Brief Advice on Learning Photography

SOMEONE WRITES “I am buying a new camera, but cannot make up my mind…” The correspondent then lists a number of expensive recent-model cameras, commenting on various technical features, and why one might be more suitable than other for his stated purpose of taking photographs of sports, and of wildlife while hiking. He states that he is a beginner.


A camera purchase can be an agonizing experience, especially given the choices available.

When I first got into digital photography, back in the year 2001, I spent hours going over the reviews, and ended up getting a very expensive camera, one which was a top-rated camera back in those days. I wanted a camera mainly for taking nature photos while hiking.

I was extremely disappointed in my photographs, and wasn't able to return the camera for a refund. That disappointment killed my interest in photography for a number of years.

Later, only when I needed to deliver good-quality photos, did I learn about photography, and so I discovered that my ‘bad’ camera was actually pretty good, especially after I learned the basics of composition, white balance, and exposure. Also, I learned to overcome some poor features of the camera with the right post-processing software and techniques.

Be aware that the newest cameras today operate in a similar manner to cameras decades old; and old problems such as the color of light, and the basics of focus, exposure, and shutter speeds haven’t changed. Newer cameras won't do the thinking for you, although they try sometimes. Don't expect that a camera will make your photography good.

If you are a person who tends to get buyer’s remorse, then I would not suggest spending too much money on something, even if reviews and people like me strongly recommend it. However, I would avoid getting something that lots of people criticize. Rather, look for good values.

Until you know what you are doing, you are merely guessing at this time. Don't worry too much about it, we've all gone through it. Here are some suggestions:

• Obtain or borrow an inexpensive camera, maybe one that is used. A super zoom camera might be good, or an older, used DSLR with a good zoom lens. If you are worried about making the right purchase, then spending only a little money on something OK might be better than getting an expensive camera that will be disappointing.
• Go out and shoot lots of photos with it, under a variety of conditions, of various subjects.
• Simultaneously, learn the basic theory of photography: exposure, shutter speeds, aperture, ISO speed, focus, etc. Learn the basics of general visual arts theory: composition, light, color: find good photographs and paintings and study them; find out what makes them good. Learn how to use your camera; don’t try to make lots of adjustments to your camera at first.
• Get feedback from your images. You can post photos on the DPreview forums and other places. It is most important that you post disappointing photos there, and ask why a particular photo might be disappointing. You are likely to get excellent feedback if you present a problematic photo and ask for advice for improvement.
• Take the advice and experiment some more. See if your photos are less disappointing.
• Find a fellow photo hobbyist or club and go out shooting with them, especially one who is more experienced.
• I would not post photos on forums that you think are really good, expecting praise from others. Very often I’ve seen beginner photographers post photos, saying “look how great my photo is,” and they end up being savagely criticized. This is the nature of the modern artistic ego which seeks perfection: a thick skin is needed at times. A measure of humility is needed: rather, post a photo and ask for suggested improvements. Eventually you might be surprised and get lots of compliments.
• Learn the basics of post-processing on the computer. Beginners tend to become enamored of special effects, but instead try to thoroughly learn the basics of levels, contrast, white balance, resizing, cropping, sharpening, etc.
• Once you gain lots of hard-earned knowledge and experience, then you will pretty much know what kind of purchases you will need in the future.

Many beginners go through a phase of loving the photographic process, first placing lots of emphasis on gear, and then later on techniques. That is natural. But always keep your eye on the final purpose of photography: making good photographs.

Composition, Part 2 - Composition and Subject in Landscape Photography

A WHILE BACK, I got a somewhat difficult assignment: I was to photograph a considerable number of city parks for a coffee table photo book. While I liked my architectural photos, I’d always been rather disappointed with my landscapes, as I mentioned in an earlier article, Composition, Part 1 - the Frame. My publisher, Reedy Press, must have thought I was up to the task, even though I was uncertain. But with a year to study, experiment, and shoot, I was able to successfully produce many good photos. Certainly I’m no master of the subject, but I think it might be useful to share some of what I learned while shooting this book.



The final book, St. Louis Parks, turned out well, and it is well-recieved by the public. Please click here if you would like to purchase a copy, autographed by me.

