Trends/Practices in Photography I Find Irritating

This post is, I think, overdue, as there are a number of things in photography I find irritating. Many of them are recent trends, other are practices by people in general. I've always wanted to rant about these things, but wanted to do so in a non "inflammatory" manner & I wanted to do so in one article, rather than have a whole bunch of negative-griping posts scattered everywhere. I didn't want the "tone" of this blog as a whole to sound negative or grouchy, and I felt that more than 1 single "venting" post could do that.

Before I get into that, I want to make it clear: if any of you do any of these practices/trends (or support them), please do not be offended. I am NOT picking on any one person directly or personally at all. I'm not trying to anger any friends etc, no friendship is worth losing over such disagreements. I'm simply speaking on the issues & practices as practiced by society at large. Also, I'm trying to state my opinions without being borderline obnoxious & letting my "inner Bobby Knight" take center stage, which I can do if I'm not careful (those of you who remember Bobby Knight, a former college basketball coach, know what I'm referring to--if not, watch him here for an illustration).

That said, without further ado, here are the practices/trends etc in photography that irritate me.

DSLR Video

Nikon started this in 2008 with the Nikon D90. Prior to this, it was just inherently understood--DSLR cameras did not do video like point & shoots did, and to expect them to was ridiculous. They were serious image capturing devices, geared towards professionals and hobbyists who wish to maximize their photo-taking stills. You didn't want SLRs also able to take videos & mutate into "jack of all trades-master of none" devices sort of like a smartphone (as wonderful as smartphones are).

To me, the addition of video in SLRs was, frankly, to placate soccer moms who refused to upgrade their point & shoots because "why should I spend that much on a camera that can't do video when my $100 Sony Cybershot can?" It reminded me of my brother-in-law, a good & smart person who is nonetheless camera illiterate (no shame in that), who, upon observing that I had sold a point & shoot camera for a second DSLR for my wife, remarked "why sell that camera [Sony H1 "superzoom"] for that one [Nikon D40 dSLR] which can't do video?" Never mind that the Nikon D40 DSLR absolutely smoked the Sony H1 "superzoom"in image quality, and that I still had another small Sony point & shoot for video.

My thoughts on video in SLR--we're placating THAT mentality, that of the point & shooters, rather than the hobbyists & enthusiasts who understand what an SLR is about & don't extra non-stills controls getting in the way of their photography pursuits? To me, it was a case of "dumbing it down for the masses," something I always dislike, especially when it's done for higher-end cameras meant for hobbyists such as myself. The snapshooting, soccer-mom/dad crowd can use their point & shoot, leave my advanced cameras alone.

I've cooled a bit on this, as still cameras have continued to improve their stills technology, but it still irritates me that even an SLR has to placate people who expect their stills cameras to do videos as well. I thus tend to derisively refer to it as "YouTube mode for the idiot masses." I think at the SLR level, the cameras should focus on one task, photography, and NOTHING ELSE, so as to do it as excellently as possible without even a speck of compromise. As I told someone once, "I don't expect my plumber to know how to wash my car" and "I don't expect a nice Mexican place down the road to also cook hamburgers, I accept that Mexican is ALL THEY DO and their food is better FOR THAT SPECIFIC REASON."

Excessive Child Photos

As a parent, I photograph my children lots, as does also any parent. I post photographs of my kids all the time. So what is my gripe, and aren't I being hypocritical? My gripe, and this applies in aspects not limited strictly to photography, is this--when parents, upon becoming parents, all of a sudden lose their entire identity as a person, and all you ever hear them talk about, or share photos of, is their children.

I think this is especially regrettable when the parent is married, and they seem to not talk about their spouse much anymore. They forget that they (usually) were married BEFORE the child was born, their relationship with their spouse is why their child even exists to start with, and that their child will grow up and leave and then it will be them & their spouse alone again--AND that this relationship can't be placed "on hold" for 18 years, it has to be cultivated along the way as well.

I had a family member whom I de-friended (not in a hostile way) because every other second she posted photos of her daughter, talked about her ad nauseum--and I never, over the course of 2+ years, heard her say a word about her husband, not even on anniversary dates or Valentine's Day. I didn't even know what he looked like or his name, but her child's name and images were practically burned into my retina.

Besides that, though, when you knew these people prior to this, and you & this person used to talk about world topics, hobbies, fun times--and now all of a sudden you NEVER hear about anything but their children 24/7--frankly, it gets irritating. Yes you realize that you will hear about their kids and see photos of them a lot, but I can't help but think--is this all you are now, and is that healthy? Far be it from me to be ugly and judge, but frankly, I don't think that's healthy.

This is you will rarely, if ever, see me post a photo of our children as my Facebook profile photo, except MAYBE on their birthday. You will a photo of ME in there, and MAYBE our children as well--but not just our kids. You will also see many photos of my wife in there as well--as far as I'm concerned, in fact, she is #1 ABOVE them.

Also, I was into landscape photography prior to my children's birth, and while it doesn't happen as often, I still pursue that hobby & interest. I'm still Larry, I'm not just the man who happened to create 2 children that I am currently over-idolizing. I was a hobbyist landscape photographer prior to their birth, and I intend to still be.

I have had the pleasure of meeting people over the years who still talk about their OWN interests, and their spouse, and posts about having "date nights" with their spouse with NO CHILDREN, and I really respect that. I think that's great.

I wish more people would do that. I'm glad these parents love their children--again, I'm a father, I absolutely can relate. But after awhile, it makes me barf.

Paranoia Over Candid Photographers

One art form I have no skill in, but I really respect--street/candid photography. This is NOT the same as paparazzi behavior, these are people who very casually, without any aggressive harassment, discreetly photograph life around them in natural settings. The idea is that when you photograph people that way, versus having them "pose," you capture an authentic setting & pose. The master of this years ago was Henri Cartier-Bresson (link). He was so good at it, museums were built exhibiting his work.

