers one of two aspect ratios:

3:2 aspect ratio

A 3:2 aspect ratio is used by 35mm crop-sensor and full-frame DSLRs, some Leica medium format cameras, most mirrorless cameras, high-end compact cameras, and most 35mm film cameras. This aspect ratio has been with us ever since Leica made the first 35mm film cameras in the early 20th century.

Now, a full-frame 35mm sensor measures 36 mm x 24 mm. You can express this figure as a ratio: 36:24. Mathematicians always like to simplify ratios so the relationship between the two numbers is easy to visualize, and in this case, you can divide both dimensions by twelve.

That gives you 3:2.

As you’re likely aware, crop-sensor cameras have smaller sensors, measuring approximately 22.5 mm x 15 mm (though the exact measurements vary depending on the brand and model). Despite the different sensor sizes, the ratio between the width and the height remains the same, conforming to a 3:2 aspect ratio.

4:3 aspect ratio

The 4:3 aspect ratio is used by Micro Four Thirds cameras, many compact cameras, some medium format digital cameras, as well as medium format film cameras using the 6 cm x 4.5 cm format.

3:2 vs 4:3 aspect ratio

Now let’s compare the two common camera aspect ratios. In the diagram below, you can see the 4:2 aspect ratio (left), plus the additional space included by a 3:2 sensor:

Clearly, the 3:2 aspect ratio used by most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras is slightly longer than the 4:3 aspect ratio used by Micro Four Thirds cameras. The difference may not seem like much, but it has a major effect on the composition. Take a look at the following images to see why.

Here’s the original shot, taken with a 3:2 aspect ratio:

And here’s the same image, but cropped to the 4:3 aspect ratio, as if it had been taken with a Micro Four Thirds camera:

Do you see the difference? It’s subtle, but it’s there. The 35mm frame is longer.

And that can be challenging when it comes to composition because you have to find a way to effectively fill that length.

Landscape photography, in particular, often benefits from a compressed frame, and that’s one of the reasons for the popularity of 7:6 medium format cameras and 5:4 view cameras among landscape film photographers.

Here’s what the same landscape would look like cropped to these formats:

For me, the 7:6 aspect ratio is too short, but 5:4 is a very pleasing aspect ratio to work in.

Aspect ratio examples

Now, after seeing the photos above, you might be thinking that the difference between aspect ratios is not a big deal. And often, when you are shooting in the landscape format (i.e., with the camera positioned so that the frame is horizontal), the difference is minimal. It’s not so difficult to work with any of the aspect ratios I’ve presented above.

But if you switch to the portrait format (i.e., with a vertical frame), it’s a different story. A 3:2 frame suddenly becomes a lot harder to fill effectively, and the composition often benefits from cropping to a shorter rectangle. Here are some examples to show you what I mean:

The difficulty I had with the landscape above is that there was too much empty sky in the original image. I solved the problem by cropping off the top, and the final 4:5 aspect ratio seems to work nicely.

Of course, not all images will benefit from this type of crop. But if you find yourself struggling to fill the frame, especially if you have a 35mm camera with a 3:2 frame, you may want to try a different aspect ratio.

By the way, here is the first image cropped to a couple more common aspect ratios.

The panoramic format (16:9):

And the square format (1:1):

Adjusting the aspect ratio in-camera

As I mentioned above, many digital cameras let you adjust the aspect ratio in the camera menu. And if you have a camera with an electronic viewfinder, you may see the cropped image in the viewfinder itself.

If your camera doesn’t have an electronic viewfinder, you’ll need to use Live View to take advantage of the aspect ratio function. The camera will display the cropped image on the rear LCD screen.

But there’s a major caveat:

If you use a non-native aspect ratio while shooting in JPEG, your camera will crop the image when you take the photo, and there’s no way to resurrect the edges of the frame. So if you later decide that you want a 3:2 aspect ratio instead of a 1:1 aspect ratio, you’re out of luck.

However, if you use a non-native aspect ratio while shooting in RAW, the camera will save the entire image in the original aspect ratio, and you can change your mind about the crop in post-processing.

Cropping in post-processing

It’s often easier to crop in post-processing than in the field. Plus, if your camera doesn’t have an aspect ratio function, cropping during editing is the only way to adjust the aspect ratio.

In pretty much every dedicated editing program, cropping is easy.

For instance, in Lightroom, just click the Crop icon, then select an aspect ratio from the Aspect menu:

Photography aspect ratio: conclusion

As you now know, aspect ratio is a big deal. It’s always a good idea to think about aspect ratios while shooting – and then, if necessary, adjust the aspect ratio in post-processing.

Now over to you:

What’s your favorite aspect ratio? And do you think about aspect ratio while taking photos? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Which aspect ratio is best?

There is no one best aspect ratio – it all depends on the look you’re after! Some scenes benefit from square (1:1) aspect ratios, whereas others look great with a 4:3 or a 5:4 aspect ratio. I’d recommend playing around in a program like Adobe Lightroom.

What aspect ratio do professional photographers use?

That depends on the photo. As discussed in the article, landscape shooters tend to favor squarer aspect ratios such as 4:5, though if you’re a panorama photographer, a 16:9 frame (or wider!) might be preferable. Portrait photographers tend to avoid narrow aspect ratios, but there are times when a portrait looks good as a 9:16 composition.