My publisher selected the photo above for the cover of the book, and I generally like it. It isn’t perfect — the sky appears to have a slight greenish tone, especially when seen under fluorescent illumination (although it is correctly white-balanced, and I didn’t alter the hue in post-processing), and the image is a bit darker than I’d like. The formal symmetry, with the fountain and building centered with each other and with the frame, is pleasing to me, but it is slightly off — although this is offset by the presence of the spine, not seen here, on the left hand of the book. What makes the photo, I think, is the presence of teenagers enjoying the fountain; having human subjects in a landscape photo is often appealing. The photo is technically OK, has a good subject, and is composed adequately, making it, in the opinion of my publisher, good enough to be on the cover of a book.

Generally speaking, there is a certain lightness of spirit or relief you can get when you leave certain decisions to others — were I to have selected the photos for the book, I think I would have agonized too much over them, seeing little else than flaws. Instead, my publisher selected images that he thought had general appeal, and he usually selected my favorites. Artists are often not the best judges of their works. Getting a sense of what is good takes understanding, time, and experience, as well as receiving the good judgement of others.

The first step towards getting better in photography, or any art, I think, is to understand why your works are disappointing, and understanding what makes good images superior. This can be exceptionally difficult, for oftentimes it is hard to put vague feelings into words.  Determining what actions to take can be difficult also, for it requires an understanding of the technology. For example, you may find that your photographs are too yellow, but you have to understand color theory in order to know that you must make the photos more blue to cancel out the yellow, and you have to understand manual white balance on the camera, or the use of post-processing on the computer to correct for this flaw.

Nothing to do About Photography...

...BUT PERHAPS AN inspiration to those seriously interested in the art of photography. Take a look at The Textile Blog: Design, Decoration and Craft.

Textiles and photographs are both flat, basically two-dimensional art forms. Both are typically made by machines and are usually not hand-made, although there is much artistry in both mediums. Certainly there is something for a photographer to learn about composition and art from examining other, similar art forms.

We live in an age of increased specialization, rationalization of labor, narrow job categories, hair-splitting definitions of genres, and narrow disciplines that do not understand each other. Now, some can call this individuality, but this division perversely leads to centralization, excess standardization, and the sense that we are seen as easily-replacable cogs in a huge machine, and not as free men and women.

For this reason, I think that a good education in the liberal arts is important if you want to improve your art, as well as avoiding too much specialization in art. The Textile Blog seems to understand this, and features artists who were much more and broader in scope in their artwork than what we tend see these days.

"The False Photographer"

ON THE LIMITS of photography:

This weakness in civilisation is best expressed by saying that it cares more for science than for truth. It prides itself on its "methods" more than its results; it is satisfied with precision, discipline, good communications, rather than with the sense of reality. But there are precise falsehoods as well as precise facts. Discipline may only mean a hundred men making the same mistake at the same minute. And good communications may in practice be very like those evil communications which are said to corrupt good manners. Broadly, we have reached a “scientific age,” which wants to know whether the train is in the timetable, but not whether the train is in the station. I take one instance in our police inquiries that I happen to have come across: the case of photography.

Some years ago a poet of considerable genius tragically disappeared, and the authorities or the newspapers circulated a photograph of him, so that he might be identified. The photograph, as I remember it, depicted or suggested a handsome, haughty, and somewhat pallid man with his head thrown back, with long distinguished features, colourless thin hair and slight moustache, and though conveyed merely by the head and shoulders, a definite impression of height. If I had gone by that photograph I should have gone about looking for a long soldierly but listless man, with a profile rather like the Duke of Connaught's.

Only, as it happened, I knew the poet personally; I had seen him a great many times, and he had an appearance that nobody could possibly forget, if seen only once. He had the mark of those dark and passionate Westland Scotch, who before Burns and after have given many such dark eyes and dark emotions to the world. But in him the unmistakable strain, Gaelic or whatever it is, was accentuated almost to oddity; and he looked like some swarthy elf. He was small, with a big head and a crescent of coal-black hair round the back of a vast dome of baldness. Immediately under his eyes his cheekbones had so high a colour that they might have been painted scarlet; three black tufts, two on the upper lip and one under the lower, seemed to touch up the face with the fierce moustaches of Mephistopheles. His eyes had that "dancing madness" in them which Stevenson saw in the Gaelic eyes of Alan Breck; but he sometimes distorted the expression by screwing a monstrous monocle into one of them. A man more unmistakable would have been hard to find. You could have picked him out in any crowd—so long as you had not seen his photograph.