However, in recent years, in some places, people have begun to frown on this, especially if pictures of their children become part of the situation. I find this ridiculous. The over-the-top fear some parents have over their child ending up in a photo they aren't directly responsible for taking is, to be blunt, ludicrous. I don't believe it harms their child, or anyone else, in any serious or meaningful way, and to try & pressure such persons towards the idea that they should ask for people's permission to take any pictures is downright suppressive to our country's First Amendment. It has been well established--in any public setting, you have no right to the expectation of privacy, and I hope it always stays that way.

It has become bad enough that I've had people yell "pervert" at me when I was at the park photographing the ducks at the lake. One lady become upset when I photographed her daughter who had taken it upon herself to pick up my son & hold him, adoring him, but did not ask me or my wife if that was okay. It didn't bother me, I saw an adorable moment, and I took a photo. I had every right to, especially as my son was part of it. She asked me to delete the photograph--I politely refused, and pointed out how her daughter had taken it upon herself to pick up my son, without asking, and that for all I know she might be a druggie, but I chose to NOT see it that way and to just see an adorable moment--her daughter holding and adoring our son.

Don't get me wrong, when I hear of "paparazzi" types stalking out celebrities and doing such things as flying helicopters over their air space and stalking them out when their intended subjects are on private property trying their best to get some privacy--I don't condone that at all. When you are on your own private property or that of a friend, you have the right to privacy. But in the public setting--you have ZERO right to the expectation of privacy, and may it always be so (although that doesn't mean a photographer should be an obnoxious jerk about it--again, the idea is to be discreet, not "sneaky," and to not harass anyone).

iPhone Photography

This is currently my #1 gripe. Note: my tone here will probably become strong. Please understand, again, if anyone here is into these practices I'm disagreeing with, I'm NOT targeting you personally & I'm not seeking to upset you. It's no different than how, for example, I rant about how irritating it gets seeing everyone around here so into football. I have family members who are into football & I'm not picking fights with them, nor do I want to. I'm simply observing society at large and making observations, not targeting anyone personally. I make my observations about how overrated I think football is, but we still get along just fine. I seek the same result here.

I am NOT referring to everyday "snap-shooters" who use a camera phone vs a point & shoot, or professionals who use a camera phone for their casual everyday life where they're not trying to get something that's Pulitzer-Prize material & are merely trying to take snaps of their personal life like anyone else with a Kodak.

What I am referring to are persons who use an iPhone SPECIFICALLY for "photography" shots rather than learning how to use an SLR or a "mirrorless," learn some basics about f-stops, composition, lighting, ISO, "rule of thirds"--yet call themselves "photographers," put a "so & so photography" watermarks/logos on their images like they're an official photography company, and expect their images to be included equally alongside with those who HAVE made those efforts. Anyone who suggests, even nicely, that maybe they should also learn how to work a DSLR or "mirrorless," read some books on lighting or take some classes, they're harshly labeled an "elitist snob."

I take HUGE offense to that. I think it's an absolute joke and a disgrace to a fine art form. I think it's equivalent to someone microwaving Stouffer's or Chef-Boyardee and thinking they're a "chef" or a pursuer of the culinary arts, & insulting those who have actually been to culinary arts school and learned how to make things with fresh ingredients etc. I realize times & technology change, but I respect efforts towards self-education, improvement, genuine efforts, versus expecting a "quick bake" solution to something like that, which is after all an optional endeavor, not an everyday necessary drudgery of life like housecleaning.

When I was only 13, I became interested in photography vs simply taking snapshots and I wanted to be like those professional photography people, or at least as close as I could get. I made no excuses. Without the assistance of other friends, the Internet, and with little hands-on experience other than handling models in the store, I learned how to work advanced 35mm SLRs on my own. Understand--the year was 1982, and cameras didn't have autofocus, auto film loading, auto film advancing, auto film rewinding, auto setting of the film's ASA/ISO value. You had to do all of those things yourself. Models like the Pentax K1000 (link) were typical for this era.

I also subscribed to magazines like Modern Photography (now Popular Photography), Peterson's Photographic, and I checked out many books at the library. I dug up & purchased books at the bookstore, I didn't have Amazon to ship to our house (and I was not old enough to drive to the mall myself, I had to take advantage of the times when I was there.) I befriended a local professional photographer much older than myself, and when he had the time, I would watch him as he performed. In short--I made a point, again with few friends & no Internet and with cameras less beginner-friendly than they are now, to educate myself and to LEARN.

I didn't complain that SLRs were too hard to learn, too bulky to carry everywhere, I made it my responsibility to figure them out, learn how lighting worked, research which films and film labs did a credible job, and to take that SLR everywhere I went.

Now--people whine about wanting something that does it all for them, and how SLRs are too big (have they never heard of mirrorless?), how they have no interest in learning all of that stuff, they "just want good pictures" and "who are YOU to say that someone should have to learn all of that stuff to be a 'photographer?'" They go around shooting with an iPhone and the "Hipstomatic" app throwing on retro-looking "presets" & thinking it makes them a PHOTOGRAPHER; they even procede to put "my name Photography" logos/watermarks on their images & expect them to be taken seriously by people using REAL cameras & making efforts towards self-improvement.

To me, it's lazy, it's pathetic, and an absolute joke, especially when SLRs and mirrorless are way easier to use than 35mm SLRs were, especially back then. They should get off their lazy rear-ends, read some photography books, learn some techniques about lighting & composition etc, take some classes etc--otherwise, they're a bunch of phonies if you ask me.

On the other hand, I respect people who try & learn these things, and work towards maximizing their art craft with effort. A recent article spoke of a landscape photographer & how he scouts an area and revisits it numerous times, sometimes spending an hour or more there, taking numerous photos & painstakingly working for the best shot, and using very precise heads on tripods & such for precise alignment etc. Now THAT is the sort of thing I can respect--granted, not all of us are cut out to do all of that, or wish to, but to me, if you call yourself a photographer, you sure as heck ought to do more than snap a click with your phone, slap on a "Instagram" preset and think that's real art. It's not--it's Eggo Waffles in a toaster.

