Responding to a friend about "unnatural" photographs.

Why does a picture look unnatural?

My friend Ron sent me an email with an excerpt about a photographer that had been asked how he got his pictures to look the way he did. What kind of filter did he use? Why don't the pictures look like the home pictures the questioner takes?

It got me thinking (Ron often does that to me, by the way). Here's my response. I thought I'd post it since I did put a little effort into explaining some of my thoughts regarding this subject. 

High Dynamic Range Processing

There's a technique called High Dynamic Range processing, or HDR for short, that can produce what look like exaggerated images. I didn't see the image being discussed in the snippet Ron sent, but HDR pics can look unreal. At least, they can certainly look different than a lot of "normal" pictures. It may be, though, that HDR pictures just take getting used to. Until then, we're used to seeing "normal" pictures from limited cameras.

The problem with most cameras and photography, including printed images, is that they can't produce the range of brightness or color levels that the human eye can see. The human eye can see perhaps up to 24 EV or F-Stops worth of dynamic range. Most DSLR's can only produce about 8-12 EV of dynamic range. In other words, the range from the darkest dark (black) to the lightest bright (white) is about 8-12 EV on most cameras. It's not that a camera is capturing the full range of what the eye can see, but only a portion of it, perhaps about half.

Using a Graduated Neutral Density Filter

Chirircahua Canyon

If you look at a scene like I saw in the Chiricahua's where it's dark in the canyon but the tops of the cliffs are brightly lit because the sun is hitting them, it may be a range of 16 EV.

Since my camera can only record about 12 EV, I can expose a picture for the canyon floor but if the cliff tops are in it they'll be "blown out" and will look full white in the picture. If I expose for the cliff tops, parts of the canyon floor that I can still see would be turned to black in the picture.

The picture to the right has a lot of processing to try to bring out details in the cliff tops but I think it shows that they've been processed. Note that this was shot without any graduated neutral density filter (this outing prompted me to pick up the Singh-Ray though).

The D610 has about 14 EV range. It's better but still can't always record what your eye sees.

To overcome this limitation you can use filters or HDR processing.

I got a filter specifically designed to handle this situation a few months ago, called a graduated neutral density filter. It has a rectangular shape with 1/2 filtered with neutral gray, the other half clear, and a dissolve between the two.

With this filter you can slide the gray portion up or down so that, in my example above, it provides a darkening effect for the cliff tops to bring them more within the range of the camera, allowing you to expose correctly for more of the scene.

Using HDR Software

To use HDR, you take a number of pictures exposed properly for different areas of the scene and then combine them using software. You could properly expose for the cliffs in one picture, properly expose for the canyon floor in another, and then combine the properly exposed portions of each picture in software to get more dynamic range in the final image than the camera is capable of.

I've done a few HDR shots but haven't had a lot of good luck with them like some people. I think a lot of it is because I got a "limited" version of the HDR software I use (I have Photomatix Essentials).

Here's what I think is a nice HDR shot: http://hdrsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Florida-HDR.jpeg

Looking at that image, another thing to keep in mind is that the human eye doesn't really have things in focus in a scene like this from the foreground to the background. This shot has the foreground out of focus, which is kind of weird to look at. Our eyes would shift focus if we looked down at the rocks and they'd be in focus. We can't actually look at the parts of a scene in front of us where our eyes AREN'T focused to see that the area isn't in focus. The camera CAN be made to have more of a scene in focus than the eye would on it's own. This is good in that we can then look around the picture to see the different parts of it in focus, but it's bad in that it can then look unnatural.

As for color saturation, yes, that can easily be bumped up more than what the scene actually had for a normal eye. I tend to do that a lot myself. I just think they look better with the saturation bumped up.

All of these decisions end up being what can turn a picture into a personal vision, or art. It doesn't mean everyone will like the picture or consider it art. But an artistic photo can be different than a true to life representation, just as a painting can.

Even simple things like shooting pictures during the early morning can seem unreal to some people because they never go look at a place in the early morning during the "golden hour" or "blue hour". I like my pictures of Encanto Park for that reason - the sunrise and silhouettes are unusual but, other than maybe bumping up the color saturation, that's the way it looked.

Moving ahead - more decisions

Fresh Memories

I'm doing my best to cope with the loss of my wonderful Pomeranian Alvin. One thing that has been helping is photography. I am really thankful for my better camera and that I was able to get some pictures of Alvin that are of better quality than the jpeg pictures my little Kodak takes. Not that I got great poses of him - most or all of the pictures are really still snapshots in that they couldn't really be considered are or striking poses. But my snapshots will print out nice and have more detail than the jpeg's. They won't bring him back but they'll help keep his image vibrant for the rest of my life.

That's the same for capturing the places I've taken the landscape shots too - the pictures just have better detail and color saturation than the Kodak. They help me revisit the places when I look at the pictures. And, even if they don't do anything for anyone else, the vivid memories make the camera worth it to me.