But in this scientific picture of him twenty causes, accidental and conventional, had combined to obliterate him altogether. The limits of photography forbade the strong and almost melodramatic colouring of cheek and eyebrow. The accident of the lighting took nearly all the darkness out of the hair and made him look almost like a fair man. The framing and limitation of the shoulders made him look like a big man; and the devastating bore of being photographed when you want to write poetry made him look like a lazy man. Holding his head back, as people do when they are being photographed (or shot), but as he certainly never held it normally, accidentally concealed the bald dome that dominated his slight figure. Here we have a clockwork picture, begun and finished by a button and a box of chemicals, from which every projecting feature has been more delicately and dexterously omitted than they could have been by the most namby-pamby flatterer, painting in the weakest water-colours, on the smoothest ivory.

I happen to possess a book of Mr. Max Beerbohm's caricatures, one of which depicts the unfortunate poet in question. To say it represents an utterly incredible hobgoblin is to express in faint and inadequate language the license of its sprawling lines. The authorities thought it strictly safe and scientific to circulate the poet's photograph. They would have clapped me in an asylum if I had asked them to circulate Max's caricature. But the caricature would have been far more likely to find the man.

— G.K. Chesterton, “The False Photographer”, from A Miscellany of Men.

Quick Tips for Food Photography

1. Shoot quickly — food fresh out of the oven or refrigerator looks better.
2. Use natural sky lighting. Food often lacks definition, so a small or fairly distant window can produce good shading. Generally, you want the light to provide sharp, well-defined shadows to enhance the texture of the food. You may have to use fill-in reflectors, otherwise color and texture will be lost if large areas of shadows are too dark. Aim for a 1-to-2 E.V. range between large lit and shadowed areas: of course, dark shadows under a plate for example are completely acceptable, just not on the main parts of the food itself.
3. Avoid using the camera's own flash. Avoid mixing natural and artificial lighting, unless both have a close color balance. Authorities in food photography state that it is difficult to use artificially lighting well:  when they do use it, they prefer small, distant light sources to provide sharper shadows.
4. Set your exposure and post-processing so that you get good highlights on the food: having a full exposure range will also bring out the colors of the food (in Photoshop, using Levels or Curves in RGB mode will enhance color). Be sure that you don't overexpose too large of areas because you might get muddy color shifts. It is OK to overexpose specular highlights.
5. The color of food is very important to make it look appetizing. Be sure to do a good color balance. Contemporary food photograph seems to prefer a slightly cool color balance, while traditional food photography preferred slightly warm: both look good, as long as the color balance is close to neutral.
6. Use props to good effect, such as tablecloths, utensils, glasses, napkins and shakers. But be aware that the food itself is the main subject and shouldn't be overwhelmed with secondary items.
7. Contemporary food photography uses very shallow depth of field, and prefers lenses with excellent bokeh or background blur. This is tricky to do right, for you have to judge the correct focus point. While I think this effect is attractive, perhaps it is a bit overdone. Some use tilt/shift lenses — or even bellows cameras with these motions — in order to precisely control the plane of focus.
8. Food photography is essentially still-life photography. There is an immense body of work in still-life, particularly with painting. Do some research and use still-life theory to good effect.
9. Your image may not look like you remember seeing it, due to the dim-light adaptation of the human eye. In particular, your image and texture may look a bit flat. In this situation, food photos may benefit from having the blue color channel blended into the image to give greater contrast to specific colors. See my articles on the Purkinje Correction.
10. Get low. Typically, we look down on food at about a 45 degree angle; this might not be best for getting a good shot. Get a bit lower.
11.  Check your background. Be sure it doesn't detract from the food, which is your main subject. Classical still life preferred a black background, while contemporary food photography likes a white or pastel background, completely out of focus. You don't want the eye to be distracted by the background in most cases. Alternatively, your photo may only show the table top.
12. Food benefits from extreme lens sharpness. Macro lenses are particularly prized for this sort of work. Use a sturdy tripod and focus carefully. In post processing, use good techniques to preserve and enhance sharpness.
13. To give a good perspective, most food photographers use a slight telephoto lens for this work, and set their camera several feet away from the food, and six feet would be better. If you have a stylist, be sure there is plenty of room for working between the camera and the subject.  The wider angle the lens, the more area you have to control for your photo: but some have employed wide angles and great depth of field to portray an entire kitchen along with the food.
14. Food styling — that is, preparing the food itself to look good in photography — is a an advanced specialty, and can be quite involved. I recommend the book Food Styling: The Art of Preparing Food for the Camera by Delores Custer.
15. My food photography can be seen in the book Thursday Night Pizza, by Fr. Dominic Garramone. Click here to see larger photos of the pizzas: these photos were taken from directly above with no photo styling, per instructions from the publisher. Otherwise I used natural sky lighting, reflectors, and accurate white balance. I used an antique Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Micro lens for sharpness, with the camera being located about six feet above the pizzas.

