NY TImes Magazine article: What is he talking about?

<p>In an <a href="http://nyti.ms/1VaGVEZ">article</a> in today's NY Times, Teju Cole, the magazine’s photography critic, writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I had taken a good camera to Zurich with me, a professional-grade Canon. There was a subtle problem with it that I often encounter in digital cameras: They are fine for bright landscapes, but they tend to struggle with highlights and the resulting images sometimes have a plastic sheen. The Canon served me well on a recent trip to Palestine, but it wasn’t working in Switzerland.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised that he dismisses digital so readily ("wasn’t working in Switzerland"). Without knowing whether he's shooting raw and processing it with the right tools and skill level, or shooting JPEGs and viewing them out of the camera, it's hard to judge. My understanding is that the dynamic range of digital when shot and processed correctly is well beyond what film can do. Ditto for high ISO. But maybe he never learned how to shoot with digital?</p>

<p>Comments?</p>

I think people should be free to us whatever equipment or media they choose and I only really care about the results. That being said, except for the last image (from his hotel room), I didn't find any other of the images published in the article interesting or appealing in any way.

<p>Well, of course everyone should be free to do what he or she wants. What I'm trying to understand is what he is talking about when he says that digital didn't work for him in Switzerland. Perhaps other Pnet photographers also go back and forth between film and digital depending on what part of the world they're in and what kind of shooting they're doing? If so, they might provide insights.</p>

Some people just don't know what they are talking about. They screw up and blame it on the camera. I once saw a review in the old Modern Photography magazine. The author used a camera's built in spot meter. He took a reading off of the white sail of a sail boat and used that for his exposure. Then he said the meter was no good because the photo was badly underexposed. In a later issue a man pointed out that according to the zone system he had underexposed the photo by at least three stops. His reply was that he didn't know anything about any "zonal zen" or any other quasi religious photo cults. All he knew was if you took a reading directly off of a subject that was the correct exposure setting no matter how light or dark the subject was. Idiot.

<p>Well, the idiot theory might be the right one, but this guy is the Magazine's photo critic. Perhaps he knows how to look at photos but not how to make them? After all, art critics need not be artists, theater critics need not be playwrights, etc. The article was actually pretty good, once you got past that awkward paragraph at the beginning that I quoted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I'm trying to understand is what he is talking about when he says that digital didn't work for him in Switzerland.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The answer to this is simple. There are strong electromagnetic fields in Switzerland (only occurring inside the borders) that cause a phenomenon called the "neutrality effect" which effects digital cameras.</p>

<p>Marc, he later makes a point of saying "the heart wants what it wants" and that may be key. Some photographers operate a bit irrationally at times and will develop a preference for one camera or for one way of shooting or any number of things that just come from their gut with no real rational explanation. It often feels a little better to supply a reason, even one you don't quite realize is fabricated, and even when there may be none. This will often be mocked but I think it's pretty human.</p>

<p>On the more rational side, he does say that bit about that camera struggling with highlights. Honestly, it may have been the camera. It may also have been him. But in any case, he found a change of equipment solved his actual or perceived dilemma.</p>

<p>Also maybe there was something about the difference in atmospheric conditions between Switzerland and Palestine that led him to be disappointed in the pictures he was getting in Switzerland that the change in camera might have helped, again whether actually caused by the camera or just the mental result of making the change.</p>

<p>It's too bad he didn't elaborate.</p>

<p>Those who are not proficient in an art form become critics.</p>

My guess . The writer's minor quibble with his digital camera is the side effect of his expectations or rather his negative feelings towards digital output over his well loved film cameras. It is true that film has a look . He likes the look and has trouble reproducing it. Next time I am in Zurich and Tel Aviv etc I will study this conundrum :-).

<p>It's probably the Large Hadron Collider. It generates a flood of subatomic particles which are well known to affect digital cameras in Switzerland, an effect similar to cosmic ray disruptions of computer systems on spacecraft. I believe this is what Jeff may have been referencing. Additionally, the height of Switzerland means there's less atmosphere protecting the Swiss from galactic cosmic rays too. I'm surprised that they even get cell phones to work there. If he'd put the camera in a lead box and used a cosmic ray filter on the lens, he wouldn't have had any problems.</p>

<p>The article does point out a problem with rangefinders thought "...<em>I missed the momentary darkening of the visual field when I pressed the shutter, which is something you get with the flipped mirror of an S.L.R. but not in a rangefinder</em>....". I think he's pointed out a feature missing from mirrorless cameras too. Damn things don't black out the EVF. Perhaps that's the next "must have" feature for MILCs?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those who are not proficient in an art form become critics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To the extent that is accurate, they often serve well in that role. In the converse, talented artists sometimes are poor reviewers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are strong electromagnetic fields in Switzerland (only occurring inside the borders) that cause a phenomenon called the "neutrality effect" which effects digital cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do we know what happens to digital cameras in the Korean demilitarized zone?</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do we know what happens to digital cameras in the Korean demilitarized zone?</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a>Good question. I think Bob may know exactly what type of collider or reactor they use there and what the effect is.</p>

