Certified Professional Photographer Exam question

[leighb]

<p>Hi Graham,</p>

<p>That's pretty basic stuff.</p>

<p>Who (what organization or entity) is issuing this "certification"?</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[graham_martin2]

<p>They are a part of the Professional Photographic Certification Commission which is affiliated with the Professional Photographers of America (PPA). Their website states that they are the largest non-profit association of professional photographers in the world with more than 22,000 members. It appears to be mainly a marketing tool to be used by wedding photographers in order to differentiate themselves in that highly competitive industry. Their Board of Directors consists primarily of wedding and portrait photographers.</p>

<p>They also offer a Certified Evidence Photographer Certification which is designed to help photographers in that field. I have also read that some police departments make that as a requirement for job applicants.</p>

[leighb]

<p>That's what I thought.</p>

<p>I'm a PPA member, and suspected that was part of their certification program.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>I think the course would probably be good for a lot of people, amateurs as well as professional. Leaving aside the certification for professionals trying to differentitate themselves from competitors, there's probably a lot of basic and more advanced stuff that would help a lot of photographers. </p>

<p>Most amateurs, myself included, never took a course and kind of learned whatever I learned just going a long. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I really can't see the difficulty that anyone has with grasping this fairly basic concept. How may ways can it be said that image size has absolutely nothing to do with format size, format ratio, pixels, film grain or anything else except the lens focal length and subject distance? And subject distance should strictly be measured from image plane to subject plane - so even the lens construction and internodal distance should have little or no bearing since true focal length is defined by the image magnification obtained at a given subject distance.</p>

<p>Imagine taking a medium format 300mm lens and fitting it (via suitable adapters) to a variety of digital or film cameras of various formats. If the lens is focused in exactly the same place, then the image size MUST be exactly the same - otherwise the lens would be out of focus.</p>

<p>To reiterate and emphasise the point; the fact that the image is being captured in pixels or on a smaller or larger piece of film has absolutely no effect on the lens. It's the same lens, focusing the same image of the same subject at the exact same distance away. Nothing has changed that will make the slightest difference to the image size. Yes, we'll see less of the subject on the 35mm film or digital sensor and we'll run out of image circle on a larger format, but that's just like using your hands or a cardboard frame as a compositional aid in front of your eye. The subject is cropped but remains the same size.</p>

<p>How many ways can the above be illustrated and explained, or how many metaphors for the concept must be given?</p>

<p>As for digital image "size" in Photoshop: That has absolutely nothing to do with the physical size of the image in the camera. Pixels are essentially dimensionless. We can print a single pixel 1/300th of an inch across or 6 foot across, or display it on a monitor at 72 per inch. The raw pixel doesn't change in the process of being printed or displayed. Same as we can print a film negative at contact print size or poster sized. The negative remains the same size, as does the image captured on it.</p>

<p>The original test question may not be perfectly phrased, but anyone who's grasped the basic optical theories relating to image formation should realise what area of knowledge is being tested by it, and respond accordingly. The two basic formulae of 1/v + 1/u = 1/f; and m=v/u; aren't exactly postgrad level maths. </p>

[dougmiles]

<p>Larry West hit on what I noticed too, about that question... three of the answer choices could be construed to be the same, therefore the correct answer had to be the other one, C.<br>

I would hope there's more to the certification that a written test...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

And i would hope that answering (simple. It really is. And should be.) questions like this could be done from knowledge, not a result of a process of elimination, in which the unlikely answers are identified and dismissed on 'question technical' grounds.<br>;-)

[graham_martin2]

<blockquote>

<p>I would hope there's more to the certification that a written test...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>See page 5 of this thread for an overview of the rest of the test.</p>

[ljwest]

<blockquote>

<p>If the question is not about film, it's common sens (for me, at least) to define image size by the number of pixels (check what Photoshop says when you check Image Size :).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But that has nothing at all to do with the question given on the test. The image the question is talking about is the image projected at the film plane. With all else remaining equal: lens focal length, distance to subject, distance to film plane, etc., the size of the projected image at the film plane of an object remains the same.</p>