Memory Helper

Not to change the subject drastically but I have a hard time dwelling on thoughts of Alvin so I'm working at dealing with my loss by thinking of other things along with my thoughts of him (which don't seem to quit). I've been thinking of photography even more, both because I find it comforting, and because I want to capture my memories better and especially memories of my remaining dogs.

I am now approaching the one year mark of getting into photography. I promised myself I'd wait a year until I upgraded my camera, and I'm now starting to get serious about the upgrade. In fact, I've had the camera that I plan to purchase in my online shopping cart many times. I haven't pulled the trigger yet because I still ponder my decision and then justify my hesitation because it isn't quite a year since I set that restriction on myself. I may break it yet, though!

I thought I'd write my decision making process down, possibly to convince myself even more thoroughly that I have a solid plan.

What's Wrong with my D3200?

The first questions I need to answer are "Do I really need a new camera? What's wrong with the D3200?"

The D3200 works fine. I get quite a few good shots with it and have had compliments on some of my pics from a number of people (not just relatives either). That's what I really expected based on the information I read prior to buying the D3200 - that any of the current DSLRs are going to give good results. There is some difference between cameras at various price ranges but the entry level DSLRs like the D3200 are still plenty capable of producing a nice picture. Most of the difference between pictures is photographer technique and lenses. The camera body itself just records to the capability of the lens in front of it and how it's used by the photographer.

So beyond that the differences, for me, break down to
 the camera feature set, and whether to go full frame or not. There's also the question of switching to another camera manufacturer.

Without necessarily explaining what the following items are, I'm going to list my wants.

As far as features, I really want automatic exposure bracketing. The times that I've had problems dealing with wide dynamic range I've tried doing manual exposure bracketing and it just always leaves me unsatisfied. I really want an in camera depth of field preview. I want mirror lockup. I want a bigger view finder. I want a dedicated aperture control. These things are in addition to keeping the features I have currently.

I also want better performance. While the D3200 is good, I get more noise than I like and I have a hard time getting rid of it from my pictures. Some (or even a lot) of this may be technique, and I am constantly trying to figure out how to reduce noise. In addition, when I see pics other people take with better gear, I know that I just can't get there. Most of that is due to the lenses, but it's also due to the camera.

My bottom line is, I want the best picture quality I can get out of my camera. I shoot mainly landscape, almost always on a tripod, almost always with ISO 100. I know I don't have top of the line lenses and may be pushing them to their limits, but between the missing features and the noise, I think it's time to upgrade.

Here it comes

My main want or desire is to go to a full frame camera. I've read a lot about this and I've bought into the theory. Taking pictures is the process of capturing reflected light. Full frame cameras have bigger sensors. Bigger sensors gather more light; smaller sensors gather less light (given the same exposure settings). Little sensors (like on the D3200) must compensate for less light in some way - the shutter staying open longer, the aperture being bigger, or greater sensitivity or amplification on the sensor. Something has to be done to a smaller sensor to make it gather, or report, the light the same as a larger sensor.

There are some good articles that discuss the performance differences between full frame and the smaller frame (APS-C, or DX in Nikon speak). Here's one, for example (be sure to look at the graphic on page 5 that demonstrates the difference between pixel sizes):

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/11/21/full-frame-sensor-size-explained-how-to-exploit-its-advantages-and-cool-effects/

Basically, a larger sensor should, in theory, provide less noise in an image due to the larger pixels, with everything else being the same. If you look at the SnapSort comparison between the Nikon D610 and the D3200 (http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D610) you can see the 20% picture quality improvement rating (not to give anything away...). That should be noticeable!

Nikon or Canon or ???

When you choose a camera, the best advice (again, that I've gathered from many sources) is to choose the manufacturers system, not just the camera body. The common wisdom, from photographers that have been doing it much longer than I have, is that a camera body is basically disposable. It may be on a 2 year cycle or a 10 year cycle, but eventually you'll likely get a new camera body.

Lenses, however, last a lot longer (although I did just read how some of the glass can develop crystals due to the chemicals used for treatments, etc.). In the long run, if you buy good lenses you should be able to use them on the different camera bodies you go through.

I don't know how long it will be before I want a new camera body after I get this next one. I hope I don't need a new one for years and that the next one I get will have the features and quality I am happy with for a good long time (at least as long as Alvin!).

I've known that Canon offers more lenses than Nikon for some time. However, Nikon does offer enough, and that's good enough. I read over and over that unless you get the Canon 5D MK II or III, Nikon's beat Canon's for image quality (IQ) across the board. Canon may have some other features that some people like, like a touch screen on the back of the body, but that just seems like a gimmick to me. There's nothing wrong with Nikon's menu system as far as I'm concerned. The difference between 2 menu clicks or 4 menu clicks, or to be able to tap on a screen instead of tapping on a button, doesn't mean much to me.

So, based on IQ and price (the Canon 5D Mk III is over $3,000), I'll stick with Nikon.

