Reality of Photography

In recent months, there has been much debate on about whether or not nature photography should portray reality. It reached a head, following the disqualification of "The Story Book Wolf" from the 2009 Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, after many discussions over its authenticity as a "true" wildlife image. The accusation was, that the wolf was a captive wolf, as it closely resembled one such wolf that was for hire. The evidence centred around the resemblance and the likelihood of a wild wolf behaving in the manner portrayed in the photograph. Ultimately, it is only the photographer and perhaps others associated with the photographer, who knows the truth behind the accusations, but it has sparked a more widespread debate.
Recently, I received a comment on one of my photographs that had been uploaded to a stock photography site, stating that it was nicely taken, but didn't look real due to the "Photoshopping". To say I was confused and irritated was putting it mildly, as I aim for reality in most of my photos and don't have the patience for lengthy processing. Also, the photo in question had, had a simple curves adjustment to increase the contrast and nothing else.

After contacting the photographer who made the comment, I was able to ascertain, that he had looked at the EXIF data and assumed that it had been "Photoshopped", simply because I had edited it in Photoshop, so basically, even if I hadn't done any editing and had simply converted to a JPEG, he would have accused me of "Photoshopping". I think this is a sad reflection on how photography is now viewed and how people believe that anything is possible (including getting a good photo from a bad one) and that it doesn't portray what was seen. The reality is, that with few exceptions, you can't rescue a bad photo and probably most photographs are still a reflection of reality or at least the photographer's reflection of reality.

I find this attitude frustrating, but at the same time, I understand how it has happened. HDR photography has become widespread and in my opinion is overused, to the extent, that it is no longer original. In fact, there is a danger, that photographers are becoming clones, simply copying what has come before them, because it's the vogue, instead of searching for their own style. Don't get me wrong, I have used HDR, it is a useful tool when other techniques aren't possible, either because of the unavailability of graduated filters or because the terrain prevents their use. However, that is all it is, another technique to achieve the look you are aiming for and I usually use it to portray the reality, as closely as I saw it at the time.

That's not to say I haven't pushed the technique a bit further though. At times, I do experiment with post processing work, sometimes with the Orton Effect, sometimes with some infra-red and sometimes with HDR, but it's been a long itme since I did use HDR, really not since I acquired my reverse ND grad filter. Until then, it was the only tool I had to photograph sunsets effectively.

So in summary, there is a place for manipulated nature photographs, but only if used sparingly for an effect and I feel it should be declared where it isn't obvious. Certainly integrity should not be compromised when an image is used for a contest, otherwise the photographer and perhaps photography as a whole loses its credibility. The danger isn't so much in the act, but in the belief that anything is possible, the assumptions that have become widespread, the jumping on the bandwagon that has occured and the loss of creativity and ability to think for yourself as a result. To a large degree HDR has become popular because it gives the impression of a painting, which in some ways makes it fair game for the surreal and artistic licence. I feel that for the good of photography as an art form and for its continued evolution, editors, both of websites and of paper publications, must offer a more balanced viewpoint and selection of techniques. It's far too easy to feature HDR, just because of the impact, but if realism is shunned, then photography stagnates and doesn't develop.

Tigers: A Celebration of Life

I mentioned in my last blog entry, that I attended Focus on Imaging on Tuesday. One of the "events" at the exhibition was the pre-release of Tigers: A Celebration of Life, a book by Andy Rouse. Andy is one of the better known wildlife photographers in the UK and was commended in the 2009 Veolia Wildlife Phtographer of the Year with his image of two tigers fighting, with claws unsheathed.
The book itself is the culmination of a project and his love of tigers, stretching back to his early years. It is full of beautifully constructed images of tigers, from cubs to full grown adults. Unlike some photographers, he hasn't just gone for the close-up portrait shots, you so often see, but he has also gone for some wide-angle shots, showing the tigers in relation to their environment. If you're looking for photographs of tigers that portray the essence of the tiger, then this book is for you, but if you're looking for an in depth scientific study, then perhaps you'd be better off looking elsewhere. That said, there are also some conservation notes from Sarah Christie, outlining the plight of the tiger. Andy also has some advice on visiting reserves and looking for places to stay that help the local community and the environment. With just 4,500 tigers left in the wild, they are just as endangered now, as when I was a child, when I avidly read what I could. Tigers capture the imagination, like so few other animals can. I have a fascination with all big cats and while many animals come close to the same fascination for me as tigers, there is only one that exceeds it. As you might have guessed, it is an equally endangered animal and one with more mystery, it is the snow leopard.
For anyone interested in the book it can be purchased as a standard edition or a limited edition, complete with limited edition print from the 12th March 2010.