<p>It can be hard to imagine this using 35mm and medium-format equipment, because, in the real world, not everything is equal. Film plane to lens mount flange distances are often different between formats, and while you often can mount a lens made for one format on a camera with a different format, this sometimes involves using optics to allow the lens to focus properly, and does that affect the actual focal length? I'm not sure, one way or the other.</p>

<p>However, we do have an excellent (practically made for teaching this!) demo comparing two DSLRs, a full frame Canon EOS 5DMkII (originally offered for sale circa mid-2008, and still in production), with an APS-C (AKA "Crop Sensor") Canon from a little bit earlier, the EOS 30D (made early 2006 to mid 2007). Both cameras can be fitted with the same lenses, both cameras have the same sensor to lens mount distance.</p>

<p>But, even better, both cameras have the same (well, close enough to make no practical difference) pixel <em>density</em>, of 156 pixels per linear millimeter, and 24,300 pixels per square mm (plus/minus less than 0.2%). This eliminates just about every variable between two different imaging systems as is possible.</p>

<p>The 5DMkII takes a 5616x3744 pixel image on a 36x24mm sensor, for a total of about 21 megapixels. The 30D takes a 3504x2336 pixel image on a sensor that measures 22.5x15mm, for a total of about 8.2 megapixels.</p>

<p>So, take the 300mm lens, and mount it on the 30D, which has the APS-C sensor of 22.5mm x 15mm. The camera is mounted to a tripod, in "landscape" orientation (widest part of the frame horizontal, basically as you would normally hold the camera to your eye). You're taking a portrait of a woman, and at the distance you are from her, you see her face from her chin up to maybe an inch or so above her eyes, just getting in some of her blonde hair across her forehead. So, if you could see inside the 30D, you'd see that the image of your friend fills the available vertical space (15mm) on the sensor. You take one picture.</p>

<p>Now, take the same lens, and mount it on the 5DMkII. Mount it to the same tripod, without moving the tripod, or the subject. If you look through the viewfinder on the 5D, you will see all of the woman's head, and some background top to bottom, as well as more background side to side. If you could look inside the 5D, her image on the sensor plane would be the same size as it was on the 30D, but there is much more sensor around the image. You take one picture.</p>

<p>Open them both in an image editor. If you open them both at the same percentage of magnification, the overall image window will be larger for the 5D image, but the size of her face in the two images on your screen will be the same.</p>

<p>If you were to take a 3504x2336 pixel crop from the dead center of the 5D's image file, you would have an image that would be, for practical purposes, the same as what you shot in the 30D, as far as pixel dimensions, field of view, etc. An earlier post in this thread mentioned taking a 35mm "frame" from the middle of a medium-format negative. This is the same principle.</p>

<p>That is what the test question was talking about. A lens always projects the same size image of the same subject at the same distance, regardless of how large the sensor or film frame is. The only difference will be in how much of the sensor or film frame is taken up by a specific subject.</p>

<p>(Sorry for dragging digital camera tech into the Medium Format arena, but I thought it was the easiest way to illustrate the point!)</p>

[photom]

<p>I think it is a great question and there is unambiguously one correct answer. They want you to clearly understand what a lens projected image size means. It has nothing to do with the final film or sensor size. Many books diagram this with a linear subject size labeled with points A and B, then a smaller projected image size with a and b, of course in reverse. </p>

<p>The part that is confusing may be that if you did such a test and used the medium format camera first, selecting a subject such as a tree, and then you used your smaller format camera from the same distance, much of the tree may not even show up in the viewfinder or on the film. However, if you selected your comparison subject first using the smaller format camera, this is not an issue.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Illustration follows. I think I got it but comments welcome. Alan.</p><div></div>

[photom]

<p>One other comment. I think the notion of a professional certification with a difficult test is the best thing that could happen to photography today. Some kind of experience level should also be added to the designation. For very established photographers that have a steady income stream, it would not affect them too much. However, it would help sort out the serious, dedicated individuals from the wishful, maybe, want-to-be's. Almost all professional occupations have some kind of certification - to provide technical and ethical standards, limit the head count, and help increase compensation for those that make it through "the hoop". </p>

<p>What you do not want is a certification that is easy to get and just a way for some company to make money off of photographers.</p>

