Digital discontent, or, I bitch about Canon

A friend and I went shooting yesterday at a local park. The group behind the park are applying for a grant and wanted some photos for the application, so we grabbed a Canon 20D and a few lenses and set off, thinking that digital’s convenience would be a clear win in terms of delivery speed, and that the camera’s automation would allow them some frustration-free shooting. In short: I hated it.

I don’t shoot a lot of landscapes, and when I do, I usually use a toy camera with film. I’ve probably taken less than 25 landscape shots on the 20D in the year or so I’ve had it, so take all of this with a grain of salt.

I usually only use the DSLR when I really need the strengths of digital, which for me, with this camera, are the ability to shoot a lot without changing recording media very often, speed of getting a digitized image into a computer, ability to shoot a lot without increased cost (with digital, the more you shoot, the lower your per-frame cost is, which is kind of weird), and the ability to make an unlimited number of perfect copies. For me it’s for non-artistic, utility work shooting like events and products, which I normally do indoors with controllable lighting or where there’s a dominant subject.

One thing that really pisses me off about DSLRs in general—I won’t say digital as a whole because I don’t really use digicams and have never even seen a digital medium or large format back—is that they’re still metering for film. Digital is not film, and this ends up being a real problem. Digital needs to be "exposed to the right" to get non-crappy shadows, and this isn’t some hair-splitting, pixel-peeping bullshit, it makes a difference in actual photography. The problem is that the metering on all DSLRs I’ve ever handled or read about don’t take this into account. The result is that if you want a decent image, you have to make an exposure, check your histogram, and re-shoot until it’s right.

LCDs are useless for judging exposure by inspecting the image (which is why I don’t really care about larger screens, I only use them for the menus (ugh) and histograms, and I don’t need more of a battery suck to do it). This means that you have to go by histograms to see what you really have. On the 20D you only get a luminance histogram, which means that you could be clipping one of the color channels and not know. Yes, you do get RGB histograms on the higher-end bodies, but it astounds me that you can pay $1,500 for a digital camera that gives you no way to actually know what you’ve got. To me, this is about 1/3 of the whole point of digital: knowing what you’ve got. You don’t get that on the 20D, you get to wait until you’ve applied another field-unfriendly process to what you’ve captured… just like film. $1,500 in and Polaroids are still the best option.

Right. So, shoot, examine misleading histogram, guess, and re-shoot. Lovely. On top of that, Canon’s matrix metering was utterly atrocious. I had to apply plus or minus two whole stops of exposure compensation to get decent-looking histograms, depending on the lighting conditions. Most of the first exposures of a given scene—the ones shot as metered by the camera—were unusable. Maybe when you shoot JPG instead of RAW, the camera does some fancy processing that fudges it, but I can’t imagine anyone shooting landscapes as metered and not returning the camera immediately.

Bottom line: I got a lot of aggravation, a heap of extra images to wade through, missed lighting while checking histograms, and less predictable and accurate exposures than I do shooting slide film using the sunny 16 rule.

Next time I guess I’ll have to set the camera to bracket as much as it allows and machine gun it. That’s kind of OK for landscape photography in static light. But what about the vast majority of other types of shooting, where you don’t have that luxury? This is progress? This shit doesn’t work for what it’s supposed to do.

Side gripe: I invite anyone at Canon to take a 20D, 30D, or 5D, put a 70-200 2.8L IS lens on it, and frame a handheld shot. With me? Good. Now [attempt to] press the depth of field preview button. I can’t imagine what it must be like with a longer lens. The button really needs to be moved to the grip, under the middle or ring finger. To say nothing of the sustained and at this point literally unbelievable lack of an MLU button.

Moral confusion in photography

Mike Johnston responds to a comment about a daguerreotype of 9/11 that questions the photo’s morality. Interesting read.

The source of the reaction seems simple: ordinary viewers know that to take a photograph you have to be proximate to your subject. Thus, they know that the photographers were "there." And if they were there, the logic seems to go, they should have acted to change the situation, somehow. (It’s partially a wishful "I" statement on the part of the viewer, to wit: "If I had been there, I would have taken action.")

Check it out at The Online Photographer

Omnimatter: “Rediscover Polaroid”

Aaron Muderick has written a solid primer on Polaroid photography:

Every film photographer will tell you about the shots they lost because the lens cap was on, the film was bad, the camera setting was incorrect, or their own technique was mistaken. In the film era, one only found out about these critical mistakes days or weeks later when the film was developed and processed. By this time, the shot was lost forever. Digital changed all of this with the tiny video screen on the back of each camera.

However, the inventors of the digital camera were not the first to solve this problem of image turnaround. In 1947, a Harvard dropout was driven to invent by the impatience of his three year old daughter: “Daddy, why can’t I see my pictures NOW!”. His name was Edwin Land and his company was Polaroid.