Photoshop Wishlist #1

I AM CURRENTLY evaluating Adobe Photoshop CS5 on my computer, and have 18 days left until the trial copy expires. For the most part, I am delighted by the product, and see many improvements over my old CS3 version. It does not require that much additional computer power — and sometimes it uses even less, since it uses the graphics processor and memory to do tasks once reserved for the main processor.

Photoshop is a venerable, highly developed and nuanced product, and like any complex, actively developed system that's been around for a long time, has many features which see little use nowadays, as well as the refinement to be able to do important things very, very well.

However, a highly developed system may find it difficult to adapt to new conditions, having been optimized for previous conditions. Photoshop has its roots as a raster image processor primarily for graphics arts professionals, and is well-known as a good platform for doing digital art, with its excellent support of many paintbrush-like tools for creating images from scratch. But it is also used in photography, as its name suggests. I am beginning to see some limitations of its photographic capabilities, and one major limit is that images are always strictly bound to an output medium.

For most Photoshop users, this limit means that you edit your images in the sRGB color space, with eight bits per color channel. That isn't too bad, and this is an obvious approach for 90% of all users: after all, that is the standard format used by most cameras and Internet web browsers. Certainly you would want to edit a file in the format which the camera delivers and what your computer can display. Photoshop does things the way it ought to be — right?

I see some problems with this. Each color channel has a maximum value of 255, a minimum value of 0, and we can use only integer steps between: 1, 2, 3, and so forth, with no intermediate values. This lack of precision is of little consequence to most users, and if you do need greater precision — for example, if you are applying severe curves to your image — then certainly you can use 16 bit mode (as I do) to increase the number of possible values. This extra precision helps avoid digital processing artifacts such as banding, and also lets you get better shadow detail.

CS5 has a great improvement over CS3 in that it allows far more operations on 32 bit images, giving us great precision in image manipulation; I haven't tried it yet, but look forward to experimenting with it.

But that isn't good enough. I'd like to see fractional RGB numbers. I want RGB values greater than 255.  I want negative RGB numbers. But this is madness! You cannot display an image with RGB values greater than 255! And what on earth are negative RGB values? Those are clearly impossible, there is no such thing as negative light!

But remember that I stated that in Photoshop images are always bound to a specific output medium, which for most photographer users is probably 8 bit sRGB. While clearly I do eventually want an 8 bit sRGB image, while I work on processing an image, there may be times when my intermediate files will be out of that gamut. And I do process my images mainly in the wide ProPhoto gamut — or in the ultra-wide L*a*b colorspace — with 16 bits per channel to overcome the limits of sRGB, at least temporarily.

Do not think of processing images as a step-by-step process, where each increment produces a superior image.  Sometimes you have to make an image look worse before you can make it look better. I propose making images so bad that they are impossible to print, or even view accurately on your computer monitor — at least temporarily.

For example, when I apply a severe curve to an image, anything that ought to go over 255 is set to 255, and so we lose information and image detail. However, if its value ought to be 300, I want it to be 300, even though it is out of the gamut for the time being.  If I tell Photoshop to make an image twice as bright, I want the entire image to be twice as bright, without worrying about losing highlight detail. I will deal with the gamut when I need to deal with it, which is when I'm preparing the final image for print or web display.

I often add together multiple images to make a final image. What I have to do is apply an opacity to each layer (which is like doing division) to get my final result, but certainly there must be severe rounding errors, and we are losing tremendous amounts of detail in the shadows as a result, which is a bad thing, and especially since digital photography is known for often having terrible shadows. What I would like to do is be able to add together images with impunity. Image addition, which is called Linear Burn in Photoshop, has a maximum value of 255, but if the final value of all this addition ought to be 500, that is what I would like to see.

Generally speaking, I would like to see in Photoshop a pure kind of image algebra, where we can do all sorts of operations on images in a way that follows the standard rules of arithmetic, such as add, subtract, multiply, and divide, as well as other more obscure operations such as exponentials. To do this accurately, we can't have the hard cutoffs of 0 and 255, nor should be we limited to mere integers.