ARWP Store

More of his work can be viewed at his website.

Andy Rouse

Focus on Imaging 2010

I spent most of the day today at the Focus on Imaging exhibition at the NEC in Birmingham, UK. It's always interesting to see what's going on and to try out equipment first hand. I attended on the Sunday last year and you could barely move. It was busy when I arrived at lunchtime, but it was quite a bit quieter in the afternoon. This made it much easier to try things and to talk to people.
Last year, I didn't buy anything, but I spent some money this year on some pretty good deals, including a very good price on Sandisk Extreme compact flash cards, cheaper than I've seen anywhere online at the Camerworld stand. I also managed to find a refurbished macro ring flash, which I've been looking for, for a while, just waiting for the right price. I didn't succumb ot the temptation of a 5D Mk II though, although it was a close call until I bought the flash. To top off a successful day, I found some more options for a heavier duty tripod, that I can use with my 300mm f/2.8 lens. Up until now, I thought I'd have to get a Gitzo tripod, which aren't cheap, but it turns out, that Giotto also make mor ethan one that also cope with the weight. All in all, a successful and interesting day, with a critique at the Futurenet stand that went well.

Depth of Field Confusion

When I first started getting serious about digital photography, I did quite a bit of reading. One of the things I read about was depth of field, in relation to aperture diameters. At that time (and since), I kept reading that crop cameras have a greater depth of field at a set aperture than full frame (i.e. sensors the same size as 35mm film). Due to the high pixel density of the 7D or more correctly, the small size of the pixels, diffraction becomes more of an issue, as the interference patterns start matching the pixels in size. For this reason, I started paying more attention to hyperfocal focusing, so that I could try to use wider apertures and still get sufficient depth of field for my purposes. This was where the confusion started, as all the hyperfocal distance charts suggested that full frame actually had greater depth of field.
I then started doing a bit more reading and it turns out, that the expressed wisdom misses out a very important point. The statement that full frame cameras have less depth of field is based around portrait (and to a degree, wildlife) photography, showing the same field of view. To get the same field of view, a full frame camera must be positioned closer to the subject than a crop camera. It is actually the distance between the camera and subject and the camera and background that makes the difference to the depth of field. The closer the camera is to a subject, the less depth of field there is, so it is another apparent effect and like the apparent magnification from the crop factor, it tends to be stated as an actual fact, when it isn't actually the case.
For portrait photography, where you are trying to frame in a certain way, whichever the camera, it is an important point to consider, as long as you realise it is a function of distance and not differences between the two formats, likewise for macro photography. However, for landscape photography, which was the reason I was looking at it, it is largely irrelevant. Technically, the depth of field for full frame cameras is larger, but in reality, provided the foreground is equally sharp, the slightly softer background is probably not very noticeable, as the differences are relatively small. Diffraction is probably a bigger issue than the narrower depth of field, as the larger pixels of the full frame sensor are less affected by the interference patterns, so the effects of diffraction are ameliorated and become noticeable at narrower apertures. This of course, then allows much more depth of field, which is where the real advantage of full frame cameras comes in for landscape photography.
It brings to mind the saying, "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you read". The more I learn about photography, the more I realise how many inaccuracies have crept into accepted wisdom.