It makes some people mad when I say this. Again, I am not necessarily referring to "casual" people who are only being goofy & silly in ways similar to how the Kodak Instamatic was utilized in years past. All of that is well & fine. All I am saying is such people aren't photographers, they're snap-shooters. Don't insult this fine art form by (to use an analogy) heating up a Hot Pocket in the microwave & calling yourself a "culinary artists." Give me a break. I use Stouffer's "Meal in a Bag" all the time, and I enjoy the food--but I don't make myself out to be a chef, and insult those who actually are chefs, those who make everything from home-made/home-grown ingredients and simmered etc to perfection using actual TECHNIQUES beyond "heat contents of bag on high for 7 minutes."

Nikon Lens-Mount Terminology & Compatibility

Overview

Quick Links: What Lenses Will My Camera Work With?    Database of Nikon Lenses   External Links

It's a well-known fact that, within the realm of interchangeable-lens cameras, the design tends to be to where only lenses made by the same manufacturer as the camera, or with its "mount" adapted, will fit the given camera. In other words, Pentax lenses won't fit onto Canon cameras, Nikon lenses only fit on Nikon cameras, etc. Manufacturers like Sigma make lenses for many of the given brands, but any one lens will only fit whichever brand's "mount" it's designed to fit. Thus, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in Canon mount only fits Canon cameras, if you wish for a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 to work on your Nikon, you have to buy one that's manufactured in "Nikon mount."

There have been some steps taken towards helping make lenses "cross-compatible" in terms of being capable of being mounted on several brands of cameras, most notably by the usage of adapters, but even then, certain features like autofocus or metering often-times get compromised in the process. Thus, as a general rule, Nikon lenses only work on Nikon cameras, and if you want a certain Sigma, Tokina, Tamron etc lens for your Nikon, you have to buy one that's made with the Nikon mount.

It gets even crazier than that, though. Even within brands, you have differences. In this article, I seek to explain how Nikon lenses work in this regard. This is important, because at the least certain lenses will give reduced features vs what the body is capable of, while in some cases certain lenses can even damage the camera.

First, I will detail the terminology that differentiates the different lenses, then I will list the Nikon DSLRs & give a run-down on how the different lenses work with them.

Explanation of Nikon Lens Terminology

These are my explanations & they're relatively short & brief. This link, also the first one shown under "external links," goes into much greater detail. Do not consider my article to be a comprehensive & thorough in-depth explanation, it's merely an "overview." Also, if you need help identifying your lens, this page will help, it contains a database of practically every Nikon lens ever made.

Pre-AI
Simply put, these are lenses created from 1959 to pre-1977. You can tell them by how there is 1 row of aperture-numbers near the mount, whereas later versions of the lenses have TWO sets of numbers. These are the lenses to watch out for. Many recent Nikon DSLR cameras will actually incur damage if you attempt to mount these lenses. The entry-level models, (Nikon D40/D40x/D60/D3000/D5000/D3100/D5100/D3200), the ones which require AF-S lenses for autofocusing, will accept these lenses without damage, due to slight differences in the mechanics of their mount (I don't know the specific details beyond that) but besides obviously having to focus the lenses, you also have to meter with a hand-held meter with them, or guess.

Also: sometimes you may have a lens that isn't "pre-AI," it will be "AI" etc on its own and be okay to that extent, but may have things like "extension tubes" added to them which may have pre-AI characteristics. In that case, the shortcomings (and the dangers!) inherent in pre-AI lenses themselves will be relevant in the event you use this add-ons, even if the add-ons are mounted to a non-pre-AI lens that would otherwise be okay.

AI
These are manual-focus lenses which were introduced around 1977. You can tell them by the presence of TWO ROWS of aperture-numbers near the mount, one set which is larger & another which is smaller. These will MOUNT on any recent camera but only more advanced models like the D7000, D300 etc, models with an "aperture coupling prong" (a plastic concentric ring around the lens mount), will meter with them; with the others, you will have to set the camera in full-manual mode & set the f-stops/shutter speeds based on a hand-held meter's reading (or guessing).

AF-D
These are autofocus lenses introduced in the mid 1980s or 1990s which haven't been replaced by "AF-S" lenses yet (below). They autofocus by a mechanical linkage between camera body & lens. They work fine on most current DSLRs except for entry-level models (D40/D40x/D60/D3000/D3100/D3200/D5000/D5100) without an autofocus motor in the body; with those, you will have to manually focus. Once you get to "mid-level" models like the D300 or D7000, you don't run into this limitation. As an example, for a long time, the 50mm f/1.8 lens was only available as an AF-D type (until 2011).

AF-S
Almost all current Nikon lenses are of this designation. They work fully 100% on all current models. The kit lenses like the 18-55mm VR and 18-105mm VR are AF-S. Some lenses in Nikon's current line-up haven't yet been updated to AF-S and remain AF-D, but most current lenses are AF-S.

DX
Some AF-S lenses are designated as "DX" lenses. This means they are designed for "DX" (non-full-frame) DSLRs which have a 1.5x crop factor. They will work on "FX" or "full-frame" bodies (like the D700 or D3s) but with limitations. Examples include the 55-200mm (VR or non-VR) and the 18-55mm "kit" lenses you see on the entry-level DSLRs.

FX
Any lens besides an AF-S lens designated as DX will be an "FX" lens, meaning simply enough it isn't designed specifically with "DX" DSLRs in mind. The 50mm f/1.8 AF-S and 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, for instance, are "FX" lenses simply by the fact that they're not labeled as being "DX."

VR
Certain AF-D and AF-S lenses contain optical image stabilization to help reduce image shake brought on by hand-held tremblings. These lenses are called "VR"for "vibration reduction." Canon calls their "IS" (for image stabilization). Other brands use similar designations. 

Camera Compatibility Overview

This section will give an overview on what the lens compatibility situation looks like with various Nikon DSLRs. I got some help with this section from this link (the 2nd link in the "external links" section).

Nikon D1, D1h, D1x
Pre-AI lenses--DO NOT USE!!
AI-Lenses--Will mount & meter (center-weighted metering, aperture-priority or manual modes)
AF-D--Full functionality
AF-S--Full functionality
DX--work as intended (with a 1.5x crop factor present)
FX--1.5x crop factor

Nikon D2-series, D3-series, D4-series, D200, D300/D300s, D700, D7000, D800/D800e
Pre-AI lenses--DO NOT USE!!
AI-Lenses--Will mount & meter (aperture-priority or manual modes), will also display the f-stop in the finder & allow "matrix" metering once you enter lens info in the "Shooting" menu
AF-D--Full functionality
AF-S--Full functionality
DX--work as intended (with 1.5x crop factor present) for all but D3/D4 series, no crop factor present but other limitations imposed with those
FX--no crop factor with D700, D800(e) & D3/D4 series, 1.5x crop factor present with others

Nikon D50, D70/D70s, D80, D90, D100 
Pre-AI lenses--DO NOT USE!!
AI-Lenses--Will mount but will not meter, manual-mode only
AF-D--Full functionality
AF-S--Full functionality
DX--work as intended (with a 1.5x crop factor present)
FX--1.5x crop factor

Nikon D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100
Pre-AI lenses--Will mount but will not meter, manual-mode only
AI-Lenses--Will mount but will not meter, manual-mode only
AF-D--Manual focus, all metering functioning available
AF-S--Full functionality
DX--work as intended (with a 1.5x crop factor present)
FX--1.5x crop factor

External Links

Again, this is just a "cursory" explanation of the differences. Below are links which can help you understand this more, the 1st one especially.

A Great Link That Explains The Differences in Detail, also has a camera/lens compatibility chart
Useful Camera Compatibility Article Which Helped/Inspired Me With the "Camera Compatibility" Overview Section
DPreview Posting, mounting a pre-AI 55mm f/3.5 on a D7000
Flickr Discussion on the topic
VERY handy link: Lens Database, This Page Is a HUGE Database of Practically Every Nikkor Lens Ever Made

Aspect Ratios and Image Cropping

A common question I see asked is regarding the making of prints and the cropping that can result. Basically, what happens is this: someone carefully frames a scene a certain way in the viewfinder (or on the LCD in "live view" mode) based on their intended artistic representation of the scene, takes a photograph, this image continues to look the same way on the computer with regards to the elements included in the scene. However, when they order prints of this image, elements near the edge are chopped off and the integrity of the original image, with regards to including everything as was photographed originally, is compromised.

If you print "full-frame" on paper that doesn't match
your image's aspect ratio, you will have "letterbox" borders
like this, but no edge detail will be lost.

This is commonly called cropping and it is the result of two things: (a) the mismatch of the "aspect ratio" of the original image vs the resulting print and (b) priority tending to being placed on having a print without borders versus the priority being placed on maintaining all of the original details, because the mismatch of aspect ratios means if you wish to maintain all of the details, there will be "letterbox" borders extending down the long-end of the print, which most people find undesirable.

Allow me to expand on this a bit. My expansion is probably not the best explanation, and so I will link to other articles I have found on this topic which may expand on this better than I have.

What Are Aspect Ratios Anyway?

The sensor in every camera tends to be of a rectangular shape, and tends to have what is referred to as a "3:2" aspect ratio. This means that when you measure the length of the sensor & the width of the sensor and then express these measurements as a fraction as in Length / Width, the measurements, broken down to the lowest common denominator (as in 12 / 4 = 3 / 1), results in a 3/2 or 3:2 ratio. This dates back to when 35mm film cameras produced images on the film which measured 24x36mm (width-length) or 36x24mm (length-width), which resulted in a 3:2 aspect ratio (36 / 24 = 3 / 2). As DSLR camears sought to replicate the 35mm SLR experience as much as possible, these aspect ratio characteristics, on a smaller scale, were maintained. If you express this 3:2 aspect ratio in decimal format, the number would be 1.3333 (3 divided by 2 with the .3 repeating endlessly into infinity).

3:2 vs 2:3 (L/W vs W/L)

It becomes confusing insomuch that most articles, when referring to the aspect ratio of the camera's output, quote the image in length by width format, which would be 3:2, but print sizes (5x7, 8x10 etc) are commonly quoted the other way, in width by length format, which would make the aspect ratio 2:3 (the numbers have been "flipped"). In order to keep things clear and to be consistent, so as to prevent confusion and getting "lost in the numbers"--from this point forward, I will refer to the aspect ratios in width by length, which would be expressed as 2:3, regardless of whether I'm discussing the camera's output or the resulting print itself. (The decimal format of this number, 2 divided by 3, would be 0.66666667.)

Priority of Borderless vs "Full Frame"

On the other hand, if you print "borderless" on
paper that doesn't match your image's aspect ratio,
you lose detail on the edges, shown here in blue-green.
(Both photo via 1st link, bottom of page.)

The trouble occurs due to the fact that common popular print sizes, like 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 etc are not the same 2:3 aspect ratio as the original image. In order for a 2:3 (or 0.66666667) image to print correctly, without any borders and also without any edge detail being lost, the paper it's outputted onto needs to match this aspect ratio. 4x6 prints do (4/6 = 2/3 = 0.66666667), so you have no problem there, the same goes for certain other sizes such a 12x18 and 16x24. However, most other common print sizes don't match up to the 2:3 (or 0.66666667) aspect ratio, so you have a mismatch, a "square peg on a round hole" situation as it were. Converted to decimal format: 5x7 (5 divided by 7) is 0.714 (which actually isn't that far off). 8x10 (8 divided by 10) is 0.8. 11x14 is 0.786. 16x20 is 0.80.

Most people don't want borders in their images, and so in order for an image with 2:3 ratios to print, say, to an 8x10 sheet of printing paper (which has an aspect ratio of 8 / 10 = 4:5, or 0.80) without any borders, you have to keep enlarging past to where the respective lengths (image to paper) match up in order for the width dimensions to "fill up." Thus, edge detail length-wise tends to be lost. In other words, when you enlarge the original image of a 2:3 image to 8 inches wide, the actual image will be 12 inches long. (The way you calculate this figure: convert the image's 2:3 aspect ratio to decimal format {0.66667} and then DIVIDE the width (8) by this number to get the length (12). Or, "flip" the 2:3 number to 3:2, which would be 1.5 in decimal format, and then MULTIPLY this by the width (8) to get the length (12).)

Thus, in the case of an 8x10 print, you are actually outputting an 8x12 IMAGE onto 8x10 PAPER, thus losing 1" of detail alongside each edge, or 2" total out of the 12 inches that actually exist. (Those you're losing about 17% of the image length-details speaking.) Here are some common print sizes & what things look like if you print "borderless" or if you print "full-frame" (I clarify the terms in greater detail below):

Print Size	Aspect Ratio (Vs 2:3)	Actual Image Size "Borderless"	Actual Image Size "Full-Frame"	Comments
8x10	2.4 / 3 (0.80)	8x12	6.7x10	The "borderless" print will lose 1" of detail on each side length-wise; the "full-frame" print will be smaller than the paper by 0.65 inches width-wise & a border will run the "long way" top & bottom on account of this.
11x14	2.3571 / 3 (0.7857)	11x16½	9.33x14	The "borderless" print will lose 1.25" of detail on either side length-wise; the "full-frame" print will have an image 0.835" smaller than the paper & a border will run the "long way" top & bottom on account of this.
16x20	2.4 / 3 (0.80)	16x24	13.333x20	The "borderless" print will lose 2" of detail on each side length-wise; the "full-frame" print will be smaller than the paper by 1.333 inches width-wise & a border will run the "long way" top & bottom on account of this.

Since few labs offer these unorthodox print sizes, as 5x7/8x10/11x14 etc have long been established as "norms," most people print to these sizes and accept the compromises that result from the mismatches. This is commonly referred to as borderless printing. Also, it's not uncommon for photographers, anticipating this mis-match, to compensate for it when they compose their image to start with, leaving extra room around the edges so that, when this is done, no heads are chopped off & the like. (Some photographers, like me, insist on NOT taking this into account when composing & insisting that the resulting image match the composition, which the "full-frame" option, coming up next, tends to address.)

However, some labs DO offer print sizes such as 8x12, 12x18 or 16x24 which are 2:3 and thus do not create any mismatches. The trouble is, it's difficult to find picture frames that size, since 8x10/11x14 et have become so common. (To a lesser extent, 12x18 has become a common size so finding frames for it may not be as difficult.) Finally, print sizes such as 20x30 and 4x6 are 2:3 to start with, so you have no issues there. 

The other option is to enlarge to where the length matches up (instead of the width) and the result will be the width of the paper is greater than the width of the original image, thus you will have white borders on the edge. Thus, in the case of an 8x10 print, you are actually outputting a 6.7 x 10 print to 8 x 10 paper (10 MULTIPLIED by the 0.66667 decimal number). Many persons find these white borders objectionable, as they closely resemble the "letterbox" viewing experience once sees when watching a wide-screen DVD on a non-wide screen television. This is commonly referred to as full-frame printing.

It's worth noting that, with borderless printing, often-times the compromise isn't obvious, you don't notice the edge detail being lost unless you compare the image & print side-by-side, or unless the edge detail lost is something obvious, like a chopped-off head in a portrait. By contrast, with full-frame-printing, the borders are obvious. Thus, many people choose borderless, often-times not realizing what's going on.

In Short

To work around these headaches, you basically have these options:

Print "borderless" & accept some edge detail (length-wise) will be lost versus your initial composition

Print "full-frame" & accept the white borders along the edges (resembles a "letter-box" DVD viewing experience), this is the one I tend to do

Output your images to paper sizes that match the 2:3 ratio exactly, such a 4x6, 8x12, 11x16½, 16x24 etc, and accept that you will have difficulty, greater expense, or both in finding picture frames that size

Compensate for this in your initial composition, so that printing "borderless" will still result in an acceptable image (what most photographers probably do)

PS
Some cameras, most notably smartphone cameras or point & shoot cameras, tend to have a different aspect ratio altogether, more along the lines of 3:4 (decimal format 0.75), commonly expressed as 4:3 (again width x length vs length x width), in which case all the numbers change, although the principle remains the same. Thus, in the case of an 8x10, a "borderless" print will have an 8 x 10.677 image (8, the width, DIVIDED by 0.75), a "full-frame" one would have a 7.5 x 10 inch image (10, the length, MULTIPLED by 0.75).

More Links On this  

http://bit.ly/NRr64V 

http://bit.ly/NnKVW7

Photo Tip, Landscapes: Polarizing Filters

My "first love" of photography, the type of photography I like the most--taking landscapes. Few things excite me more than a nice landscape photograph I've managed to capture.

Without polarizing filter (L), with polarizing filter (R)
(Image via Wikipedia.Org)

One tool which has been used for many years towards helping make landscape shots as vibrant as possible, a tool from the film-days which is still in usage even in this digital era: a polarizing filter.

An image I took July 2012 during my trip to Jaser ARK.
I credit the usage of a CPL polarizing filter as a large
reason why the clouds stand out so much & the colors
are so rich, this is an un-altered shot.
(20120727_124915_rsf_epl1)

A polarizing filter (here is another article on the subject, which goes in great detail) is a filter which screws onto the front of a camera's lens (provided that camera's lens accepts screw-on attachments, which most "enthusiast" or pro/amateur-grade cameras & their lenses will). It acts much as polarized sunglasses (this Wikipedia article explains it in more detail) in filtering out certain elements of light--in doing so, reflections on water are minimized, edge detail can be rendered in more crisp detail, and colors are deeper & richer. Clouds in the photo tend to stand out more. The photo above illustrates this effect very clearly.