This brings us to negative RGB numbers. These in fact can represent real colors. For example, if you work in a narrow-gamut color space similar to sRGB, and you want to represent a real color outside of its gamut, you can mathematically represent this if you are willing to allow at least one RGB number which is negative or greater than 255. So a negative RGB does not mean negative light, but rather that it is merely an out-of-gamut condition. If we are allowed to use negative numbers — and numbers greater than 255 —  then we will be able to represent all colors while still using a system that is otherwise identical to our narrow-gamut color system. This system will remain relative to a particular gamut, while not being limited to that gamut.

This has many benefits to a careful Photoshop user. If you work in the ProPhoto or Adobe RGB color spaces, and I know many people do, how then do you know that a particular color is out of sRGB gamut? Certainly you can turn on the Gamut Warning feature (I use it all the time), but how can you create a mask for this sort of thing? Can you tell, just by looking at an RGB value, that it is out of gamut? By using large and negative numbers, we can then precisely identify what is out of gamut simply by the numbers: is it greater than 255 or less than 0?

I often attempt to brighten shadows, and try to add lots of local contrast so that dark areas of an image still appear to be dark to the eye, yet in fact are not all that dark, and instead show lots of detail. This is often impossible to do well due to the arithmetical rounding errors found in low RGB values, which is a contributing factor to noise.  Ideally, a numerical representation of RGB would give equal precision to all levels of perceived brightness, but that is not what we currently have, as can be seen in the illustration below:



Most of our current systems of numerically representing color are biased towards midtones, particularly saturated green and magenta tones, while offering a paucity of dark and bright colors. This gives us the risk of banding in our final image.  Having fractional RGB numbers would alleviate this problem greatly, and though we can use 16 bit images, having fractional values would give us a better guarantee of processing shadow values — and highly saturated dark colors — to avoid rounding errors.  I've noticed that 8 bit sRGB in particular handles navy blue rather poorly, which is a pity, for that is my favorite color. We always risk banding when we have large areas of dark blue, as is often found in brilliant deep blue winter skies, especially when using a polarizing filter. We see the same problem with bright yellow colors.

If you take an 8 bit image and convert it to 16 bit, Photoshop multiplies the RGB values so that they fill the new numerical representation. So a value of 255 will be converted to 32768, which is the maximum 16 bit number. In the 32 bit system, which uses floating point numbers, 255 is converted to 1.0, which is the maximum value allowed in that system: all smaller RGB values are some fraction less than 1.

Instead, I propose an alternative method. When you convert an 8 bit image to this new system, all values remain unchanged. The difference is that your values can, after processing, be greater than 255, less than 0, or some fractional number. With this system, you can be very careful, and never allow your image to go out of gamut, or you can edit to your heart's content and worry about gamut later. If you edit an sRGB image in the sRGB color space, your image may want to go out of gamut and you will never know it, except that detail will disappear.

There are a few problems with my system.  First, you can't see the extra colors if you don't have a wide gamut monitor, but we already see this problem when working in the Adobe RGB or L*a*b color space. The other problem comes when we want to convert a high-precision image back down to 8 bits.

The key to working with images in any gamut is to do by-the-numbers processing, and have a thorough understanding of the channel structure of the images. Instead of merely determining if an image looks OK on your screen, you instead measure an image to be sure the colors are right. Calibrating your images is more important than calibrating your monitor.

Converting an image back down to an output format like 8 bit sRGB is more problematic, but take a look at Photoshop's own conversion options from 32 bit images.

However, doing something like this may not work well within the Photoshop product, as it would require a major redesign of many features. However, I do think that it would be quite useful for accurate image processing.

Black and White

OCCASIONALLY YOU SEE, on the dpreview.com forums, a posting questioning the use of black and white in contemporary photography. The critic — almost always apparently an educated, brash young man — will declare black and white photography obsolete, for it merely was a product of historical forces, ignorance, and technological compromises, and so it has no relevance to us today; he states that black and white photography is something that ought to be abandoned and forgotten.

This is of course the error of historicism, which in its extreme view denies any universal laws or truths. An opposite error idealizes all situations according to a simplistic theory, and ignores the inherent messiness of life. Most of us bounce back and forth between these two extremes, but rather let's find the virtuous middle and attempt to find out what black and white photography is about.

I can see various reasons for either shooting black and white film or doing digital black and white conversions.

• Just because you like it.
• Cost, convenience, or necessity.
• Nostalgia. 
• Technical advantages. 
• For aesthetics or mood. 

So why should we still produce black and white photography? Let's consider these individually.

