david_senesac

<p>

<p >I might easily argue against some comments in a number of posts above. Or could narrowly address the thread question. However I'll confine my below input to of narrowing the discussion that has otherwise hopelessly scattered itself too broadly.</p>

<p > The first problem is more narrowly defining your posed question. Otherwise the audience is going to run down a number of tangents about the more general philosophical notions of truth that have little to do with the essential nature of photography. (as some have) All a photograph has to offer is from a given camera perspective, a 2-dimensional replication of light similar to that experienced by our human eyes, that in a brief moment exposed film or affected sensor cells. And further if black and white just consider luminance information. Thus the audience needs to confine their musings to that essential nature of photography and not wander broadly elsewhere. </p>

<p > Some might hypothetically pose say a vehicle accident occurs on a busy urban boulevard with many people about where one (meaning one camera) photograph is taken by one of the bystanders. That image may not represent truth in terms of the cause of the accident, as each person at the scene will have visual memory of the experience from different visual perspectives that together is likely add much more important information than the single momentary camera capture. The mistake would be in not recognizing the limits of the camera capture and going beyond information it might logically offer. Likewise someone might capture a picture of a bystander holding a handgun he picked up moments after being thrown down by the murderer with the bloody victim laying in the foreground. Without any additional information, some might jump to a conclusion that the bystander was the killer. </p>

<p >One can take an image of a colorful red and blue parrot with an orange beak and post such an image for public viewing on a website. That the bird's colors are red and blue is true. People may be used to seeing that parrot species in those colors and immediately recognize the species without a thought about the colors. That the colors due to sensor or film non-linearities and transducer issues may shift a given hue 1% on blues, 5% on reds, reduce luminance by 4% etc in no way makes the truth that the subject was red, blue, and orange inaccurate because we sense those parameters roughly and lacking immediate visual comparisons of an actual parrot consider the result "reasonable". However if that same image is provided to a zoologist making a serious study of the exact feather hues of various parrot species, the truth that feathers are roughly red would not be good enough and instead a demand would be expected that the whole color capture system be calibrated to some verifiable level of accuracy against physical standards.</p>

<p >Another facet of photography is its graphic content of luminance information of form and shades. If a trusted news photographer's camera takes an image of a bulldog chomped down on the seat pants of a burglar caught in someone's backyard, regardless of the legal issues, we can all agree given added commentary by the reporter, it represents rather absolute evidence that the perpetrator was there. Sure such could be substantiated further by medical evidence of teeth marks in the bad guys butt, however the photograph alone would be all that is necessary to convince anyone. On the other hand a blurry hand held image of a too distant face is an example of a limitation of the graphic content so there are considerable ranges of what may be gleaned as true and what is relatively questionable, and what is impossible. A photograph taken with a normal lens with several bees on flowers 50 feet away can in no way identify a bee species.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thus lets confine truth about photographs, images, and cameras to what they narrowly are understood to produce. Within such confined parameters there are more than enough issues where truth, aka visual graphic fidelity, color fidelity, luminance fidelity, have value in terms of truth. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the above parrot example if in post processing a photographer shifts all hues say 45 degrees, all those colors will be obviously wrong and any ordinary person questioned will easily be able to confirm that the displayed parrot had inaccurate colors. Likewise the same might be applied to a mid afternoon scenic image with a blue sky. If the sky colors are shifted too much toward cyan as Velvia can sometimes do. We can relate that it rendered the sky at least a bit inaccurately. And if another photographer jacks up contrast and saturation, and creates hues in a sunset where none existed like is the status quo in many circles today, many of we outdoor experienced people can easily notice the result is beyond anything one might expect could occur on planet Earth and deny its truth while instead assigning it a category of creative visual art. </p>

</p>

<p >David Senesac</p>

<p ><b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per Photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

<p>One has to realise that setting up a complex view camera to make images and dealing with keeping the film protected from light except when exposed presents a lot of ways to waste the film. So in the begining going about those processes in any way less than methodically with a worked out plan after doing one's technical homework is likely to end up with mostly useless film. And before long one may join the majority who take a shot at large format but become soon become disallusioned with the difficulty only to go back to standard cameras. The former is how I started and my results were mostly useless. I was content to continue using MF but at some point took a good high detailed image by luck and wanted more. Thus brainstormed for a couple months working it all out. Then went through a brief period of screwing up film in several of the ways most of us experience as mentioned. However each time I made a mistake, I made a intent effort to figure out how to not repeat it. I had the whole process of what to do listed in careful detail and made a good spreadsheet record of everything I shot especially regarding the most difficult issue of exposure. In a short time I became very successful. </p>