What is the aspect ratio of 8×10 photos?

8×10 photos have a 4:5 aspect ratio.

The post Photography Aspect Ratio: What Is It and Why Does It Matter? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Andrew S. Gibson.

Digital Photography School

Comments Off

Posted in Photography

Does Your Photo-Editing Program Really Matter? [Video]

11 Apr

The post Does Your Photo-Editing Program Really Matter? [Video] appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.

If you’ve ever spent time agonizing over different post-processing programs, trying to determine the perfect software to edit your photos, then this is the video for you.

Expert photographer Mark Denney edits a single image using three different editing programs – Photoshop, Capture One, and Lightroom.

Then he shows you the three results, side by side, for comparison.

Are there differences between the final edits? And which program (if any) does the best job?

Watch and find out. And then, when you’re finished, leave a comment below this article telling us what you thought about the different editors!

The post Does Your Photo-Editing Program Really Matter? [Video] appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.

Digital Photography School

Comments Off

Posted in Photography

RAW vs DNG: What’s the Difference and Why Does it Matter?

08 Feb

The post RAW vs DNG: What’s the Difference and Why Does it Matter? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Simon Ringsmuth.

As a photographer, you have no doubt heard people talk about file formats, specifically RAW and JPG. Some people shoot only in RAW, others like JPG, and many photographers use both. Each format has benefits and drawbacks, but if you want the most amount of control over your pictures, you probably shoot in RAW. However, there is a third option you might not even know about: Digital Negative, or DNG. With this other format in the mix, the issue isn’t so much RAW vs JPG, but RAW vs DNG.

DNGs can speed up your Lightroom workflow, but there are some tradeoffs to be aware of.

Understanding RAW

RAW files, unlike JPG files, store all of the light and color data used to capture an image. That means you can recapture blown-out highlights, make better white balance corrections, and have a great deal of editing freedom you don’t get with JPG.

Nikon, Canon, Sony, and others all let photographers shoot in RAW, but each of their RAW files is different. For example, the file extension for a Nikon RAW file is NEF, Canon is CRW, and Sony uses ARW.

As a result of this, cameras from these manufacturers process and store RAW data a little differently. Third-party editing software has to interpolate and reverse-engineer the method used to create the RAW files.

This is great for camera makers because they can tweak their hardware and software to work really well with their own RAW formats. However, it’s not always the best for photographers and editors.

Image: RAW and DNG files give you plenty of editing room that JPG does not offer. Nikon D500, 85mm,...

RAW and DNG files give you plenty of editing room that JPG does not offer. Nikon D500, 85mm, f/1.8, 1/4000 second, ISO 100

Digital Negative

Adobe developed the Digital Negative (DNG) format in 2004 as an open-source alternative to the proprietary RAW formats that most camera manufacturers used.

What Adobe did was essentially level the playing field by giving everyone access to the same format for working with RAW files.

DNG is open-source, which means anyone can use it without paying licensing fees. A few manufacturers like Pentax and Leica support DNG natively. However, for everyone else, there are easy ways to convert RAW files to DNG and get all the benefits of the latter without the hassles of the former.

DNG is particularly useful if you use Adobe products, like Lightroom and Photoshop, but other editing software support it too.

The photo information in each file is identical, but there might be some reasons to choose one over the other.

When looking at the RAW vs DNG issue, there are some important benefits as well as drawbacks that you might want to consider before you switch.

However, please don’t look at this as a matter of which format is better.

Neither RAW nor DNG is objectively superior; both have advantages and disadvantages. The point is to give you enough information to make an informed choice about which format works for you.

DNG benefits

1. Faster workflow

The main reason many people use DNG files is related to editing efficiency when using Lightroom. Since DNG and Lightroom are both made by Adobe, it stands to reason that they would work well together.

If you have ever found doing some simple operations with RAW files in Lightroom frustrating, like switching photos or zooming in to check focus, you will be shocked at how fast things like this are when using DNG files.

Switching from RAW to DNG has made a huge difference for me in speeding up my Lightroom workflow.

Nikon D750, 40mm, f/1.4, ISO 360, 1/180 second.

2. Smaller file sizes

File size is another area where DNG has an edge in the RAW vs DNG debate. Although, it might not be quite as important now with storage so cheap compared to ten or twenty years ago.

DNG files are typically about 20% smaller than a RAW file, which means you can store more of them on your computer. If you are limited in storage space, DNG just might be a good option for you.

Image: I converted a folder of RAW files to DNG. Both contain the exact same data for each photo, bu...

I converted a folder of RAW files to DNG. Both contain the exact same data for each photo, but the DNGs are much smaller. The entire folder of RAW files is 1.75GB, whereas the folder of DNG files is 1.5GB.

3. Wide support

Because DNG doesn’t require a proprietary decoding algorithm, like RAW files from major manufacturers do, there is wider support from a variety of editing software. Various archival organizations, such as the Library of Congress, even use this format. That means it should work just fine for most photographers too. Personally, knowing this helped settle the RAW vs DNG debate for me, but you might prefer another solution.