Just because you like it

OK, why do you like black and white photography? Contemplate the reasons why you find it appealing. Perhaps it is some combination of the following?

Cost, convenience, or necessity

Suppose your photograph will be printed in a newspaper, bulletin, flyer, or other inexpensive black and white medium. You may prefer your photo being printed in full color, but since that is not going to happen, you do the best you can despite this limitation.


Museum of Contemporary Religious Art, at Saint Louis University. I needed to convert my image, originally in color, to black and white for inclusion in the book Saint Louis University: A Concise History

If you shoot film, and have your own darkroom or film scanner, black and white photography remains rather inexpensive since you are able to develop and print your own quality photos. If you live in a remote area, this may actually be the most convenient solution also. Also, superb quality film cameras are available at low cost. While you can process your own color film, this is rather more expensive and difficult compared to black and white film.

Sometimes, the lighting conditions are so poor that a black and white conversion is the fastest and easiest way to produce a quality images. I will sometimes convert an image taken under sodium vapor lights to black and white, because the color of that lighting is usually unpleasant and detracts from the beauty of the image. I very often do a conversion when I use extremely high ISO or severe curves on an image, both of which produce intense noise.

Nostalgia

Do you pine for a time when style of dress and manners were better? Times that were happier, even if more difficult? Do you feel a twinge of romance when viewing those older things? Then perhaps you like the nostalgic look of black and white photography.


Doris Day, singer and actress, ca. July 1946, New York City. Photograph by William P. Gottlieb.

I must admit to being a bit undecided if this kind of nostalgia is desirable or not: on one hand, this kind of nostalgia is pleasant.  But ought we not prepare for the future, where we are inevitably headed? Or rather, ought we live our life in the present, the only time we can truly see? On the other hand, escaping from the drudgery of the present by an imaginative look in the past is sometimes necessary.

We must not fall into the trap of believing the doctrine of inevitable progress, the idea that things are always getting better and better. And likewise, we must not distrust those who prefer older things; for they may not be reactionaries, but rather they might be correct. The theory of evolution implies eternal betterness, but in reality, for every advancement there are multitudes of fatal mistakes. So what we call nostalgia may very well be a rational attraction to things that were in fact better in some way.

Technical advantages

We must be humble enough to realize that older technologies might actually be better in many ways. A large format camera, with quality black and white film, expertly exposed and processed, will have a range of tones and detail that far exceeds any DSLR snapshot. I do use digital photography exclusively, since it is so convenient, but there are trade-offs.

One of the great advantages of black and white photography is the wide contrast range possible. Often in color, it is difficult getting a full range of tones from pure black to white, since your brightest significant detail may be a saturated color — you can't brighten it without losing saturation. This is particularly troublesome if your brightest color is a pure blue -- you just don't have that much room for other tones unless you do severe edits to the image. Blue skies are often a problem: you can't brighten the foreground without risking overexposure of the sky (which will damage the sky color), which is one reason why polarizing filters are so useful.


I inadvertently overexposed the sky on this image, turning it into an implausible shade of cyan: but it looks fine when de-colorized. This is Holy Family log church, in Cahokia, Illinois.

With black and white images, you only have to worry about over- or under-exposing one tone: white or black. With color images, you need to worry about three color channels, any one of which may be poorly exposed, harming the final image. With color, we have a far smaller dynamic range, which is why color images benefit from fairly flat lighting.  On the contrary, the masters of black and white photography use the increased dynamic range to excellent effect.


I took this photo for a book on the Gateway Arch. This is a merge of numerous exposures, and the camera was set to automatic white balance. This is a terrible image in several ways, and the yellow sodium vapor lighting is particularly objectionable.

High efficiency electric lighting often has poor color; fluorescent lights are quite bad, due to the unattractive and broad range of green-to-magenta tones found. Sodium vapor lighting, with its narrow yellow-orange color leads to extremely poor color photos. In these cases, a black and white image may be superior.


The same series of images, but I converted them to black and white before blending. I did some additional processing on this image, such as applying curves and sharpening. In my opinion, this isn't an image I'd particularly want to see in print, but I do think it is an improvement.

Digital cameras have a linear sensor that respond to light such that twice the brightness registers as twice the signal. Unfortunately, this means that most of the sensor's data is clustered around the very brightest of objects, and there is always a great risk of losing detail through overexposure. This also means that most of the tonal scale will be represented with very little data, which leads to lack of detail and noise in the shadows. So the general advice for digital is that you expose for the highlights and post-process to improve the shadows. Black and white film technology, on the contrary, is known for having great shadow detail — you expose for the shadows and post-process to improve the highlights, and unlike digital, it doesn't have a hard cutoff at the ends of the tonal range. Black and white film is traditionally very good for photography in dim, highly contrasty lighting and is used to good effect in film noir.