<p>David Senesac<br>

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com">http://www.davidsenesac.com</a></p>

 

The below link is to one of my marketed 300mbTango drum scanned then Photoshop processed 4x5 Provia 100F

transparency images on my homepage gallery intended to be a 38 inch tall print at 304.8 dpi:

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_04-v1-4.html

 

I have a sub-page link below on my website homepage, "See How Sharp" that displays a narrow slice of that print file

image that will also display at an approximate 38 inch height on a computer monitor. Note since a typical monitor

RGB phosphor dot pitch is only one-third the pixel density of as a Lightjet print, I downsized that print file by one-

third to approximate how that might actually appear even thought the actual print would appear sharper.

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_aspen.html

 

And this page shows a narrower full 115 inch image slice of that same slice that has not been downsized. You will

need to use the scroll bar haha.

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/aspen_trunk100.html

Something not mentioned in any of the above posts that is a prime objective for my style of color photography is that

it is easier to achieve image fidelity if one uses the best color neutral films. Not something many these days seems

to appreciate given the status quo of jacked up contrast, saturation, and image manipulation. Among the best

modern relatively color neutral films that have been around for some time are EPN-100, much used for commercial

product photography, Astia, and Provia. The advantage of the later two Fuji films is that EPN-100 film grain and

resolution is limiting if one is interested in large print output as per my own style. The main limitation of these films

in terms of reproduction accuracy is their non-linear luminance range that compresses shadows and highlights within

whatever dynamic range one has exposed for. Ideally color and luminance fidelity is best when one exposes

accurately for a more evenly illuminated non-contrasty subject.

 

So the greatest advantage of digital sensor capture given more linearity is a broader dynamic range of luminance

capture. Thus highlights and shadows can be rendered more naturally that is less contrasty. Digital sensors also

have more potential for accurate color output if one has fully profiled their camera using high end commercial tools

and software as the Gretag-MacBeth SG color target and the full blown X-Rite EyeOne colorimeter/spectrometer

software. Otherwise there is only the usual white balance adjustments. Unfortunately few outside commercial

product photographers that need accuracy tend to bother. Many of them in fact prefer using color numerated

Pantone blades. And DSLR camera manufacturers have as yet not been interested in adding in the extra expense of

in camera calibration functions that would make adjusting to a reasonably accurate default simple. Thus average

users simply adjust their many DSLR camera settings and adjustments to what looks good for their purposes. And

per above in this day and age, that rarely includes an interest in a naturally rendered result even if they wanted

such. Thus after experiencing a day of shooting, the photographer returns home, downloads their RAW images, and

the only way they might recreate the actual experience is via adjustments to what they remember. And as the time

between shooting in the field and post processing increases, that likelyhood of being able to more accurately recall

what they experience diminishes.

 

So this is where film has a huge advantage if one has the interest I have. I always have the original transparency that

when post processing a subsequent scan, can view the slide on my reasonably color accurate light table right beside

my computer with its profiled monitor, in order to adjust colors and luminance in Photoshop for a reasonably good

match. Regarless of how much time has elapsed even if that is years. As long as the exposure on the film was fairly

accurate, it is easy to end up with a much more reasonably accurate digital file result than someone with any DSLR

that has not had an accurate profile performed and is simply trying to adjust from recall. In any case true

accuracy is and never will be technically available. However reasonably good accuracy is a reasonable goal for

those that seek such that any ordinary person viewing images would readily agree with versus those without control.