4. Wide support

One additional benefit of DNG has to do with editing metadata and how it is stored. Lightroom is non-destructive, meaning that any changes you make to an image, you can alter at any point in the future. The original file remains untouched, and a record of your edits is stored separately.

When working with RAW files, these edits are written to a very small file called a sidecar. However, if you use DNG, all your edits are stored in the DNG file itself. Most people consider this an advantage since it requires fewer files to store and manage, but it can be a drawback which I explore later in this article.

Nikon D750, 40mm, f/1.4, ISO 1000, 1/3000 second

DNG Drawbacks

1. File conversion

Since most cameras don’t natively shoot in DNG format, you need to convert your RAW files if you want to use it.

Lightroom can do this automatically for you when importing, but it does come with a drawback that may be significant. Depending on the speed of your computer and the number of RAW files you import, the conversion to DNG can take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours.

This could be problematic for some people in high-speed workflows such as sports and other action photography. Personally, I don’t mind. I just do the import/convert operation before dinner or at another time when I don’t need to start editing immediately.

I like to think of this initial conversion time as the culmination of all the seconds I used to spend waiting for RAW files to render, but all rolled into one lump sum. It’s a tradeoff I’m happy to make, but some people might find this a dealbreaker and stick with traditional RAW formats.

Image: Converting lots of RAW files to DNG can take a great deal of time. And this is time that some...

Converting lots of RAW files to DNG can take a great deal of time. And this is time that some photographers don’t have.

2. RAW metadata loss

Another drawback to the DNG format is that some of the RAW metadata gets lost during conversion. All the usual metadata you would expect is intact such as exposure, camera information, focal length, and more. But some information like GPS data, copyright information, and exact focus point don’t always transfer over.

Additionally, the built-in JPG preview gets discarded in favor of a smaller preview, which is another trick Adobe uses to bring down the size of DNG files.

Whether this information matters is up to you. Personally, I find none of the lost metadata a dealbreaker.

3. Multiple editors

One other issue you might want to consider is whether your workflow involves having multiple editors work on the same RAW file.

If that’s the case, then the lack of a sidecar file could be problematic. Essentially, the sidecar acts as a storage locker for all your edits. The RAW file is untouched, but the sidecar stores a record of your edits. This means that if you have two people working on the same RAW file, you can share your edits just by copying the sidecar files.

Edits to RAW images get stored as sidecar files. You can send these sidecar files to other editors to share your RAW edits (as long as they have the original RAW files).

If you use DNG, you have to share the entire DNG files, which can be problematic compared to the ease of copying a tiny sidecar file.

For most people, this probably won’t matter, but for those who work in editing rooms or production houses that rely on sidecar files to store edits, DNG might not be the best option.

Finally, if you research this issue long enough, you will hear some trepidation about the longevity of DNG since the biggest camera makers, like Canon, Nikon, and Sony, do not officially support it. Personally, I’m not too worried about this since DNG is a widely-adopted industry standard, and if it’s good enough for the Library of Congress, then it’s good enough for me.

How to use DNG

If you want to give DNG a try, you can start by converting some of your existing RAW files. In your Lightroom Library module, select the RAW files you want to convert and then choose Photo->Convert Photo to DNG.

I recommend checking the values you see here, though if you are ready to go all-in, you can also select the option to delete originals. The “Embed Fast Load Data” option is what really speeds things up in Lightroom.

Un-check the option to use lossy compression if you want to retain all the data from the RAW file instead of having Lightroom toss out some in favor of a smaller file size. Also, you don’t need to embed the RAW file since doing so will more than double the file size of your DNG.
Another option is to use the Copy as DNG setting when importing photos from your memory card. This will add a great deal of time during the import process since Lightroom converts every one of your RAW files to DNG.

However, for me, the tradeoff is worth it since DNGs are so much faster to work with in Lightroom compared to traditional RAW files.

RAW vs DNG

Conclusion

As with many aspects of photography, the answer here isn’t black and white, and there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The question of RAW vs DNG isn’t about which format is better, but which format suits your needs.

There is no data loss when working with DNGs, but there are some issues compared to RAW files, and it’s important that you make an informed choice.

If you have experience working with DNG files and would like to share your thoughts, I would love to have them in the comments below!

The post RAW vs DNG: What’s the Difference and Why Does it Matter? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Simon Ringsmuth.

Digital Photography School

Comments Off

Posted in Photography

The Pixel 4 can’t beat a compact camera, but that doesn’t matter

13 Nov

With its newly improved Super Resolution Zoom, the Pixel 4 makes a case for itself as a replacement for a compact camera with a 4-6x zoom range. The kind you might bring on vacation – something with a sensor that’s a little bigger and a modest zoom that won’t be too cumbersome while you explore your destination.

I took the Pixel 4 as my primary camera on a recent trip, but just to satisfy my curiosity, packed the Canon PowerShot G5 X Mark II alongside it. The Pixel 4 fell short in a couple of ways, but overall it did the job well enough that I wouldn’t have regretted taking it as my only camera. Here’s what it did well, what the dedicated camera still does best, and why I think those differences don’t matter much to most people who take pictures.