A forest scene, at Gravois Trail, in Saint Louis County, Missouri. This hand-held photo is underexposed, and was shot at ISO 3200. There is hardly any visible detail, and brightening the image would reveal extreme color noise in the shadows.


The same image, converted to black and white — I discarded most of the red and blue channels. I brightened the image greatly, and applied some noise reduction and sharpening.

Digital noise is most evident in the shadows, and color digital noise is usually ugly and highly undesirable. On the contrary, black and white noise is far less objectionable, and can even improve an image, giving an impression of texture and sharpness. This is often an advantage when shooting at very high ISO, or when brightening a severely underexposed image: a terrible color image can often be dramatically improved by converting it to black and white.

For aesthetics or mood

While nostalgia seeks the better things from the past, and black and white photography may evoke that nostalgia, we must always remember that reality in all ages past is high-resolution, wide-gamut, high-dynamic range color. Would a master photographer of a bygone era have used color photography if it were technologically feasible? Was his mastery of the black and white medium merely making the best of an unsatisfactory situation? Undoubtably for many, although this is speculation. We do in fact know that color technology was eventually widely adopted, and also that black and white never went away.

Color is an important factor in beauty. Bright colors are pleasing, and there are many studies and theories of the psychology of color which assigns good, desirable effects to the various colors. However, the color black is nothingness, the color white can be blinding, and gray is dreary: black and white photography necessarily is less cheerful and pleasant than color. Since black and white is more abstract than color, it can also suggest mystery.


A statue in a cemetery - heavily processed to imply a bleak mood.

So contemporary photographers can use the dreary aesthetics of black and white to evoke a mood of bleakness, despair, and ugliness. This can invoke a kind of anti-nostalgia, seeing not the good in the past, but rather its ugliness, and so black and white photography can be used in a mocking, disparaging fashion. It can also be used with fantasy, where the dull everyday world is seen in black and white, while the fantasy world is in color.

Some conversion hints

When shooting or converting an image to black and white, it is usually essential to adjust the image to give you the full range of tones, otherwise the image may look flat. Good global contrast is essential for a good black and white image. Adjusting curves of color images is a perilous activity: you can have color shifts, oversaturation, and you can send an image out of gamut; these are hardly concerns with black and white images.


Gothic-style ornament at Washington University in Saint Louis. The straight-forward conversion on the left lacks contrast, which is corrected on the right.

The second important consideration is the conversion of colors to gray tones; there are many ways to do this in Photoshop, and there are some excellent plug-ins that improve the process. Even though you lose color information in your conversion, the various gray tones ought to imply different shades in the final image.


The color image on the left was converted in Photoshop using Image->Mode->Grayscale. This is obviously a fabricated image, since I specifically chose all colors to have the same luminance. Photoshop has many ways to convert to black and white, some may be better than others at implying changes in tone.

Generally speaking, you want to select the parts or combinations of each RGB channels which show good contrast between different objects. If the subject has stripes, you probably will want a conversion that shows the stripes in a good manner -- some conversions may not show the stripes at all. Also, for faces your conversion will have a drastic effect on showing or hiding blemishes and wrinkles. In Photoshop, the Black and White tool is very good for doing this conversion, however, a thorough knowledge of the channel structure of images and the laws of color mixing is very helpful for this.

Finally, you can add far more local contrast to a black and white image compared to color, while still making it look plausible. This final step has been used to great effect by the masters of the medium.

Introduction

WELCOME TO The Refracted Light, a website about the art and science of photography.

The name ‘Refracted Light’ refers to the process where waves, when hitting a boundary at an angle, will change velocity, and so will also change direction.  This principle is what makes optics and cameras possible: light waves, when hitting the glass of a lens at an angle, will be bent.  Lenses are precisely constructed to focus these light waves at a point, where an image can be captured. This name perhaps is evocative of photography.

But the name also comes from the poem Mythopoeia, by J.R.R Tolkien, who is better known for his epic novel of high fantasy, The Lord of the Rings. Quoting the poem:

Man, Sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.