 

I've commented on this subject at web boards for many years and one can read my longer explanation that includes

some history at this link:

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html

Reality is outside of commercial product photographers that need to get their client product colors correct, and often

use very pricy Pantone or X-Rite SG/ Eye-one etc to do so, the vast majority of DSLR users only regularly white

balance. Doubtless not long out of the box, they will have tweaked all the myriad settings or loaded complementary

software that changes whatever semblance of manufacturer's color and luminance settings even if they were accurate

as RAW. As long as users who buy DSLRs haven't an interest in color accuracy and don't demand it, manufacturers

will continue to ignore it and leave it to piece meal solutions by third parties. I'll be glad to see the day when they

integrate that into higher end DSLRs so that one can easily return to defaut color settings. DSLR's certainly have

the theoretical capability of being much more accurate than the most accurate films like EPN-100 or Provia, but until

manufacturers bother results will be "in one's mind eye". I don't keep up on what is currently available and will be

glad to be corrected someday with the above no longer being the case.

Marc >>>"Are we the best judges of your own work ?"

 

Well it depends on who it is that is judging their own work. I'm a long time landscape photographer. I know alot

about that side of the artform. Thus can say I am a very good critic of my own work. Something I in hindsight took

many years to reach what I would grade reasonably competency. If I were to evaluate some other favorite style of

photography as portraiture, my value as a judge would be necessarily mediocre. Accordingly in my opinion I can

judge a lot of less experienced landscape photographers work in many ways, especially technically better than they

might. I see this all the time on other boards where posted images have any list of potential relative shortcomings or

flaws though are obviously appreciated by those posting images. When one enters the arena of criticizing more

abstract notions like intent, purpose, wonder, mystery, inspiration and the like, then the value of experience

becomes less a valid measure and one's style and opinions are more likely to be the extent of value.

 

Some statements here I tend to agree with:

 

---------------------

 

Albert >>>"Judging another's work competently suggests expertise in a field gained through a dedicated exposure to

the material for enough time to develop personal standards of convention and taste...Note that competent judges

have to learn their craft just as artists do. Also note that making a judgment about a work is not the same thing as

making the work itself."

 

Fred >>>Criticism is interactive. Effective criticism happens in the interplay between the critic's thoughts and the

photographer's. One sometimes does not see one's own work objectively and realistically. Others may point things

out that will help a particular photographer better realize his vision. Or not. The photographer, remaining true to his or

her own goals and tastes, must filter through all the critiques he or she gets and make the final but not the only

judgment."

 

Steve >>>"That's the problem with an Internet "critique" using your criteria, is that it falls into, "I may not know

anything about art - but, I know what I like." That's not a critique. A real critique is an interactive exchange between

the photographer and the person providing the critique. It also presupposes that the person providing the critique has

enough background in the art to recognize what the photographer is doing in relation to the history of art and

photography - including recent and new work. What passes as a "critique" on the Internet is really just drive-thru

commentary. "

 

Tom >>>"I think any good photographer should combine a certain amount of selfassuredness and an openness to

feedback. ..Good feedback needs to be concise and informative but yes, sometimes needs to be a bit more harsh to

make a point. Problem is that most people aren't really good at accepting constructive feedback and most people are

hesitant to provide it afraid to hurt someone else's feelings. "

 

-----------------------

 

Generally I have a rather low opinion of Internet board photography critiques. And that includes my own experience

on photo.net. I tend to be quite analytical, detailed, about everything well beyond photography. I have both a left

and right brain and can have either hemisphere emerse myself in imagery. Where many see simple things in this

world I often see complexities. I can easily stand in front of usual images at a gallery or museum and talk quite

awhile about what I see. I enjoy going to art fairs with others and going from booth to booth discussing hanging

prints. Especially large prints like my own large format work. If I see a great image or print, I can usually explain

why, just as I can one that doesn't or what kind of person may like an image and others that won't. However I'm not

always correct in my remarks and opinions and am not afraid or defensive admitting such if so. Sometimes

opinions of my own images take days and weeks to rise or fall to where I end up valuing them. Such works both

ways and for my own web posted work, others have at times made critical comments I have found valuable and thank

them for offering such. In any case the Web is limited in its value evaluating images of size much beyond the limited

pixel dimensions of a monitor. And that is especially true for images intended to be viewed as large high detail prints.