Continue reading at Omnimatter

Anti-photo hysteria spreads to Oz

Prime Minister John Howard says a ban on taking photographs at a shopping complex in Melbourne is over the top.

Melbourne’s Southgate complex has banned people taking photos as part of heightened security measures.

Ms Peck acknowledges that some may say it is a win for those who wish to curb Australia’s freedom but believes the policy is justified.

The article does quote sane people as well:

Liberty Victoria’s president, barrister Brian Walter, says the centre’s concerns about terrorism are unjustified.

"What a load of rubbish. Give us one example in Australia where taking of photography has led to a terrorist attack," he said.

"There’s just none and people take a lot of photos every day, and to suggest that you can somehow make that link in a rational way is absurd," he said.

Continue reading at ABC News Australia.

Via dessabel

Mike Johnston photography forum simulator

Mike Johnston subjects some famous photos to his sharp wit in the form of fictitious but too-realistic photography forum comments in Great Photographers on the Internet; great hilarity ensues! On a photo by "decisive moment"-coiner and legendary street photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson:

Bonjour Henri, assuming you are French, or at least understand it. This is a great capture, I love the composition and the dog. We had a dog that looked kind of like that one once. Your problem here is that your AF has focused on the wrong place—the man is actually kind of soft! The camera has mistakenly focused on the people in the doorway, creating a distracting softness in the man. Usually it is best to focus on the closest object and most times the camera will choose the closest large object to focus on, but unfortunately not here. But it is still an amazing capture. Cordially, Edwin

Continue reading at The Online Photographer

More thoughts on the Jill Greenberg controversy at Hawk’s Digital Connection

Ok, so it seems like the heat is turning up on this Jill Greenberg controversy stuff. You remember Jill. The woman who takes photos of the emotionally wrenched kids in the name of art against the Bush administration (I think)…

From Hawk’s previous post on the subject:

So what is Jill Greenberg doing? She is taking babies, toddlers under three years old, stripping them of their clothes and then provoking them to various states of emotional distress, anger, rage etc. — so that she can then take photos of them this way to "illustrate her personal beliefs." If you’d like to see how worked up she can get these kids you can click through here. Be warned that it is graphic. Although the children are not sexualized, I consider what she is doing child pornography of the worst kind.

Continue reading at Thomas Hawk’s Digital Connection

After looking at the photos, I agree.

How can I have a problem with this and not with Witkin (NSFW)? Easy: informed consent. It differentiates sex from rape, boxing from assault, and DNR orders from murder… an important concept, to be sure. Witkin’s models know what they’re getting into and freely choose it. With kids of this age, there’s no way to make a legal or moral argument that they’ve been informed or have consented—that’s what makes it abuse.

I’m a big believer in fighting ideas rather than people, but in this case, I can’t pretend that I don’t think that Jill Greenberg—personally, not just her methods—is a reprehensible piece of shit. And where the fuck were these kids’ parents?? I sincerely hope that every one of the subjects finds a way to sue the ever-loving fuck out of everyone involved in this shameful affair.

World War II pinhole photographer dies

Terence Sumner Kirk, a former World War II prisoner of war who built a pinhole camera from cardboard scraps and used smuggled-in photo supplies to snap photographs of fellow malnourished Marines, has died. He was 89.

Risking a certain death sentence if he was caught by Japanese soldiers, Mr. Kirk built a pinhole camera from scraps of cardboard and used smuggled-in photo supplies to snap priceless photographs of prison life so the horrors could not be forgotten.

Continue reading at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Kirk wrote a book about his experience, The Secret Camera, which is available for US $30 from Owl Wise Publishing.

This is exactly why photography isn’t only good for art or family keepsakes, but can have a huge social impact. Don’t you think that Holocaust-deniers would have an easier time of it without photography? The officers who beat Rodney King? Tiananmen Square? The right to photograph and video is important!

Via Pinhole Visions

Awesome implications of ISO 24,000 film

Yesterday, I posted (well, lifted Oren Grad’s post from The Online Photographer) about an ultra high-speed ISO 24,000 B&W reversal film emulsion that Kodak have developed, but one implication didn’t hit me until today: if released commercially, it would allow handheld pinhole photography at normal shutter speeds.

An aperture of f/185 gives you a shutter speed between 1/125 and 1/250 second in about a half stop under full sun, and you’d have an even wider range of choices with zone plates or photon sieves, whose aperture equivalents are larger.

This opens up a lot of possibilities that didn’t really exist before: tripod-free shooting, flash (including fill flash), precision exposure control with normal shutters, and a whole world of candid/documentary and indoor and outdoor stop-motion photography.

While I generally like the slower shooting experience of pinhole photography, sometimes it’s just annoying, and sometimes it outright prevents me from getting the shots I want.

I’m really excited by the possibility of more creative choices. Bring it on, Kodak!