Tolkien wrote this in defense of creative myth-making, rebutting his friend “who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though ‘breathed through silver’”. Tolkien's imagery can also apply to photography: a thousand photographers can each photograph the same scene with the same camera, yet a thousand different images result. Photography may be our most objective art form, but the single white light of Truth gets refracted through each person, producing many hues.

This is a website about photography, and not of photography.  I do not plan to showcase my photography here, other than as useful illustrations.  You can find my photography on my other website Rome of the West, which is:

A web log about Catholicism in Saint Louis, which was once called the “Rome of the West”. Topics of interest are the historical Catholic patrimony of our City, the restoration of Catholic culture, manners, and morals, increasing public and private piety, and fostering interest in the liturgical arts.

It is a common rule of publishing that if you write about subjects A and B, you will only get readers who like both A and B, and not readers who like one or the other.  This is why I created this new website. Taste in photography also varies, and as I hope what appears on this page is useful, I'd rather not turn away those readers who do not share my taste in photos.

So I intend to write about the more certain, objective factors in photography, things that are less a matter of personal taste and legitimate varying opinion. The laws of physics are objective, the operation of specific cameras is in principle knowable, but even some subjective factors can be known objectively to a good degree, such as the properties of vision that are fairly uniform among persons. I also intend to delve into Photoshop and other image processing software as it relates to photography.

It do not intend this to be a gear blog.  The debates between Nikon and Canon or Sony and Olympus partisans may be exciting to some but they annoy me; that is not to say that I don't have my own opinions, but I would like to keep the level of discussion here at a somewhat higher level.  I don't have the time or money to do comprehensive tests on equipment. Now if any manufacturer wishes to send me some gear for a review, I would most likely write something complimentary about their product: after all, it is polite to exchange courtesy for courtesy, and if you can't say something nice about someone, then don't say anything at all.  A truer test of any piece of gear is whether or not I'm still using it six months later, and I will most certainly let you know what I am using.

I think there is a problem with the ‘Consumer Reports’ model of purchasing gear, where the consumer pours over the various camera ratings before making the ‘correct’ purchase.  A major problem is that the people who make the ratings do not know you as an individual, there is no give-and-take or dialogue between you and them, which could help you make a better purchase for you. You might decide what is important to you, but how did you come up with that? Psychologically, this turns consumption into into a mainly passive activity: you feel wise about a purchase, but your own choices end with the purchase. But do you do your part after the purchase? Do you make a strong effort to use your new tool effectively?  Or do you blame the equipment if the results are inadequate? When I first went digital, I bought the ‘best’ but my results were bad, and I blamed the equipment; I did not make an attempt to do my part to produce good photography. An opposite, but equally bad attitude would be insisting that your photographs are the best because your camera is the best. I wrote about my early and bad attempts at digital photography the article A Camera Diary over at Rome of the West. My attitude of blaming the equipment is actually quite common these days, and have deep psychological and philosophical reasons behind them: for more details, I recommend the excellent, although somewhat dated book by Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos.

Dear readers, I hope that you won't get offended if I have very high expectations for you. The scientific aspects of photography can get very complex and mathematical — and even the artistic aspects can be very difficult, as with the excellent work of Ansel Adams and his Zone System. Please forgive me for not dumbing-down my writing for you. But I hope that I won't make things obscure either, which is all too common in modern art criticism.

My name is Mark Scott Abeln, I have been blogging for about five and a half years, and have been taking photography again seriously for a bit less amount of time.  Although I was long enamored of film photography, having many fine cameras and a darkroom, I made the transition to digital photography rather poorly.  Circumstance and motivation led me to relearn photography from scratch, and this website is part of my own continuing education in the subject.  My college degree is in physics from Caltech, and I worked for many years in the computer and industrial engineering fields, so this ought to give you some idea of where I am coming from.

I am Catholic and this has a profound effect on my preferred subject matter and approach to photography; however, if you want to know more about this — as well as higher approaches to art theory — please see Rome of the West.  I intend this to be a secular website, although there may be a Catholic flavoring at times.

My major book of photography is Catholic St. Louis: A Pictorial History, with text by prominent historian Fr. William Barnaby Faherty, S.J.; my photography can also be found in Saint Louis University: A Concise History, and on the covers of the books Tower Grove and Caring for Victor: A U.S. Army Nurse and Saddam Hussein.  Other books of my photography are planned for the future.

My writing and photography can be found on very many websites, and on posters, bulletins, and magazines.



Catholic St. Louis: A Pictorial History can be purchased at all major online booksellers, or you can click here to purchase an autographed copy: