About this Site...
Not Very Interesting Background Information
To date the photographic information contained in this website is primarily the result of dedicated study spanning 6 years or so. Of course, on its own there's nothing special about that.
Knowledge is a valuable resource and some of us will gladly get buried in a pile of books to learn all we can about whatever it is that interests us. A few have what it takes to collate and articulately share the more important bits. But it takes more than that to offer advice. You can be confident that the entire content of the photo section is cemented together by decades of photographic experience.
Sharing knowledge and experience online can prove to be a seriously tough task. At least that's how it was for me. Writing up the content systematically and coherently, creating the unique graphics and being personally responsible for web page design and online management was in itself a complicated project that took 100s of hours to complete. For various reasons it's far from being slick, but I've been told many times that it gets the job done. If you've any comments to share, you're welcome to use the email address near the bottom of the page. I particularly welcome corrections!
Grab your camera gear and escape the madness.
I initially took an interest in 35mm photography way back in the mid-70s, but it wasn't until the early 90s that I concentrated on developing a much more serious, in-depth approach. Although I'm still very much an amateur (not full-time and no letters after my name, though in the real world they often count for little), my research and experience has culminated in this section of my website where I've brought together a series of essays especially written with the amateur photographer and novice in mind.
I first manipulated a digital image in 1991, but overall only worked on and off with image-editing software for a few years, which was frustrating because I was fascinated by the creative possibilities. Since early 2002, when I invested in a quality scanner, I've been devoting a lot of time to improving my work on film in the digital darkroom. It's been quite a slow learning curve, partly due to financial restraints. As a dedicated amateur I've also gone back to the drawing board by throwing out a load of earlier work and zeroing in on what's really worthwhile. I'm shooting less and thinking more.
I shoot digital regularly, advanced compact and SLR, mainly while enjoying outdoor pursuits. I'm generally impressed. I believe that even with all that convenience and immediacy it could be argued that consumer DSLRs fall a little short of what I need as an advanced amateur — just my opinion, of course. However, in the context of 4000 ppi scanned film (negative film in particular), the most recent full-frame cameras are a viable alternative albeit with some in-the-field and software work-arounds to expand the tonal range. But the price is a very real barrier to many.
Resources
Anyway, enough about me. If you're particularly interested in digital technology and you're working hard to make the best of it to further your photographic hobby, you should begin by looking out for The 123 of Digital Imaging Interactive Learning Suite™ by Vincent Bockaert. This fascinating and weighty e-book is crammed with everything you could possibly need to know about digital imaging. It's not a practical guide to SLR photography; nor is it some kind of Photoshop tutorial, as was suggested on a photo forum I abandoned. It's very much more useful and educational than that.
For various reasons I won't go into this site does not have a links page, but if you would like to supplement the basic, more practical information provided here, take a look at the following:
Ted's Photographics — The Fundamental Principles of Photography Explained. And I was impressed by ePaperPress. If you've latched on to the benefits of 35mm scanning you'll definitely want to visit Scantips. A very authoritative site. But best of all, have a look HERE. Proper photographic input from Petteri Sulonen. And there's a mountain of expert advice HERE from Glenn E Mitchell II.
Click HERE for information that may be of interest to amateur shooters using advanced compacts and consumer DSLRs. Owned and run by Siegfried Seierlein, this website includes images, instructive articles, a forum and the chance to order a unique book dedicated to G-series users.
Finally, when it comes to editing colour images there's no better authority than Michael Kieran.
If you're currently working on a photography course, ask your tutor to assess these sites. Together they will be a significant asset.
Skipped Topics?
There are some topics I haven't touched on here, mainly because when I thought it over I came to the conclusion that it wasn't really necessary. Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority, for example, are covered in any SLR manual and I'm convinced that in practice Composition can't really be taught — you either have it in you or you don't and some of the suggested rules I've come across are clearly better suited to artists with brushes and pencils (and rubbers!). Others boldly take the subject on and have plenty to say about it but I agree with the relevant quotes below.
PHOTO QUOTES
“There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants.”
Arnold Newman“Compostion is important but I believe it is largely a matter of instinct...”
Bill Brandt“I don't think you should be very conscious in photography of classic rules of graphic composition.”
Walker Evans“If my students talk about the technical side of photography, I tell them it is not about that. You can learn to operate a camera and work in the darkroom and still be mediocre. What you have to do is take photographs which create an emotion within you.”
Alberto Korda“I must have the eye, you can't be taught photography.”
Bert Hardy
“You don't study photography—you do it.”
Elliott Erwitt
The (Confusing) Exactness of Science
Some time ago I read this: "Data (pixels) captured in a CCD is an analog process. They are stored as a minute voltage level in a capacitive junction associated with each pixel. The voltage level stored between black (no light/no voltage) and white (saturated pixel) is a few hundred millivolts. Typically between 10 and 350 mv." Just for layman laughs, here's another: "Several photons have to hit each grain of silver to produce a stable chemical change. If only one photon hits, the change is unstable." In fact, I've read a lot of stuff like this. It's not that the exactness of science and the complexities of film and digital photography don't have their place, it's just that the average amateur photographer can't possibly keep on top of all the specialised fields without blowing a bundle of brain cells.
As a very perceptive individual on a newsgroup put it: "...some people have to understand every aspect of photography down to the third place right of the decimal point. I really do understand how one can be driven crazy if they do not know exactly how many pixels or dots end up on the printed page. Someone actually was talking about photons scattering in the film emulsion... Well, I have had the opportunity to look at some of the more enlightened individuals' photos... Some good shots, some bad shots, for the most part okay, but nothing we will see hanging in the New York Institute of Photography any time soon. The words however are very resounding and seem to come from a deep cavern of photographic knowledge. Perhaps a secret book the rest of are not allowed to read..." (with thanks to Patrick Ziegler, Image Quest Photography).