A military fort-turned-prison is kind of a weird place to take someone for their birthday, but my fiancé is into that kind of thing. Plus, it was a great excuse to quote Sean Connery saying ‘Welcome to the Rock,’ for several weeks leading up to the trip. I’d been to Alcatraz before, so I was happy to spend a little more effort and concentration on taking photos.

As you might imagine, a jailhouse provides lots of low light photography opportunities – a task that the Pixel 4 is well equipped for. Night Sight does a little bit of computational magic to create surprisingly detailed images in low light (and good light for that matter). But even the default camera mode does a very nice job in dim conditions, thanks to its ability to capture multiple frames, analyze them and assemble the best bits into one final image on the fly. In fact, it out-performed the Canon G5 X II in the situations where I tested both.

The moderately low light images below show the Pixel 4 producing a slightly more detailed, less noise-smudged image in its standard camera mode versus the Canon G5 X II’s out-of-camera JPEG.


Pixel 4 – 100% crop	Canon G5 X Mark II – 100% crop

Zoom is another story. Google has improved the Super Resolution digital zoom in the Pixel 4, boosting image quality thanks to a combo of clever algorithms and the new telephoto lens. The company claims that the camera will produce decent results up to 6x zoom, but admit that zoom is a difficult problem to solve with the current technology.

Absolutely nobody is claiming that the phone’s 4-6x zoomed images can take on a traditional camera’s zoom pixel-for-pixel, but because I’m curious I checked it out anyway. Both cameras are at 5x zoom in the example below (about 135mm equiv. for the Pixel 4 and 122mm equiv. on the G5 X II).


Pixel 4 @ 5x digital zoom – 100% crop	Canon G5 X II 5x optical zoom – 100% crop

The difference is obvious in the 100% crops above, and can be easily seen even at 50% – but then again how often will those photos be viewed on anything bigger than a computer screen? If I planned on making prints of these images, I’d still want a traditional optical zoom. But I rarely print images and I suspect I’m in the majority of the picture-taking public.

There was one more Pixel 4 camera feature that I found myself relying on that the G5 X II doesn’t offer: Dual Exposure Controls, which doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Dual Exposure Control puts a higher level of control over shadows and brightness, along with the ability to adjust them independently of each other, all before image capture

An advanced compact such as the G5 X II provides plenty of manual controls over exposure settings. What it doesn’t provide is the ability to finely tune shadows and brightness before you press the shutter: you can instead select low, medium or high levels of its Auto Lighting Optimizer.

The Pixel 4’s Dual Exposure Control gives you direct control over shadows and brightness, along with the ability to adjust them independently of each other, all before image capture. This phone and previous Google devices would do this automatically expose for backlit subjects and high-contrast scenes, but the dual controls allow you to increase or minimize the effect, depending on what you want.

The Pixel 4’s Dual Exposure Controls allowed me to slightly boost shadows in this image before pressing the shutter.

Of course the G5 X II offers plenty of editing flexibility with in-camera Raw processing, but control over settings is limited. For anything more advanced than some basic tweaks, you’ll need to take your Raw images into Lightroom or the like. On the Pixel 4, it all happens in-camera.

This potentially changes how you approach a high-contrast scene. Normally I’d expose for the highlights and bring up the shadows later, which works well but leaves me without an image to share now. This is annoying because social media has robbed me of any patience I once had. The Pixel 4 lets me make those adjustments before I take the photo – rather than having to wait until I can process the image later.

If I was keeping score, I could award a lot more points in favor of either device. Color science backed by decades of fine tuning, better picture-taking ergonomics, flip-out touchscreen for low angle shots: all points for the traditional camera. Integrated photo storage, seamless image sharing, always in your pocket: point, point, point for the Pixel 4.

What speaks louder than any arbitrary score-keeping though is the fact that I saw few, if any, compact cameras among my fellow tourists at Alcatraz. I saw mirrorless cameras, DSLRs, a few superzoom cameras and of course, lots of phones. To most of the photo-taking population though, the compact camera – even a really nice compact camera – is already history.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn’t Matter

17 Sep

graffiti wall - Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter

Many discussions in online photography groups and discussions revolve around “What’s the best camera brand?” or “What is the best lens for x?” or “Thinking about upgrading, should I pick between camera x or camera y?” and so on.

It seems that a lot of people think that there is a Holy Grail of camera gear that will solve all their problems if only they can achieve it. However they fail to understand that it isn’t the gear that matters, it’s what you do with it that counts.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - pink flower

So many people praise Ansel Adams or Cartier-Bresson as peers of the craft, yet those photographers were dealing with old film cameras. The camera in your cell phone is more powerful and advanced in technology by light years in comparison.

If all the photographers in history were capable of making lasting impactful images with old film camera hardware and development techniques – if you have a modern camera (of whatever brand you choose) or even just your cell phone – what is your excuse?

old cabin b/w - Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter

It isn’t about the gear. It has never been about the gear and as soon as you realize that, you will be free to create and shoot in a new and exciting way.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - still life image

Let’s Count the Ways That Gear Doesn’t Matter

The camera doesn’t decide what brand or model you buy, or what lens you opt for. You do your own research (presumably), make your choices, place the order and pay the money. Or perhaps you were gifted with some gear or loaned it. Maybe you just have a phone with a camera. It doesn’t matter, they are all cameras with essentially the same capability to capture images.
Your camera doesn’t haul itself out of bed early in the morning to get to the desired destination for a sunrise shot. It doesn’t drive for hours to get to a pretty lake, nor does it pack itself into a backpack and hike its way into the mountains to get the perfect shot – would be nice if it did though!