Once you attach the filter, you rotate the concentric ring and look through your camera's viewfinder (or the back of the LCD) until you get the effect you want. Typically, at some point, you will see the skies darken & you will also see the f-stop/shutter speeds change reflecting a reduction in light. This is normal, as polarizing filters tend to reduce light by about 1 f-stop.

Older polarizing filters were "linear," newer ones are "circular." I'm not aware of the technical differences, except for this important consideration: autofocus cameras must use the circular type. Often-times the filter will have "CPL" embossed somewhere to designate it being this type. You also have to make sure the filter is the right size for your lens, look for the filter size on your lens, usually designated in millimeters (mm); often-times you will see the "Ø" symbol, as in "Ø 52mm," (in this case, 52mm), designating the filter-size.

Polarizing filters run for $20-30 depending on where you get them (I've been able to find them for $8 on occasion at sites like Fred Miranda).

"No Pictures Allowed" & The Stand I Took

As a camera guy, and a 43 year-old married for 11½ years, I have a lot of occasions in life to take "everyday" photos of. As silly (and even juvenile) as it can seem to other persons, I like to take such "snaps" of much of everyday life. For instance, when my wife & I go out to eat at a nice restaurant, or even a cheap one, in particular any non "routine" place (that is, not McDonald's or Wendy's etc), I will take photos everything of from the outdoors of the premises to the very plates of food we're enjoying. Such is common for us and our life. (I also won't use a camera phone for such photos, insisting on "real" cameras, but that's another story.)

In fact, this aspect of our life is so integral to who we are as persons, if there is an occasion where this is interfered with or not allowed, we may go against those conventions. In this sometimes increasingly paranoid world, this seems to happen quite a bit, unfortunately. Today was one of those days.

After enjoying a day at the "Lindale Cliffs," my wife wanted us to eat at a nice Italian restaurant to celebrate her upcoming (2 days away) 34th birthday. We wanted to go somewhere we hadn't been before. We happened upon O'Dells in Winnsboro, TX. We drove up, saw it, and thought it would be perfect--it seemed very charming, yet quite "elegant" inside, and very quaint. We looked forward to our dining-out experience very much.

As is common for such an occasion, I started taking photos of the outdoors of the place, and then some indoor shots of the place. We were the only customers in there, and I even turned off the flash using only the "ambient light" for the photos indoors. We had chosen a chair, had asked for our menus, and were about to place an order.

Out of nowhere, the giddy and nice feeling about the place was shattered. The paranoid owner of the establishment emerged and asked me to stop taking any photographs inside his place. This was an occasion where, frankly, I was glad where my mother was not part of the situation, because she has never much respected or accepted my love of taking photos frequently of such everyday life, and would have, no doubt, pressured me to accept the situation as-is and to "grow up" and not make an issue of it.

However, this is an issue of special importance to me, one that I'm very strong in my feelings about and one that I choose to take a stand on. To me, in recent years, it has become increasingly common (although still, fortunately, relatively rare) for many persons to be paranoid about people taking photos in such situations, as if there's something to fear (what is there to fear?), and to forbid photo-taking. While I certainly can understand situations such as, for instance, certain tourist places in Washington DC not allowing photography (the US treasury, when they conduct tours showing the printing of US currency, forbids it for obvious reasons), I think the growing tendency of photography being forbidden in far more mundane & everyday situtions is something that I find highly ridiculous, and downright offensive, enough so that when such persons do this, I choose to take a stand against it.

In light of this, I decided that we would not be giving this establishment our business. I mean, gee whiz, this was simply a pretty everyday restaurant in a little bitty town (so small, they don't even have a McDonald's or Wendy's of any sort). I explained to the waitress that I was not upset at her, as she was not the one who made the decision (it was the owner), but that I would not be dining at their place in light of their stance, and I would be taking my business elsewhere because, frankly, I was sick & tired of being presumed to be a terrorist or the like. The waitress, apparently having talked to the owner at some point, stated that no one there thought me a terrorist, but that the artwork on the wall was of high value & that it could not be reproduced. While I have heard of this sort of thing before, it is nonetheless something that I find to be very ridiculous and a huge overreaction to an extremely unlikely scenario (someone trying to rip off artwork by photographing it & distributing it to the bootleg world).

So, I explained to the waitress my position, we gathered our belongings, and we left--and dined at a different Italian restaurant in Kilgore (Napoli's) which we had dined at before and enjoyed, and without encountering any of these problems.

As far as I am concerned, this stance that O'Dells took was so offensive and ridiculous and "worst first" in its thinking, that frankly I would sooner throw my nice cameras and the hard drives storing all my photographs into the salty ocean water, sealing their doom, before I would EVER give that establishment any of my business, and I am glad that I found this out about them early-on before I had ordered any of their food and obligated myself to give them any of my money. Any establishment that unnecessarily restricts my ability to snapshot-record our life, on the occasion of my wife's birthday, by thinking the worst about me upfront without giving me a chance, that shows that level of distrust about me upfront and over nothing more than something like this, they don't deserve my money. If I'm that suspicious to them, then why should I trust them with my business?

I don't know what in the world has gotten a hold of people in this country to where they fear something as silly as a birthday snapshot so much, but I have no sympathy or respect for this point of view. It's ridiculous, it's insulting to who I am as a person, and I refuse to participate in it or anyone who engages in it. As I said to someone on the day this happened (today at the time I'm writing this), this is a "hill I will die over."

RAW Mode: The Benefits, The Burdens & How I Implement For My Shooting

Nice landscape shots such as this often-times benefit from
being shot in RAW mode vs the normal JPEG mode.

Note: this posting on RAW is not meant to be a comprehensive, include everything type of article. There are probably certain important aspects I've not covered. I've covered what I consider important and how the usage and application of the RAW shooting mode has applied to me and my shooting and editing.

Overview

With advanced cameras such as DSLRs or "mirrorless" cameras, or even some advanced compacts, the option is offered for the shooter to have the camera record & save the image NOT in the final JPEG format, but in a non-finalized format known as RAW mode. (Most such cameras also offer the option to also record a JPEG file along with the RAW.)