That leads me to, as if you hadn't guessed earlier, the Nikon D610.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

I plan to pick this up soon. My purchase will be from Adorama.com. They have a Nikon refurbished version for $200 off and offer a warranty for $50 or so, ending up with a savings of $150 on the camera. Plus, since Amazon has facilities in Arizona now, I save sales tax by buying from Adorama. A rough 8% sales tax on a $1700 refurbished body + $50 warranty is another $140 saved. That's $290 I can put towards a lens!

The downside of going full frame will be the lens cost. I may end up using more primes due to the cost of the zooms. In fact, I have already ordered a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D that I am interested in trying. It's a manual focus only on my D3200, but that's how I mainly shoot anyway. It has good marks from DxOMark when mounted on a D600 (the predecessor to the D610). On the D610 the auto focus will work and it should give good pics. After that, well, I'll have to spend more bucks on more lenses!
e

Updates

Easing back onto the grid

I've been off the photo journey for a month or more while dealing with one of my dog's, my favorite dog's, end of life. It's been rough for him and my wife and I, watching him deal with cancer and finally having to put him down. He's been a huge part of my life for 14 years and having that come to an end, and without having any other choice, has been and is very difficult. I don't believe that the hole he's left in my heart can ever be filled. Even though we have 3 more dogs, the house does not seem the same to me without my friend Alvin.

I'd like to get back to getting out of the house again, but this first weekend is hard. Even thinking about going away conjures up emotions and memories of all of the trips Alvin has made with us, and that leads to noticing the empty spaces that Alvin usually could be found, and that leads to depression and distress and tears. Lots of tears.

His passing puts this electronic stuff into perspective even more strongly. I've been increasingly disenchanted with technology for years, and Alvin's passing punctuates it more strongly. For probably a year now I rarely look at my personal email, perhaps once per month if that, and even then it's only to look for something specific that I know should be there, like an Amazon.com order update. I don't miss it. I feel less stress because of NOT paying attention to it. If there's anything truly important, I figure the originator will call me.

The only technology I'm interested in any more is for my photography related activities, and then it's only to the extent that I need it in order to take, process, and publish my photographs to my online gallery.

Adobe Updates

To that end, I've updated my Adobe software. I got a new version of Lightroom and Photoshop (and Bridge too, I believe, but I don't use it).

The Lightroom update un-installed the old version (5.4) and installed the new version (5.5). It made my shortcut on my Windows 7 taskbar inoperative. It's not just an update, it's an entire installation of a new version. And, while I'm on Lightroom, I notice it looks differently in the Adobe Creative Cloud panel - like Lightroom is not the same "clould" software as Photoshop somehow. As long as it does what I use it for, I have no further interest in trying to figure out why (or caring about why).

One more thing I'll say about Lightroom - I wanted to try editing a picture in it recently and couldn't even see where the editing tools are. I think there's supposed to be brushes, etc., where you can apply touch-ups selectively, but I couldn't find them. I did apply a "quick" or "easy" color correction to a photo, but then couldn't see how to save the photo as a new copy and as a jpeg (the original was a tiff). That's one big complaint of mine regarding all Adobe software - their interfaces generally suck. There are buttons and controls scattered all over the screen. Some controls work fine but others you have to go through quite a few button clicks to do something. I miss the old, typical Microsoft influenced menu systems where everything was available at the same place on an application, the toolbars could be fully customized, and if a menu item wasn't available due to the state of the content, it was greyed out. That sort of operation is more similar to my preferred electronic hardware that I use for recording music.

Photoshop's "update" is even more strange to me. It installed an entire new version, Photoshop 2014, alongside the previous version. I've read some of the new features available in Photoshop, but haven't tried them yet and I don't know when or if I will.

I've mentioned earlier that I am at the stage where I try to do as little as possible in post processing and the new Photoshop features that I noticed had to do with better selection functionality, like creating masks. At this point, that doesn't matter to me. In fact, I can't remember the last time I used Photoshop for editing.

I've done the updates because I've paid for them with my subscription. But for actual image editing I still use Nikon CaptureNX 2, and plan to continue using it as long as it works. Nikon is putting CaptureNX down and releasing something new that doesn't do as much and hasn't been received well.

All of these changes, along with others that I see almost daily during my work as a software developer (I have a hard time calling it "engineering" any longer), really build my disdain and distrust of software. I really wish there were more hardware based solutions to processing photographs, like in the film days, that weren't being updated by people new to the process that can't bother to learn from what's happened to a product before they showed up on the scene. Functionality is constantly in a state of flux while the new kids re-learn the pitfalls that their predecessors solved, re-implementing things correctly or sensibly just in time for another batch of newbies.

That is exactly why I started accumulating and using hardware in my audio recording process as much as possible - the recording software I use (Cakewalk Sonar) kept devolving and becoming less intuitive, productive, and functional. Sure, it MIGHT have some audio improvements, but to take advantage of them meant giving up other things. That seems backwards to me and consequently makes me tune out of the flash in the pan "updates".

Okay, enough complaining. My pup Alvin has just opened up my senses, re-enforced my personal outlook on what's important about life, and software and it's devolution, especially if it's outside what is necessary for my hobbies, is not one of them.