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - ice and snow in the sun

This image was taken on a recent camera club trip in the mountains – roughly 4 hours drive from home. Lying full length on a snow bank to brace to get this shot, I chose to do it backlit for the desired creative outcome.

The camera doesn’t decide what the composition will be, it doesn’t walk this way and that way, crouch down low, or climb up looking for a better vantage point.
The camera doesn’t go without its daily latte for a year, while it saves up to go on holiday to an exotic destination so it can take lovely new photos while its there.
Your camera doesn’t sit for hours on the side of a river, lake, or estuary waiting for the birds to come close enough to shoot.
The lens doesn’t decide, “Hey I want to be the lens on your camera today, shoot with me all day”.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - rolling hills landscape

Unless you are a complete beginner and shooting with everything on Auto, the camera doesn’t decide what settings it’s going to use. Nor does it decide when to click the shutter, when is exactly the right time to take the shot.
The camera doesn’t say, “I don’t want to shoot macro today, instead let’s do architecture instead, I’m bored with flowers”.
The camera doesn’t go, “I know it’s going to be cold and frosty tomorrow in the snow but it will be super pretty so let’s get up early to take photos before everyone walks all over it”.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - food photo setup

A behind the scenes shot of what it takes to stage a food photography shot – I haven’t even got the camera out yet.

There are so many decisions that you, the photographer make, that are essential to the image being created. But you could get the same shot with a Canon, or Nikon/Pentax/Sony or whatever brand you have.

For many of the shots that are taken, a recent cellphone has a pretty good camera in it and will do a good job too.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - flower abstract

Specifically mounted and lit against a black background, this was deliberately shot with selective focus and edited for a dark moody rich color tone.

What the Photographer Does Matters

You are the one saving up to go on the exciting holiday, deciding where to go, what time of year, what places to visit, what things you might want to see and photograph.
It’s you that decides how your image is going to be composed – portrait/landscape, close in or far away, what the subject is, what aperture or shutter speed to use for the desired creative outcome.
You choose your subject, you decide how the image is going to look, where you will shoot from, what height/angle, and what settings you will use.
You make the creative choices such as is it going to be macro, or shot with a very wide open aperture for a blurred background. Perhaps a long telephoto lens to separate the subject from the background. Maybe an ultrawide or fisheye lens for a different look, or even an old vintage lens with swirly bokeh. You choose the gear and decide how you are going to use it at any given point in time.
It’s you that makes the sacrifice to get out of bed early in the morning for the sunrise shots.
You load up the gear, put on walking shoes, load up a drink bottle and head off into the unknown for an adventure and you earn your blisters and sore feet.
If you are a food photographer, you might spend hours baking in the kitchen to create tasty treats which you then spend ages styling and propping before you eventually shoot.
If you are a portrait photographer you might dabble in hair or makeup, and you absolutely need to have control of the light, shaping and modifying it to suit the desired outcome.
Maternity photographers probably have to do some hair/makeup/clothing as well as set design and lighting for newborn shots.
If you are a wedding photographer you probably have a bag full of tricks and emergency supplies to cope with any last minute drama or wardrobe failure, plus you have to wrangle all of the people on what is often a stressful day.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - frosty morning mountains

Minus 6C Hoar Frost – yeah it was pretty cold getting out of bed that morning but it was totally worth it.

There are so many creative choices that you can make – high key or low key, black and white or color, cool or warm tones, tight abstract or bigger picture, low to the ground or eye level, morning/daytime/evening light – but none of these references your gear at all. These are all things you may even decide before you even pick up the camera.

So much of what we do is visualizing the image in our heads, and putting in place the required circumstances or situations to make that image happen. You may have to save for a couple of years to afford the trip to Patagonia or Alaska. Perhaps you might chase storms for months before you get the absolute best cloud formation or lightning shot you were after.

You might get up night after night to capture an aurora or every morning for a month to get the stunning sunrise. Maybe you have to wait until the next breeding season to get the shot of the bird that only flies in once a year. Plus you have to stake out a nest, build a hide and keep it secret.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - cutlery still life

Sometimes Gear Does Matter

Yes, there are absolutely situations when having a specific piece of gear totally matters. It is difficult to take macro shots of things if you don’t have a macro lens, or extension tubes or similar options.

Having a longer lens makes those birding shots a lot easier as well, not only are birds skittish, they can fly away from you. Plus you should be a responsible environmentally aware photographer and stay out of their habitat and not scare them deliberately.

I don’t shoot astrophotography but am aware that there are recommended lens choices to get the best outcome for your night shots.

Sports, action, and wildlife photographers usually want a camera with a high burst rate for the action shots, fast focus action, and reasonably good high ISO for low light situations and a really long lens.

Wedding photographers need high-performance camera/lens options that are adaptable to a range of situations and can work in low light.

If you want to do soft flowing waterfalls and waves, neutral density filters, a tripod, and a remote shutter are usually requirements.