 

I lurked some in the Photo Critique Forum herein a few years ago. Pretty much the usual back slapping, stroking,

one liner mutual admiration society ruled. As on most such boards members seemed to be more interested in

cultivating mutual feely good responses by as many other popular members as they could with rarely anything

objective. I could see I would not be participating but felt like making a point. So on a whim one day, I went down a

list of posted images in sequence one after the other giving some terse honest input. I made a point of being very

careful about how I posed my language. Well just as expected a few responded with obvious raging incensed

indignation that I had the gall to actually relate so that upset their little cozy world.

 

On other photo boards I occasionally post a few of my own 4x5 scanned, downsized images, mainly because

regardless of what I think about critique forums, it is worthwhile to keep a finger to the pulse of what other peers are

doing and thinking while participating. So without being too controversial I'll put in my two cents regularly especially

when I think somewhat needs to stand up and provide other perspectives than those of the status quo. One of those

areas I am particularly active in and have been since way back in Usenet days is on manipulated nature and

landscape images. If someone wants to read a considerable essay on that subject they can go to my website and

select the Philosophy & Style link.

<img src="http://www.davidsenesac.com/Mariposa_3-07/wisner_bag.jpg"><br>

 

<p>I've responded to similar threads here before. As a long time backpacker and photographer, I'm pretty seasoned

working out in

foul weather conditions. We've all used cheap plastic bags before but what I do, per the above image in

Yosemite Valley, is

different. I use a large 3 or 4 mil plastic bag that has a mini-bunji duct taped at the bottom. The bunji easily

stretches around parts of my big tripod clipping ends together, thus keeping it in place during breezes. The 4 mil

plastic is the key as it

makes the whole bag sturdy, keeps its full shape so is easy to put on and remove, is not prone to blow around in the

wind, is easier to dry off with a towel than thin poly, and is not prone to be easily punctured. </p>

 

<p>Additionally I also carry a small compact fold up field umbrella that I more often use to block breezes though it

also

keeps me dry while standing next to my camera under the above poly bag. In any case when rain is coming down, I

tend to move to protection of say a nearby tree canopy while keeping my eye on my gear. And in my camera

daypack is a sizeable synthetic chamois. That is the cheap orange synthetic stuff one finds these days at any

Kragens auto store or drug store. A pack of tissues can be useful for drying one's eyeglasses too. Also on cold

days like the above, some waterproof ski gloves. Another issue will be fogging of one's ground glass. I use a special

custom dark cloth that has a rubber breathing tube venting breath to the outside while a diving nose clip prevents air

coming out of my nostrils.</p>

 

<p>David Senesac Photography<br>

http://www.davidsenesac.com</p>

Graffiti has become a serious problem in near urban natural areas of California. Of course graffiti is a particular

favorite activity of urban youth gangs. In our state the majority of such gangs are composed of second generation

immigrants or illegal immigrants. Such vandalism with spray paint has even occurred at some of the nations most

cherished national parks as Yosemite. Cleaning paint off natural rock is of course more difficult than painting over

some urban building wall. Obviously the young anarchistic purpetrators have little regard for their deeds except that

it is a way they can anger the rest of us. Part of the solution is to make penalties much more painful for those

caught versus the usual anonymous kids glove treatment they often receive for doing such in their local urban

communties.

Quite a response to this topic though I didn't as yet tonight bother to read through most of the responses. The

general subject does come up on enthusiast boards about all manner of outdoor activities. For instance on one

board I frequent, one often sees the question as to whether people ought to hike out into the backcountry alone or

not. Personally I am and have been more often alone than not though also enjoy working with others. The question

breaks down into the two areas of safety and photographic advantage.

 

As I enjoy working with other people, I have been lucky enough to have found another landscape photographer

over 20 years ago, that I mesh well with. And thus we have often worked together in the field and plan extended

trips together. For instance we have spent several weeks together on long road trips to distant Western areas and

backpacked together many times. Landscapes, especially those in more remote areas can be rather complex.

Two intelligent, experienced minds working together as a team potentially is better than the individual as is also the

case in many difficult activities of people. It is true photographers can visually get in each other's way at times,

though that rarely results in one person getting a shot that the other doesn't. In our case we don't target animals or

fleeting subjects but rather landscapes that cannot run away. Thus sometimes we take our turns tripoding in the

obvious prime spot. Sometimes when one of us discovers a tripod spot with a great frame, we will let each other

take a look at what we framed before moving on. And sometimes the other person may decide to set up the same

shot or very similar shot accordingly. Thus as long time friends we don't have an issue benefiting from a level of

sharing.