There are countless photographic gurus out there who have commendably analysed huge mountains of facts and interrelated data yet, oddly, fall into different camps and argue over their findings — a bit like those bleating politicians who always seem to know better than the equally well informed opposition. So what dedicated amateurs are really aiming for are reasonably sharp, tonally rich prints that are the result of excellent SLR technique and software tuning.
Another worthwhile option is to burn your very best images to DVD for a slick widescreen experience that challenges and in some ways surpasses conventional slideshows. Whatever your specific goals, take a balanced, sensible approach, push the quality as far as you can and need to according to your budget and don't get too absorbed along the way with the complex technicalities of photographic science. You will get prints and images you are very pleased with.
It's a fact that the modern amateur has to be familiar with computers and the daunting demands of image-editing software. There's a lot to keep your eye on! But you can break it down a couple of ways. You'll need a DSLR, reasonable quality lenses (no need for top quality here — ignore the forum twaddle), a powerful computer, software that's good enough to do your images justice and finally, a method of getting good quality prints. If you stick with film, you'll need an SLR and a powerful computer preferably attached to a decent 35mm scanner. You can of course convert a room into a wet darkroom if you prefer, but the digital darkroom is very convenient and if you wash regularly it should smell a lot better too.
These days it's not necessarily true that a well-specified and solidly constructed computer for precise image-editing is a mere doorstop after 2 or 3 years. And even if that were the case, computers are becoming an integral part of the home and constitute an important investment for all the family.
How Useful Are Photography Forums?
Well, it depends. You'll get plenty of encouragement and you'll learn how others solved some of the frustrating problems you're facing, but...
Engaging questions like "Which eye do you put to your viewfinder?" and the joys of social interaction apart, having been involved with a variety of photography forums since 2000 I can say with confidence that authoritative and articulate experts are rare contributors. Heads and backsides, and black crows and white crows come to mind too.
While unavoidably muddling through their learning curve some offer advice that merely reflects their opinions and level of experience with SLRs and software. Sometimes it won't matter, sometimes it certainly will. Others (myself included) can find it hard to back off from their tried and tested preferences that won't suit everybody, no matter how much they want them to. Be wary.
You'll undoubtedly be led to believe that RAW is the only choice for serious images and JPEG will only do for family snaps. This is photo forum misinformation at its very best. And some will claim that RAW processing alone could be all many of your images will ever need, which definitely needn't be the case. How much time do you have to work on your images? Why not take things further if you can?
You'll be advised to use ND graduated filters to control contrast extremes. Yes, indeed you can, and that's good. But you may not be encouraged to investigate clever software techniques that can deliver more realistic results (not to be confused with HDR). Don't shy away from learning how to use good software. Recording images properly is just half the DSLR story. It's a bit like taking a negative strip into the darkroom.
On photo forums you may read about how to get accurate digital exposures using traditional film techniques such as spot metering and using grey cards. You'll also find threads that share the best way to meter when using ND graduated filters. But too few on photo forums emphasise using the histogram for digital exposures. But it looks like it may be catching on.
Beyond doubt there will be forum members wherever you go who believe that we all need very good "glass" if we want to get very good images. What planet are they on? Thanks largely to Photoshop's Channel Mixer you won't hear much, if anything, about B&W processing methods that use colour channel separations and selective toning (and sharpening) in layers. And so on until the end of time...
Stimulating and engaging they may be, but generally most forums present a diluted mix that will not enhance your overall technique and enrich your knowledge base as much as trustworthy resources from respected professionals who shoot a variety of subjects. So don't lean on them too much. Accept advice provisionally. Advice for amateurs from some so-called professionals isn't always appropriate.
And while we're here... Why do some forum contributors spell lens with an e on the end and type B+W (a German filter manufacturer) when really they mean B&W? And why do forum rules demand respect for fellow members while others who have the good sense not to be involved get slated? "In my opinion he is an idiot" (Amateur Photographer Forum). Sad really...
Beyond all of that, and unless there's a major reason for it, you won't find active, enthusiastic photographers submitting 1200 posts to a photo forum in six months. They're much too busy out there taking photos and masterminding great images on their computers.
General Information
The articles on this site were written over an 8-year period, 2001-2008. This overall version was designed and rewritten from the ground up in an attempt to make it more convenient to explore (admittedly with a sad disregard for W3C/XHTML/CSS protocols).
When I took myself out of the maths and allowed for other peculiarities of the statistical process, I concluded that my original photo site was averaging about 20,000 meaningful visits a year. I hope you find the information useful and getting to grips with SLR basics is made easier.
I should mention that the banner at the top of each page takes you back to the homepage. Oh, and before I forget — this is a Google- and cookie-free zone!
The Other Stuff
Someone (who lives in the countryside) read some of the non-photographic content of this site and wondered if there was something wrong with my head. Well, girl, I truly hope so, otherwise reality will get the upper hand and bounce me around a rubber room forever more.
My devoted wife, 1960-2008.
To make sure you see the images on this site properly you should have your monitor properly calibrated. As a guide please look carefully at the chart below. Adjust your monitor's contrast to its highest setting and fine-tune the brightness setting until all 11 neutral zones from black to white are clearly visible. If that is not successful, clean your glasses. If you don't wear glasses, have your eyes tested. If the screen continues to look hazy it could be that your monitor is on fire. Please contact the manufacturer before making further adjustments to your monitor.
photography | gallery | quotes | dementia