So yes, there will always be situations where you do need specialty gear, but the same rules apply. You still need to make all the creative choices and decisions. Adding that extra hardware choice into the mix just becomes part of it.

Why Your Camera Gear Doesn't Matter - flowing water frozen in the air

To get this shot I needed a 70-200mm lens mounted on a tripod and then I experimented with fast shutter speeds to get capture the motion in the water and the splashes.

Conclusion

Being there matters. Having the right light matters. Your subject choice matters. How you choose to frame up the composition matters. Your creative choices matter. Post-processing matters.

What gear you use to take the shot – doesn’t matter.

Any general camera gear can do the job for the vast majority of images taken. Does the brand matter? No.

Is it a cell phone? If you can take images you are happy with on a cell phone, then keep doing it.

Are there situations where specific lenses or gear makes a difference? Absolutely, and yes you probably will need to have what’s required to make those images.

But not everyone wants to do macro. Lots of people have no need for a tilt-shift lens for those architecture shots. 600mm lens that weighs several kilos? No thanks!

Street art in Melbourne, Australia. Some of these laneways are so hidden away only a local knows where to find them.

But even when you do get the specialty gear, there are usually multiple choices of options to purchase. But again, the brand doesn’t matter.

Even if you do have the top-end camera with the fanciest tripod, the longest lens with all the bells and whistles…unless YOU take it out and use it, it isn’t going off and having photography adventures on its own.

As the saying goes, “The best camera is the one you have with you” so work with what you have, learn to use it to the best of your ability. Experiment, be creative, try different things, push your boundaries and have fun.

My camera does landscape, nature, birds, macro, food, still life, fine art self-portraits, flowers, cats, long exposures, black and whites, high key, low key, sports, abstract, events and probably many other things I have yet to point it at.

What does matter is that you are out there, with whatever gear you have, and are using it.

Happy shooting!

The post Why Your Camera Gear Doesn’t Matter appeared first on Digital Photography School.

Digital Photography School

Comments Off

Posted in Photography

Why brand market share shouldn’t matter to you

11 Mar

The best-selling camera with 8 buttons, in the western Tri-state area, last Tuesday between 11:47 and 11:49.

“We’re #1 in full frame*,” scream the press releases from the three big full frame camera makers. And, given the price and apparent appeal of the Sony a7 III, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more screaming once it hits the shelves.

The precise wording changes, as does the length of the list of caveats that follows that all-important asterisk but, I’d argue: what doesn’t change is that it’s simple boosterism. And you should pretty much ignore it.

There are a couple of reasons I say this. The first is that, even if you take all the footnotes (in this month, in that territory…) into account, the numbers don’t really tell you very much.

These announcements mainly tell you whose turn it is to be king for the day

Part of this is because you’re cherry-picking data from a small sample: there are only three big brands in the sector and very few products being launched. This means the launch of a new model inevitably causes a sales spike and this can see one brand jump in front of the others in the sales chart. A new model will sell more through pre-orders than an existing competitor that, post launch spike, has been selling steadily for 23 months. So, rather than saying which camera is king, these announcements mainly tell you whose turn it is to be king for the day.

Existing commitments

It’s interesting, of course, when similar models, such as Nikon’s D850 and Sony’s a7R III get launched around the same time. But even though they are targeted at pretty similar customers, the winner of the sales race doesn’t tell you much about the cameras because there’s already a degree of brand loyalty baked into the market.

Investment in lenses and accessories means that anyone already shooting full frame is very unlikely to switch systems. So, if we assume a good proportion of new full frame sales are being made to exactly these photographers, you realize much of the current popularity was defined years ago.

And this doesn’t just apply to people who’re already shooting full frame. The manufacturer-promoted (though arguably mythical) concept of the upgrade path can lead to people feeling committed, or to commit themselves to a system, even if they aren’t shooting full frame.

There’s tremendous inertia to overcome before any brand can make headway in the pro sector. Even once Sony’s 400mm F2.8 becomes available, it’s not going to displace all those Canon ‘L’ lenses overnight.

All these issues are amplified at the high/pro-end of the market. Not only are many pro-orientated lenses much more expensive, thereby increasing the financial commitment to a system, but there’s also a chance that some of your kit belongs to your employer or that you’re already a member of one brand’s pro support network.

So a lot of sales figures are more about whether a brand has convinced its existing user-base to modernize/upgrade, rather than about stealing customers away from other systems.

Further inertia

To cause any significant amount of brand switching a camera would have to be compellingly better. And people have to recognize it.

Canon stole a huge march over Nikon in the early days of autofocus and the sea of white lenses that flanks the sidelines of sports games are a testament to that, as much as anything else. Canon could release a stinker (or, in the case of the EOS-1D III, a camera that develops the reputation as one), but that’s not going to drive customers away unless they release a series of duds and the competition is doing something noticeably better. Again, this counts double for professionals.

To cause any significant amount of brand switching a camera would have to be compellingly better. And people have to recognize it.