 

Group photography outings can in fact be socially fun, though beyond two people, the tendency to get in other's way

increases quickly. There is also an issue of being able to agree with where one will work in the field. Rambling

across a landscape, it is easy for one person to linger in one spot while the other is moving ahead. One person may

want to take a shot of something the other isn't interested in or feels isn't worth the effort. The more people involved,

the more likely the area that can be worked will become constrained. Obviously two people working in the field

together to be successful require both a similar strategy, interest in subject types, and style as well as a way to

effectively communicate.

 

The other issue of safety is greatly dependent on location and circumstance. Hiking with expensive gear just outside

a large urban area where those of a criminal mind are more likely to frequent, is of course far more dangerous from

evildoers than if one is out at a lonely remote locale in the West. On the other hand a remote place in the West

may be dangerous due to natural terrain and or animals. In the urban case, another person along goes a long ways

just as in the remote situation but for entirely different reasons. There are many well experienced intelligent

landscape photographers that become quite comfortable working their familiar natural regions solo and do so. On

the other hand the less experienced outdoor person would be wise to team up with others.

 

The position of young attractive women solo out in the field may be particularly dangerous near urban natural areas

because those regions do have numbers of evil people that have little regard for those they victimize for their vile

selfish deeds. However when those same women venture to more distant scenic areas, one will often see many out

solo on trails and that is especially true in the backpacking community. It is true women more often team up with

other women, males, or a dog, but reality is such regions usually are rarely visited by evildoers who are by nature

lazy. That is reflected in the way backpackers regularly leave their gear at campsites while they are off on long day

hikes without having to worry about other hikers going through their gear much less stealing something. In any case

there are limits there, so I never leave my expensive camera gear unattended at a campsite others might pass by

and am more wary the closer to trailheads.

 

David

 

http:www.davidsenesac.com

Bob, you sound like where I was at over a couple dozen years ago. Photographers today have far more options including much lighter gear weights. Importantly one needs to consider what the purpose of their photographic images will be. For personal use, showing images digitally on computers, making small prints, or web use there really isn't much need to carry more than a small pocket sized compact digital camera at 8mp and small tripod. Such small cameras like your A700 can do amazing things even versus last decades best 35mm SLR film cameras. However once one begins printing at sizes larger than 8x10 inches, image quality suffers. If one has aspirations of displaying larger sized prints in public, that will become a factor in bringing along larger bulkier heavier more painful to lug gear into the backcountry. At some level the effort will detract from the enjoyment of such trips enough that a person needs to compromise. In my own case as an older landscape photographer that long ago got a foot in, then a leg in, got waste deep in, and finally neck deep in gear, being capable of bringing any format into the backcountry has become reality. However each person's physical strength will necessarily limit what is possible. And eventually age will increasingly limit what any person can handle. A link to my gear page:

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Backpacking/david_backpacking.html

Marc regularly produces the best landscape images I've seen for images that conform to the style he has adopted. That is a digital extention of what Galen Rowell began in the 90s with Velvia film that ended the former Kodachrome period where there was more interest in capturing images with fidelty. Images that usually do not reflect actual experiences photographed but rather are a vision of "in one's mind's eye" during those events that was a key concept in Galen's work and today is by far the most popular status quo of nature photographers today that now use digital cameras. The considerably more advanced digital processing functions available today has moved that style on to new levels that Marc shows outstanding command over and has no doubt drawn into that style a large number of others eager to follow. That is especially true of low light conditions at dawn and dusk where DSLRs are capturing images that our eyes cannot experience yet record scenes of amazing beauty. Unlike many landscape images by pros and advanced amateurs today, Marc's images tend to keep the vision of what he produces more in the conservative realm of the believable than what I see coming out of many photographers that seem to revel in overly contrasty images with super saturation beyond even the most ideal natural phenomenon. That necessarily comes out of his considerable respect for the natural experiences and phenomenon he witnesses.