<p>I think the reason there has not been one in the past is that there is an important artistic element to photography that is difficult to test and grade. You may score very well on the test but still be a very boring photographer.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Good questions should demand lateral thinking on the part of a candidate. He should be able to expose and unravel any "issues" therein. It is a matter of wheat and chaff.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Almost all professional occupations have some kind of certification - to provide technical and ethical standards, limit the head count, and help increase compensation for those that make it through "the hoop".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And almost all professions which do have this certification have 'qualified' members who are not particularlar competent at their craft.</p>

[denniswms]

<p>I'll bet the judge will be impressed when the CSI photographer claims " yes your Honor, the head and feet are missing, but the <em>image size</em> is the same as if I had shot that 300mm lens from the same distance on a MF rig". </p>

<p>Image size. Special. Tell that to the client when they ask where the rest of the subject is. I'm sure they'll be impressed by your certification.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p><br /></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You see, Dennis, knowing that the image size will be the same will help you prevent such mishaps.<br />Ignorance in general, an about this thingy in particular, is what would make people commit such errors as you describe.<br/>But photographers have it easy. They don't have to know much about such things, because - unless completely blind - they will have their rear ends saved by being able to see what they are doing through the viewfinder.<br />;-)

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>While I would also have answered that the image size is the same in both cases, if you want to be really precise, unless the same 300 mm lens were used in both cases, there is not enough information to answer the question.</p>

<p>First, The focal lenght of the lens is specified when focused at infinity. Different lens configurations, especially internal focusing designs, could give different magnifications at the film plane when focused at close distances.</p>

<p>Second, and probably a negligible one, is that marked focal length may not be exactly the actual focal lenght of the lens (i.e. 298mm vs 301 mm.)</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

Now that's taking things quite a bit too far. They say it is a 300 mm lens, so why assume it is not?<br>(If i were the examinator, i would absolute consider that a 'fail'. ;-) )

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>I know that´s going too far. Anyway, ignore my second comment.</p>

<p>Even if two different lenses are exactly 300 mm, that is valid at infinity.</p>

<p>If for example one of the lenses is of the internal focusing type and the other not, there could be a significant difference in magnification when focused at close distances.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Why complicate the question?<br><br>Strictly speaking, unless they took, as measure, the focal length of that IF lens focused at that close distance you are worrying about, that lens will no longer be a 300 mm when set to that distance.<br>In other words: they say they do compare 300 mm lenses, and you answer is that they very well might not.<br>And that's still the wrong answer. So i'd again say you "failed".<br>;-)<br><br>And if you want to assume they were asking something else than they appear to be asking anyway, why stop there?<br/>If the spectral composition of the light changed while you changed from 35 mm camera to the MF camera, that may also cause a minute focal length shift.<br />And where did they measure "the same distance" too?<br>And [etc.].

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>if you want to be really precise</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't be really precise with multiple choice answers.</p>

[jaime_rowe]

<p>If you want to read more about the Certified Professional Photographer Exam (CPP Exam), then visit the <a href="http://www.certifiedphotographer.net/2011/5-quick-ways-to-increase-your-cpp-exam-score-by-10-points/">Certified Photographer Academy</a>! I'm a photographer that passed the exam in March 2011 and wrote a study guide called CPP Exam "Piece Of Cake" Study Guide to help other photographers pass the exam. Read lots of awesome articles and tips on how to pass the CPP Exam! If you are looking to better yourselves and/or your photography business, then you have come to the right place! Cheers!</p>

[jafar_aliyev]

<p>I think they mean medium format camera and 35mm camera uses their own 300mm lenses.<br>

Medium format uses its own 300mm lens and full-frame 35mm camera uses its own 300mm lens.<br>

Because there's no word about bayonet, or something else.<br>

So there is no crop factor between images in this case. If you can use the medium camera lens on full-frame camera crop will take place.</p>

[bill_pearce2]

<p>They are a part of the Professional Photographic Certification Commission which is affiliated with the Professional Photographers of America (PPA). </p>

<p>There the key. The PPA is in the business of making money. One way to do this is to give certifications. What is the agency that accredits them? I'll bet the answer is none. Beware of people that give those and people that require them. It sounds like something that is a quarter step above UNiversity of Phoenix.</p>