Even if one brand does fall behind, its users may not notice. For a while Canon lagged behind in dynamic range, but that didn’t see any mass exodus because many Canon shooters, having not experienced the difference and having adapted to the capabilities of their existing cameras, simply didn’t notice. After all, you can’t miss what you’ve never had. So it’s unlikely many Canon photographers felt any impetus to switch, even though there was a real-world photographic benefit to doing so. Now that Canon has essentially closed that gap and opened up a new front with the development of Dual Pixel AF, the moment has passed.

So while we felt the EOS 6D II was a bit disappointing, compared with its rivals it’s still good enough that existing Canon buyers will stick with ‘their’ system and perhaps never be aware that the grass might be greener just one field over.

Until the fog clears, it’s all bluster

Which is to say: these numbers don’t tell you anything at all about how good the respective brands’ cameras are.

They might tell you something interesting about whether a new technology is finding a foothold in the market, but without a lot more context, it’s hard to meaningfully interpret even that. For instance, no matter what Sony proclaims, it’ll probably take a few more years to establish whether mirrorless is making inroads into DSLR sales or to what extent it’s simply expanding the market.

These numbers don’t tell you anything at all about how good the respective brands’
cameras are

I can see that sales success of the system you’ve bought into can give some reassurance that it has a future, but should you care about how one brand is performing relative to another? Since the numbers tell you next-to-nothing about camera quality or even much about what’s happening in the market, I’d argue most discussion of sales rankings are simply fanboyism. And the canny stirring of it by marketing departments.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Photography Equipment Comparisons – Entry-Level Versus High-End Gear Does it Matter?

16 Feb

Photographers tend to get obsessed with having the latest, greatest toys. But does it matter which camera or bits of equipment you use? If so, how much? Or is it more about how you use it, and the skills you possess?

Let’s take a look at three video comparisons of some of the top level photography equipment available and some entry-level options.

Rich photographer – poor photographer

I like the play on words here, hinting at the concept of the “Rich Dad Poor Dad” series of books by Robert Kiyosaki. In the video, the guys over at f-stoppers do a portrait shoot with two different sets of lighting equipment. One which costs nearly $ 10,000, and the “poor man’s” version which will run you about $ 425.

Can you see a difference in the final portrait results? No, I can’t see much difference either.

$ 1100 versus $ 5499

In this second video, Peter McKinnon looks at the virtues of both the Canon 80D ($ 1099) and the Canon 1Dx Mark II (Note: at the time of writing, this camera is listed at $ 5499). Is the latter worth five times as much? You decide.

If you are a sports shooter, you may need the extra frames per second rate the 1DX offers. But if you’re a wildlife photographer you may prefer the extended reach of the crop sensor in the 80D. Portrait photography can be done with either, but you likely don’t need to spend the extra money on the 1DX if that’s what you shoot.

Note: when the video was made the 1DX was likely priced higher, so please note the difference in prices in the video to current pricing.

Camera shootout – it’s not about the gear

In this last video let’s see what happens if two professional photographers each pick up an entry-level Canon Rebel T3i and hand their Canon 5D Mark IV to an amateur. They do a little shootout with the same model, in the same lighting conditions and studio. Let’s see who comes out on top.

The Canon T3i is discontinued, the price for the current model, the T6 is $ 449 with the 18-55mm lens. The Canon 5D Mark IV is $ 3299 + $ 1699 for the 35mm f/1.4 lens shown in the video = total $ 4998.

Your thoughts?

So what are your thoughts after watching the videos? Have you made the decision to invest in high-end lenses or a full frame camera body? If so, have you found it to fill your needs better – was it worth it? Let’s discuss in the comments below.

The post Photography Equipment Comparisons – Entry-Level Versus High-End Gear Does it Matter? by Darlene Hildebrandt appeared first on Digital Photography School.

Digital Photography School

Comments Off

Posted in Photography

Lens Rentals test shows all circular polarizing filters work great, price doesn’t matter

20 Sep

Photo: Roger Cicala/Lens Rentals

Our friend Roger Cicala over at Lens Rentals is at it again: buying up super expensive optical testing equipment because someone asked him why LR carries the circular polarizing filters they do. The answer, until now, was simple: make the expensive one on the market their high-end rental, and the cheapest one their “basic.” But is there really any difference?

That’s what Roger set out to figure out, and the answer might save you a little bit of cash.

You can read the full post and see all of the detailed results on the Lens Rentals blog, but the most surprising and positive conclusion was this:

All circular polarizers, regardless of price, are 99.9% effective at polarizing light.

Translation: if you’re looking for a circular polarizer because … well … you want to polarize light then save your money because the cheaper ones work just as well as the more expensive ones.

In addition to their ability to do what they say they do, Cicala and LR team tested CP filters for overall transmission (how much light to they let through) and transmission by wavelength so you can see what effect each filter has on the colors your camera sees. Check out the results here.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

Subject tracking: Why it matters to us and why it should matter to you

19 Mar

On many cameras, subject tracking (choosing your subject and letting the camera track as you hold your composition) has gotten very, very good.
Nikon AF-S 24mm F1.8 @ F2.8 | 1/8000 | ISO 320.
Photo by Rishi Sanyal

Digital cameras, and for that matter, film cameras, have offered autofocus for a number of decades now. It’s evolved from just one point to many hundreds of points over the years, allowing for varying degrees of control. You can leave the whole focusing process up to the camera and let it choose what it thinks is your subject; you can just use a single point of your choosing; or you can dance in the middle-ground using a zone or group of points that you select and keep over your subject, while the camera attempts to compensate if your subject veers toward the outside of that zone.