<p>I can't believe in this day and age that someone actually thinks that digital has more dynamic range than film. It's not even close. Are there any real photographers here that actually work in a darkroom and make wet prints? Not only does film have more dynamic range (f stops) it also has much more exposure latitude and won't blow out the highlights, nor muddy up the shadows. But of course, w/ film you have to know what you're doing. If someone doesn't, then it might be possible to think that digital has more range. I guess.</p>

<p>Sending film out to a lab is one thing. Doing it yourself and knowing when to push it, when to pull it, how long to develop it and in which developer, how to agitate it, which film to use in the first place, and in which camera/lens w/ which filter, etc, will give someone a huge dynamic range. Then there's the art of wet printing it, which can add much more flexibility to the finished image. Digital certainly has it's charms, but dynamic range and optimum IQ are not them.</p>

<p>Film <em>can</em> certainly have a higher DR, as long as you pick the right film (B&W negative film), expose it optimally, develop it optimally - in the right developer for the right length of time at the right temperature with the right agitation and then figure out how to get al that recorded DR into a print. To get this of course you have to develop each image individually. If you have a roll of 36 images, unless they are all images of the same scene in the same lighting, you're going have have to compromise somewhat. If you color images you really can't do much in development without screwing up the colors so you really can't do much to extend the DR.</p>

<p>If you're not shooting using the zone system, shooting B&W and doing all your own darkroom work, full frame digital is likely going to give you more dynamic range. Shooting RAW rather than JPEG is assumed of course, as is using the optimal parameters for the RAW conversion (to TIFF).</p>

<p>It is much easier to blow out the highlights shooting digital if you don't know what you are doing. I'll agree with that. I'd also agree that shooting with Canon (at low ISO settings), you'll lose the deep shadows faster than you will shooting Nikon.</p>

<p>I think the best medium to use is whatever you are comfortable with and expert in using. If film is your choice, more power to you. I suspect individual choices and preferences are based more on this than on intrinsic, measurable, objective differences between film and digital (an old and tired argument and one which really doesn't need to be repeated).</p>

<p>That photography critic needs a photography critique. Seriously! Film or digital isn't helping him.</p>

<p>And for cryin' out loud why couldn't he cut that article down to size. There's not that much more new info that can be ascertained on the subject that would fill a paragraph.</p>

Ansel Adams long pointed out that there are only 9 zones in the dynamic range of a scene that can be printed from film onto photo paper. Zone 9 is white with just a bit of texture. Zones 10,11, 12 etc. are just pure white. Zones 10, 11 ,12, etc may be on the film but they are what we call blocked highlights. You can see the black mass on the film and some texture but it is like looking at black magic marker writing on black paper. Efforts to print the blocked highlights by burning in will meet with dismal failure resulting in a grayish blob on the photo. Having a dynamic range of zones 10 to 11 on the film will still result in only having a range of zones 1 to 9 on the photo. Zones 10, 11, will only show as pure paper base white. Giving N-2 underdevelopment will drop zones 10 and 11 to zones 8 and 9 so they will show on the print. You are still only getting a final dynamic range of 9 zones.

 

One can find out all about this by checking out the zone system"s dictum of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights"

 

The digital dictum (digital zone system) would be "expose to the right as far as possible without clipping and convert for the shadows in Photoshop"

 

I am no expert on digital editing, far from it, but I am sure that the digital zone system would result in a far greater dynamic range capture and display than what most people assume.

To Marc:

 

Can you post a link to the original article or editorial?

<p>Along with the problem which Bob quoted,<br>

"...<em>I missed the momentary darkening of the visual field when I pressed the shutter, which is something you get with the flipped mirror of an S.L.R. but not in a rangefinder</em>....".<br>

It seems that rangefinder cameras don't soften the image as much as SLRs or DSLRs at low shutter speeds when shooting hand-held. That softening, so useful for some portraits, is missing without having the mirror slap violently against the top of the mirror box just as the shutter is about to open. It is possible to replicate that effect somewhat by drinking a lot coffee just prior to the shoot.</p>

<p>Ellis:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/magazine/far-away-from-here.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0">HERE</a> it is.</p>

<p>Same here: due to photographic equipment deficiencies, award winning and big money making photos stay only in my mind :))))</p>

<p>This is a clear and convincing case of the VW effect: when a camera senses that it is being used by an incompetent journalist it automatically enters idiot mode and takes bad pictures.</p>

<p>I found the article a bit too preachy for my taste, but I thought the photos OK, notwithstanding his nonsense about cameras. One could see he was striving to be different - perhaps that is why the article itself is a little annoying - too self conscious?</p>