 

Another thing Galen did was readily get out into remote places beyond where others ventured. And Marc does that more than few others. Even into some quite harsh conditions just like Galen did. As someone that has long followed a similar approach, I will note that is quite key to bringing back the kind of images Marc has been successful at though that side of his success seems to dribble down little into the awareness of others that wish to emulate his style.

 

I was also a great fan of Galen and especially his masterpiece "Mountain Light" though followed a different style personally in my own landscapes, continuing to seek recording images with as much fidelity as possible given the limits of readily available film and technology. However there will be a time in the not too distant future when I will no doubt adopt a full digital workflow and certainly explore some of these other areas that Marc is now leading the main herd of we visual artists down the road to.

 

David Senesac

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

For those photographers that are interested in traveling to Southern California

this spring and possibly visit wildflower areas, you might check the sub-page

link at top right on my below website homepage:

 

Spring 2008 wildflower areas: Current Climate Information

 

that provides concentrated information on the climate condition status for well

known spring wildflower locations in desert regions of Southern California.

Information is presented mainly through a state precipitation map and graphs

plotted from Department of Water Resourses CDEC site public precipitation data.

Thus information that can be useful for evaluating if various locations have

likely received enough rain for decent blooms and when. I will be updating the

information as the current season progresses. As has been reported on a few

well known web sites, the first desert wildflowers have already risen in some

Eastern Mojave areas with a lot more to come in the next couple months.

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

A question with any art destruction might be to categorize the motives. Were the perpetrators performing a revengeful act against society like delinquent kids that have been spanked by our laws that later go out and vandalize or burn down schools? Or was it pea-brained anarchists who revel in destructive acts against the world they hate? Or was it someone that hates something about the art they think is immoral, unethical, grates against a cause they value, their culture, or is religiously insensitive etc. In the later case, the situation rarely rises to the level even vandals would actually go out of their way to destroy such. However one can imagine a considerable amount of disgusting possibilities that would outrage any of us. Thankfully our societies don't allow such more extremes to be mainstream publically exhibited. ...David

Frame symmetry is a subset of frame geometry. A given subject might be composed aestheticcally in a number of ways. Generally one could make a statement that compositions with good geometries are usually more visually aesthetic than those that are not. And likewise one could make a similar statement that compositions with good balance and symmetry tend to be more visually aesthetic than those that are not. And one could state that images making good use of the golden two-thirds rule of framing the primary subject in a frame tends to work better than those that offset the primary subject. However all those statements are relative while there is an enormous range of subjects and settings, each of which if composed using the above tendencies doesn't necessarily guarantee the best results. Thus one ought to keep in mind good compositional tendencies while also efficiently exploring other compositional possibilities as is practical before bothering to make a photograph. Often one can use imbalances in a composition to create visual tensions that bring two dimensional image capture a valuable dynamic. And images with some especially strong geometry elements can be so dominant that one ought to simply compose around those geometries for whatever works well.

 

Another issue is the perception of some art critics seems to be one a dislike for balance and symmetry as though such isn't creative, novel, or interesting enough to entertain them. I find such judgements valid if they represent such as their own personal preference but not as more generalized criticism if such is not likely to be shared by the average non-sophisticated audience. For example closeup images of a single flowers often work best with geometrical pleasant symmetrical compositions. However I've noticed that some critics seem to be at pains to accept such and thus one always sees their own work with imbalance and offsets. I would suggest that a more open minded balanced approach depending on the merits of each subject is a more worthwhile perspective.

 

...David

Obviously the venue has much to do with presentation size. The large galleries and museums with massive wall space and superb lighting can afford to present their curator fav artists, peon or famous, in ways that sets them apart from lesser small galleries thus offering patrons something unique. I personally prefer to stand close to a large highly detailed large format print than back at theatre screen viewing billboard distances though can appreciate why the latter is attractive in its own way. ...David