Outright subject tracking, though, is something else. You select the subject you want, usually with a single point or a single zone, initiate focus, and the camera does the rest. It will attempt to identify the size, color and distance of your chosen subject and do its best to track that subject around the frame, whether your framing changes or your subject moves.

This isn’t a particularly challenging use case, but it’s a good demo of how subject tracking works on Nikon’s D5 in 3D Tracking mode. Note focus is initiated at the beginning of the run, and the camera automatically keeps an AF point over Richard while constantly refocusing; even when shooting at 12fps.

Many people don’t have trust their cameras to do this, and until the last few generations of digital cameras, we wouldn’t have recommended it; but manufacturers continue to invest in pushing this technology forward. Established professionals in particular are highly unlikely to shoot this way, because once you’ve worked one way and can reliably get results you’re happy with, why would you change?

But believe us; good subject tracking is really something special, and it’s worth your time to give it a go. Frankly, it has the potential to forever change the way you shoot, for the better.

Why does it even matter anyway?

There are cases both for and against using subject tracking. In high speed, peak action sports, an experienced photographer would likely do a fine job (or better job) by using a cluster, group or zone of autofocus points and follow the action his or herself. But for those who are less experienced, or when shooting at longer focal lengths where following the subject can be more difficult, or when just shooting really erratic and unpredictable motion, subject tracking can be a tremendous help. It got me a number of keepers at a rugby match on a Panasonic camera even though it was the first time I’d ever photographed rugby, and the Nikon D5 was great for low-light soccer.


1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12

In the above example from a Nikon D5, our tech editor Rishi Sanyal initiated focus on the kayaker, fired a short burst, kept tracking him with the shutter half-pressed, and then fired another burst that kept accurate focus despite the kayaker basically disappearing underwater for a moment. This gave Rishi an abundance of options for editing, allowing him to get just the moment he was after with that may not have been possible without the use of 3D Tracking. Click here to see the final edited photograph.

It’s true that most manufacturers, despite constantly improving their tracking algorithms with newer models, somehow still don’t recommend subject tracking for these sorts of situations; but in our experience, it still seems to work most of the time anyway.

What other sorts of situations could benefit from using subject tracking? Turns out, a lot.

Weddings are one situation in which I find subject tracking invaluable. For this shot, you could frame up your composition, initiate autofocus on the bride at the beginning of her walk down the aisle, and fire away as she moves through the scene with the camera constantly focusing. Ironically, I didn’t use tracking here because on this camera it’s a menu-dive to access that setting, and single AF is super fast; but the catch is I ended up with fewer options this way.
Leica Q | ISO 2500 | 1/125 sec | F2
Photo by Carey Rose

Events and weddings are great use-cases for subject tracking. You can initiate focus on the bride (or groom) in a scene, and simply keep continuously focusing on them as they move around, dance, interact with guests, and so on. You don’t have to take the time to move your focus point around, which could results in missed shots, and you don’t have to focus and recompose, which can result in missed focus when shooting at really wide apertures. You can end up with a greater variety of images and more options to choose from when it comes time to edit.

Another use case is candid portraiture. When you can reliably lock focus on a subject’s face or eye and are able to move the camera around while it continues to track focus, that allows you to sample multiple compositions really quickly. It also allows you that much more creative freedom to focus on those compositions in the first place instead of constantly having to move your focus point to catch up to what you’re seeing in your head. Autofocus point placement becomes just one less thing you have to think about.

The elephant in the article – just give it a try

Now, you may have noticed that most of the examples and references in this article are from high-end Nikon cameras, and the reason is not a personal bias; we’ve consistently called out this feature for a while now on mid-to-high end Nikons because we find it to be industry-leading.

But if you’re not a Nikonian, don’t fret! Almost every major consumer camera manufacturer has subject tracking in some form. Panasonic’s tracking system works reliably well, in both rugby and in social situations. Sony’s Eye AF feature is truly amazing. Olympus’ C-AF + Tracking is fairly robust, and Canon’s Dual Pixel AF is probably the best face detection and recognition system out there.

In short, experiment a little, give it a try and happy shooting!

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized

It was only a matter of time… new app turns your Instagram into virtual art gallery

08 Jun

Have you ever wanted to see your photographs on the wall of an art gallery? Come on – be honest. Your cat pictures deserve a wider audience, and the makers of new app ‘Instamuseum’ agree.

Instamuseum converts any Instagram account into a 3D virtual reality experience, placing images (up to 90) from the feed on the walls of a computer-generated gallery space. There are four templates available (including ‘Louvre’) and the rendered space can be explored using VR goggles or using a more conventional pan / zoom interface in a desktop browser.

Instamuseum for @dpreview by barney.britton on Sketchfab

Coming in the same week as the actual Louvre gallery in Paris (into which we’ve placed DPReview’s Instagram feed, above) was evacuated due to historic flooding, we can’t help wondering if this is just another sign of the end times. Let us know what you think in the comments.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Comments Off

Posted in Uncategorized