In doing so, the shooter has many post-processing options that are not available in the normal JPEG mode, or are at least more difficult and/or messy to implement. For example, if the shooter had the white balance (WB) set at "fluorescent" when it was supposed to be "daylight," they can simply change WB to "daylight" and it is as if the shot was recorded in "daylight" to start with. If they shot using a picture "preset" of "vivid" but they wanted it to be "portrait," then the shooter can make the change & it is as if they shot in "portrait" to start with. If the image was shot at a higher ISO setting and noise reduction was applied, you can specify the amount of noise reduction to apply rather than it being already done & locked in as-is for that specific shot.

The shot is recorded in RAW, the user opens up the RAW file on their computer, makes the necessary changes, and once they're done, the file is "written" in a final JPEG format, thus the final product can be opened & used by software & labs etc just as a shot originally taken in JPEG. The difference is the work performed on the image prior to that.

The "Hamburger" Analogy

I like to use analogies. Think of JPEG as a hamburger from Wendy's which is finished, ready to eat, right out of the bag. Think of RAW as the hamburger before it's cooked or adorned with ketchup & tomatoes etc, with you able to specify the right amount of everything before it's made, so there is nothing to change after-the-fact. The former is less of a hassle and is often-times plenty great in its own right, the latter has more work & effort involved but the result is a product more readily tailor-made exactly the way you prefer it, without a huge amount of mess having to be undertaken to undo what's already there.

RAW is more of a "clean slate" approach to editing--offering the photographer the opportunity & ability to make many edits to their photograph before everything is "etched in stone" somewhat & thus in need of being undone from what's already there. Again you are starting from more of a "clean slate." Things like contrast, for instance--if your photograph is too contrasty, then sure Photoshop allows you to decrease the contrast to a JPEG, but you're destroying elements already there to achieve that. By contrast, RAW allows you to define the level of contrast from a starting point of zero--you don't destroy anything to get there. Thus, the result is often-times a "cleaner" result. The same applies with variables such as sharpness, brightness, color saturation etc--if a photo has too little sharpness applied it's easy to add more, but if there's too much it's nigh impossible to reverse the effect "cleanly."

Again, using the hamburger analogy--it's easier to make a hamburger with the right amount of mustard to start with (RAW) vs taking one that already has mustard on it and trying to add more or, especially, remove excessive amounts if there's too much present. You have to take the sandwich apart & move ingredients around that are already there. It becomes a mess. Think about cheese--if you get a hamburger with cheese on it & happen to dislike cheese, you can never quite peel off all the cheese, there's always some left behind, and you often-times really bent the bun up quite badly along the way. On the other hand, if you start from a clean slate, none of that is the case.

JPEG is trying to remove the cheese after the effect--RAW is making it over to start with so there's no mess made of things. The former is less work, the latter is more flexible in allowing you to make the final product as you please without remnants of the undesirable elements still left behind, as they often times are.

Some Technical Aspects

On the computer, RAW files are distinguishable from JPEGs in that they don't have the normal .jpg extension. The extension varies by brand of camera. With Nikons, the extension is .nef, which stands for {N}ikon {E}lectronic {F}ormat. With Olympus, the extension is .orf, which stands for {O}lympus {R}aw {F}ile.

The RAW file has the same settings applied to its parameters as if a JPEG had been shot--sharpening levels, white balance, picture "preset" etc are all the same. RAW files can be "compressed" (for storage size efficiency) or "uncompressed." If the camera was set to RAW+JPEG mode, the JPEG file will typically have the exact same settings in its parameters as the RAW, the difference being the RAW parameters can be edited after-the-fact. Entry-level cameras tend to have the RAW as a compressed RAW, whereas advanced motions offer the option of compressed or uncompressed.

Software & Other RAW Headaches

Naturally, the RAW approach has several burdens brought onto the user. One is software. JPEG, being universal, can be used by almost any program. Also, labs, even ones like CVS, have no problem making prints of JPEGs. JPEG is universal. Practically every snapshot camera out there, every camera phone etc, they all record their images as JPEGs.

On the other hand, RAW is proprietary, even within the same brand you can run across incompatibilities. You have to have dedicated RAW software to open & edit the files (after which, of course, you can save the RAW as a JPEG). As RAW formats & particulars change over time, you will find older software unable to open more recent models of cameras' RAW files. For example, when I upgraded my 2009 Nikon D5000 to the 2011 Nikon D5100, I found my 2010 Nikon View NX2 software, which opened & edited my D5000 files just fine would not work with my new D5100 RAW files.

How I Do My RAW Shooting

RAW or JPEG. I tend to shoot in JPEG with any "everyday" shot I don't figure on performing many edits to. Many pictures of my children or us just living life, "silly snapshots," tend to be JPEG. On the other hand, if a shot I'm taking is one that I think is going to be exceptionally good & I anticipate performing a large number of edits to it after the fact, I shoot in RAW. In my early DSLR days, when I didn't have nearly as much storage space (memory card in the camera or the computer's hard drive), I used RAW very sparingly even for "serious" shots I figured on editing a lot.

What RAW Mode. I tend to shoot in RAW+JPEG mode, and I have the JPEG set to as low in quality & small in file-size as possible. This is because I have found that with the shots I take in RAW, I tend to "cherry pick" the best ones & perform many edits to them, including RAW edits. Since I'm using the JPEG merely to "preview" the images (knowing that JPEG is universal), I use Basic/Small to make the file use up as little room as possible & this also has the effect of making the speed of browsing the thumbnails to be quick as well.

When I got my first camera which allowed you to specify the size-quality of your JPEGs in RAW+JPEG shooting, a Nikon D80, I shot in RAW+Fine/Large JPEG, thinking that there might be a fairly large number of shots where I was perfectly satisfied with how the image looked in JPEG & would simply use the JPEG & discard the RAW. I found this not to be the case: with any shot I took in RAW, I would always edit it to improve it, and I always edited the RAW file not the JPEG--I was only using the JPEG to "preview" the shot. Thus, I started shooting the JPEG as a Basic/Small.