Thanks for the link Ronald as I can strongly relate to what Ken wrote. I have been in working in engineering here in Silicon Valley several decades and likewise read and studied all manner of technical books and magazines on photography long ago too. However not close to the level Rockwell apparently persued technology and gear but certainly more than the average non-pro photographer. Gear and camera skills are only a part of the game. Another part of the solution for nature and landscape work is about becoming familiar with the environment and natural history where one photographs. One can get out month after month all year long, year after year, and unless one knows what, where, and when, they could be wasting a lot of potentially productive time inefficiently. That in itself is a reason why many outdoor photographers probably hit a ceiling with their body of work while lacking understanding of how to break out beyond that level. Guide books, seminars, and field trips only go so far in gaining knowledge for what, where, and when. To some extent well known photographers probably get inside grapevine information about what, where, and when on photography subjects but one can go a lot further without such passed information as many successful landscape and natures photographers did it on their own. What one discovers upon taking up an active photography lifestyle is one can gain considerable knowledge about the environment, natural history, locations, season, time of day, and what works as an image and what doesn't by actively working in the field with an awareness of whats going on and then reviewing results. However it takes time, a lot of time, and years and years later one is still learning as it is a never ending process of increasing knowledge while technology evolves.

 

...David Senesac

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Superior patterms of form, geometry, color, and or inspirational content on the artform's two dimensional media that our human mind's sense and filter providing a wonderfully pleasing visual experience. It is usually far more about a great subject than the style or technique of the photographer. Because there is such variation in our human senses, minds, and personal experiences, there is also much variation between individuals in what is exceptionally visually pleasing. However one would find that some superior subject's exceptionally photographed would consistently appeal to a high percentage of viewers. For example a beautifully colorful rainbow in a pleasant scenic setting most can empathize with. Or a bunch of lovable happy faced puppies in a cute basket etc. Thus one could on a subject by subject type basis analyze what it is with those subjects that make them so universely appealing. However we humans are complex enough mentally and experiencially that one could not generalize across the broad scope of possible great subjects and come up with many parameters that universally apply. Thus your question seems to seek simple answers distilled from reflections of a complex world and complex human experience in a way that may not be practical.

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

When I got my business running and started marketing my images again in 2004, I posted a thread here on photo.net about the larger than normal size of images I would be posting at my website on my image gallery and asked what other's thought about doing so. A number of members here recommended I ought not do so because the images might be thieved. I basically laughed at how anything of XVGA size or smaller is way too puny to use in any way I was interested in seriously protecting. Of course at that time most photographers had image galleries with tiny 480 or 640 pixel maximum dimension images and monitor sizes were more often only 15 or 17 inches. A legacy of the slower network speeds that at the time was rapidly being replaced by services as DSL.

 

I chose to display my website 4x5 images at 7.5% of print size that worked out to be about 860 pixels wide. My reason for doing so was even that modest increase in size has a huge impact in the aesthetic look of many images. Thus you might say I was cheating versus most of my web competition. Since then it has been interesting to see quite a lot of others now using larger sizes of reference images in their galleries too.

 

Some will say a great image will look so regardless of how much it has been downsized. That may be true to some extent but there is a great deal that is valuable to the positive aesthetic of large format images that are simply lost when downsizing and compressing an image greatly. Most of my drum scanned print images for 30x38 inch Lightjet prints have over 8k by 11k pixel dimensions so reducing them to usual monitor sizes changes some image areas so radically the resulting fine detail and textures may end up as simply looking like mottled baby poo. One can certainly critique any image at downsized web dimensions and effectively evaluate a number of parameters. However there are certainly additional parameters related to the nature of finer detail that can only effectively be evaluated by viewing larger prints of the end process. ...David

If one end process print was stated as being an 8x10 print at 300 ppi resolution, and applied the same amount of measured vibration to each camera viewing the same angle of view, the large format image would of course hold correspondingly greater recoverable information because the distance of movement would be the same while its ration to the area of film would be much lower with LF. Also the heavier the camera, the less likely one will transmit vibrations due to the greater mass being less effected. However once the weight becomes great enough that one's muscels and skelectal strength are stressed, there is likely to be unstable movement simply due to those stresses.

 

Another issue with large format is that in order to capture its full resolution potential, the subject and camera vibration need to be lower than with smaller formats. So for instance, if one is taking a landscape with receeding fine detail of side lit knee high grasses in a foreground, the ability to capture that fine detail requires calmer wind conditions to be successful versus what a smaller format would require to capture a reasonable level of near sharpness. The smaller format would of course capture much less fine detail even in still air though the same breeze that captured fuzzy fine detail on the large format image might appear below the threshold of capture on a smaller format capture. ...David

I don't buy into the strategy of one backpack for both camping and photography gear. But then I'm both a serious backpacker and a serious photographer and not someone occasionally dabbling in the backcountry. Thus two decades ago began using various custom pack solutions of separating the camping gear backpack and the attachable smaller camera gear pack. Why carry a much larger pack with extra gear than necessary once one arrives at a shooting destination? Large format gear is heavy enough without making it any heavier. So one hikes 6 miles with a full dual pack of 60 pounds to Reflection Lake, arrives and makes camp. Then removes the 20 pound piggybacked camera gear daypack and is free to explore the local landscape with much more ease. Check the "Backpacking" sub-page link on my home page at:

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

 

...David

Thanks for the information. I have asked the gate person, about parking outside the reserve on highway 1, staying till sunset, then hiking out. They seemed to say it would be ok to stay till sunset and begin hiking out but not linger through dusk. Their main concern of course is locking the gate to cars. Since it is such a small park, I almost always park outside and then walk in. I won't be surprised if the new policy runs into problems by those that choose to park inside and then stay for dusk photos because often the best dusk skies occur about 20 minutes after sunset that then would hardly allow someone to hike back to their car and drive out. For that reason photographers would best park outside, get some exercise, and then hike out with a headlamp on the easy to follow pave road. ...David

I can say with certainty that one can capture a range of images that are out of focus and or blurry that almost all of us would agree might be subjectively rated as unpleasant to just horrible. On the other hand one can also capture images where out of focus backgrounds emphasize a subject or with blur say by wind on vegetation or water add a sense of motion that appeals to our aesthetic senses. There are some images in fact some quite large taken with large format with such detail that when a few feet away, one almost feels part of the scene. It can be a wonderful experience. And then there are images of say colorful sunsets with dim foreground and middle grounds that whether the scene was captured by small format providing little detail or larger formats with more detail has little bearing on the resulting print. ...David

There are of course nice, good, great, and really exceptionally great photographs and I'll refer to the later. It is interesting that most of we humans regardless of our cutural, social, and ethnic backgrounds, aesthetic and art orientations react somewhat similarly to great photographs. And usually the reaction is rather immediate. For me that immediate reaction to some images is an important quality though it is true that there are some truly great images that are more slow to rise in appreciation and others that provoke such a reaction only to soon be appraised as also flawed thus not great. That tends to show that we humans share some level of similar visual sensory and mental characteristics in response to subejct, form, geometry, lines, colors, tones, and shades that we might crudely outline some aspects of what tends to be aesthetic and what doesn't. Of course there is more to just the aesthetic nature in some photographic subjects as artist of all media have long found ways to captivate our sensory responses and intelligent minds. But generally most great photographs also have strong aesthetic appeal.

 

...David

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Thanks for the correction Rob, as you are correct that all the currently marketed high end PowerShot A-Series Canon's do have manual focus and importantly focus lock. I'm guessing the current generation A-Series all use the same ic family to implement this. Note that wasn't the case for at least some of the older now dated A-Series models. That goes a long ways in solving my needs and I commend the Canon engineers for doing so. Certainly these models will be at the top of my list when I buy my next camera. ...David

Micheal, I've looked at the P5000 and it is appears to use the same internal ic as other P&S Nikons have the last few years including my current 7900. There ic does not have functionality I am discussing thus they would need to redesign parts of that ic. I've noted some camera review web sites that check off cameras as having manual focus but upon more serious checking don't. For instance the Coolpix's have a manual target position function that then uses autofocus though some sites apparently think that is manual focus though is certainly not. Note I've been in electronic engineering test in Silicon Valley three decades so have some understanding of likely internal system structures.

 

Rob, the only P&S Canon's with manual focus are the top end very expensive G7 and G80.

 

The few P&S cameras that have had manual focusing in the past and currently that I've played with do a reasonable implementation of it though it is sometimes difficult to focus in bright sun outdoors. One needs to necessarily have a hood or headgear with a dark flap that goes over one's camera. The main drawback with manufacturers is that it does add both a bit of both mechanical and electronic circuitry and thus cost. Additionally since they have not put demand on the P&S camera ic designers to deliver manual focusing, there probably aren't many designs where they even have an option to incorporate such. ...David