One exception: with my Olympus E-PL1 "mirrorless" camera, I tend to shoot in RAW + Superfine/Large JPEG (rsf in the JPEG name), shooting a full-quality JPEG. This is because I often-times, when using this camera, am coming from the angle of wanting to do less work & have less fuss. This is aided by the fact that the Olympus's method of processing its JPEGs is one which many enthusiasts fine highly desirable, with exceptionally good "out of camera" characteristics. Often-times, the JPEG file is good-to-go as is, with only very minor edits applied to them, making the RAW file unnecessary. However I may wish for a RAW file for certain shots just in case.

Organization/Renaming. I have a renaming post which goes into great detail on this. I will keep it briefer here. I have JPEG and RAW files kept separately within the given date, in their own folders named jpeg and raw. The names match other than the JPEG file will have nbs (NEF+Basic/Small JPEG) or rsf (RAW+Superfine JPEG) etc to denote the usage of RAW mode being used for this resulting JPEG in RAW+JPEG mode, the RAW file will have raw in the same spot of the filename--they match exactly otherwise, thus the JPEG & RAW of a given image can easily be matched together. Any conversions I perform on RAW files in Lightroom 3 are kept in a lr3 folder within the RAW folder.

Conversion Steps: When I used Nikon software, I never saved the changes to the RAW file itself, I would convert to a 16-bit TIFF (which I'd then edit in Photoshop & save as a JPEG once I was done) but leave the RAW file as it was originally shot. Now: I process the RAW file in Lightroom 3.5, after applying the changes I "export" as a 16-bitt TIFF and process that file in Photoshop CS before saving as a final JPEG.

The "DNG Loophole"

Adobe, sometime ago, created a "universal RAW" format known as DNG. The idea was to overcome many of the headaches attributable to the varying formats of RAW common brand-to-brand (or even within the same brand amongst differing models) while still retaining the "blank slate" advantages of RAW files (white balance, sharpening, contrast etc).

For sometime I utilized this method, as I did not have current software for processing the RAW file as the software was out-of-date; DNG often-times overcomes this. However, eventually, I returned to "normal" RAW processing. The reason--in using DNG, one has to convert every RAW file to DNG format first. This creates extra work while also increasing storage requirements if both DNG & RAW files are kept (which was my tendency).

In Closing

I highly recommend the usage of RAW mode for serious photography. The headaches are more than made up for with the extra flexibility & the mental comfort that comes from knowing all of your edits are coming from a "clean slate" perspective, as opposed to dealing with the difficulties of trying to reverse parameters such as sharpening, saturation etc out of an image that's already "committed" to those particular amounts of sharpening, saturation etc.

If you are new to RAW shooting & aren't sure if your software is up-to-date or how you're going to work with it (e.g., do you want a full-sized JPEG to work with or will you always do all the edits to the RAW & only need a small JPEG), I recommend shooting in RAW+JPEG mode with the JPEG set to the highest quality & least amount of compression possible. (With Nikons, it's called "Fine, Large," with Olympus it's called "Superfine Large," these labels may vary amongst the brands.) I also recommend having the "picture control" (neutral, landscape, vivid, portrait etc) set to as "neutral" as possible, so that you're starting from as much of a "clean slate" as possible. I especially recommend this if you're using 3rd party software (such as Lightroom) instead of the camera brand's software (Nikon View or Capture in the same of Nikons) as you are not sure how the software will "interpret" the RAW settings.

Many shooters, once they know their software is fine, will shoot in "RAW only" mode (meaning there is no JPEG file written), as they say the RAW file has an "embedded JPEG" for previewing anyway. I prefer to shoot a JPEG to make sure I can at least preview the image no matter what, especially as I have 4 PCs, including a laptop with limited processing power & I often use it on the road for simply "previewing" my images or uploading the "proofs" to a site. I want to know that I have a JPEG that any computer can handle for previewing, especially since the Basic/Small JPEGs are small (about 700k) anyway--I know my home computers can handle the RAW file for creating the finished product.

Sometimes Good Shots Require Some Discomfort To Get Them

Ah the uncomfortable things we photo-bugs go through to get some of the shots we do. These 3 shots are a perfect example of this.

Galveston, TX--07-10-2010

We were on vacation near Conroe TX in July of 2010, while there we decided to go down to Galveston & try to get some scenic shots. However, prior to that, I crammed in a Houston visit where I was to get a new laptop. The original one I was to get didn't pan out & I ended up wasting still more time getting my second choice. Finally, after much stress & nonsense (in the heat, in the huge city of Houston) getting that squared away, wasting probably a precious hour in the process, we ended up in Galveston just moments before the sun was to set, with us having no idea where the good places to go were.

As we drove around, I was shocked to see that most of Galveston was "eastern" shore, thus, the sun wasn't setting on hardly any of the beachfront areas at all, and thus no sunsets could be had. The light was quickly about to diminish & I had little time to spare. Finally, we found this spot way on the very extreme end of the island, well away from the "known" areas. I quickly flew out of the car, my Nikon D5000 in hand, the settings having long been set ready to go.

Galveston, TX--07-10-2010

The beach area was actually quite ugly here, this was where people were fishing with stink bait vs frolicking in their bathing suits in the surf. There were TONS of mosquitoes, I'm talking TONS, to a degree it made the Louisiana swamps seen downright sane by comparison. Meanwhile, I was still working against the clock (and that cloud of mosquitoes) and had to RUN to find spots.

Galveston, TX--07-10-2010

These 3 images, the best of the lot, were shot, along with the others, in barely 10 minutes, total. The hard stressful drive getting there and finding this spot before the sunset really added a huge degree of stress to what was supposed to be a vacation from stress, & the mosquitoes were just God-awful, but in the end, boy was it worth it. Sometimes, when you're trying to get a killer shot, that's just the way it goes.