Canon EOS 7D In-use Update

In October, I wrote a mini-review of the Canon EOS 7D. At the time, due to the poor weather, I had limited time using it. I have now had it for three months and have generated alot more testing time with it, with some good results.
In recent weeks, the UK has been thrown into its own mini ice age, with freezing temperatures and the accompanying snow and ice. In December I was able to test it in the cold conditions, photographing a number of different subjects, although mostly landscapes. It produced warm rich tones in the late afternoon evening sun and was able to get some shots of the cold frosty mornings.
It was last week though, when I was able to put it through its paces, photographing what it was intended for, action and in cold weather too (I think the camera coped better than I did at times). For the wildlife shots, I was using the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS, with a 1.4x extender attached. On the Monday, I was able to get a couple of quick grab shots of a kingfisher before it flew off, despite being a very brief view, it focused quickly and accurately. This was followed by a series of shots of some cattle egrets delving in the dredged up material from the main drain at Shapwick Heath in Somerset. Not exactly challenging for the autofocus, but it was good results nonetheless. The next day, I got caught in an unexpected snow storm ahead of the main snow that was forecast for that night. I decided to try photographing a moorhen walking across the ice in the heavy snow, but the very large snowflakes, almost 2 inches across played havoc with the autofocus and the focusing was slightly out. Conditions were so bad though, that manual focus would have been impossible and as a reference point, we had almost an inch of snowfall in half an hour. Next it was back to landscapes in the snow and again, it coped without any problems, althoug following my usual practice of spot metering, I didn't test out its ability to meter correctly in the snow. At one point, a little egret flew over and landed, so I quickly switched to the 100-400. Unfortunately the focusing was off quite badly, it could have been due to the white bird against the white background of the snow, but I'm having continuing problems with this lens lately, so I can't draw any conclusions.
Finally, during a fit of insanity, I decided to travel back to Shapwick Heath on Thursday. Conditions were treacherous to say the least, with the road near the reserve being covered in compacted snow and the reserve itself being under about six inches. For a long period, nothing happened, but then a great bittern flew over in the distance, so for something to do, I tried photographing it. Obviously being so far away, the images aren't of any use, but the focus couldn't have been sharper. Then a marsh harrier flew closer, so I tracked it moving towards me, until it suddenly hovered and dropped into the reeds. As it was totally unexpected, I lost it in the viewfinder momentarily, but the camera regained focus quickly enough for me to get some shots of the initial drop and then a stoop, osprey-like. Unfortunately, the focus was on the wingtips and not the head, but I was impressed by the camera's ability to focus against a difficult background. A little later, I started to realise, that a shape in front of the reeds looked a little odd, so I took a closer look. It turned out it was a great bittern, standing in front of the reeds, almost perfectly camouflaged. That would be a good test of the autofocus. Again, it didn't fail.

A few days earlier, I'd heard that water rails were running about in one location. Normally, they are very difficult to see, let alone photograph, so I decided to see if they were around. I crept down the path and looked into the frozen wet woodland and there they were. I crouched down and took a number of shots, increasing the ISO to 1600. This was into high noise territory on the 40D, so I was rather reluctant to push it so high, even though intial tests showed the 7D to be at least a stop better at controlling noise. I needn't have worried, as the images were very clean, despite the high ISO. In fact, there was so little noise, that I was able to add some luminance smoothing in Lightroom to remove the slight speckles, without noticeable loss of detail.

I then laid down in the snow, to see if I could entice them to come out into the open a bit more. It was mainly the lens that was in contact with the snow, but even so, I would have been very wary of using the 40D in those conditions and I had a little more confidence after seeing a test video by Ole Jørgen Liodden. The hope for them coming out into the open wasn't entirely successful, but I did get some action shots a little further away of one water rail running towards the camera, which is a good test of the autofocus.

In summary, the 7D performed as well as I could have hoped. The autofocus was fast, assured and most importantly accurate. The results at ISO 1600 were extremely good with very low levels of noise, even more impressive when you consider the fact it is 18 MP. I can only imagine how the 1D Mk IV will perform. It also coped with the very cold weather conditions, some days as low as -4 degrees Celsius. All in all, definitely a good performer for action shots and not too shabby for landscapes either, provided you keep to f/8 or f/11 and not go narrower. The only marring factor is the result with the 100-400, which is more likely to be a problem with the lens than the camera.

Stealth Gear Extreme Photographers Suit

In the past couple of months I have found it very cold sitting in hides, despite wearing multiple layers and thermally lined trousers. Recently, I read a review of some new outdoor clothing by Laurie Campbell in Outdoor Photography Magazine, in which he viewed it favourably. The clothing in question was the Extreme Photographers Suit by Stealth Gear. As I know Laurie, I know how importantly he views the right equipment, so I decided to get one for myself.
The suit consists of trousers, a fleece jacket, photographers vest and an overjacket. The vest wasn't something that seemed that useful for me and I am yet to try it, but there wasn't much difference in price between getting the other items individually and the suit as a whole. In addition, the fleece could be zipped into the overjacket. All of the items are made from microsuede and are both windproof and waterproof. It only comes in one colour - olive green, which is actually ideal for a bit of camouflage. The sizings are a little eccentric, so I went for the small.
The suit didn't arrive too soon, as I had been freezing my proverbials off the previous couple of days and we had heavy snow the night after it arrived. The first test was walking through the town through four inches of snow, followed by an outing just outside of Bridgwater to photograph some snowy landscapes. It was actually still snowing, but I remained dry. Even though I'd got the smallest size possible, it was on the large side, but it did give planty of room for all the layers I was wearing. However, as it turned out, I probably didn't need quite so many layers, as I actually overheated. The next test was sitting a few hours in the hide. Again, walking to the hide resulted in overheating, despite having thinner layers than I was used to wearing and being even colder than it had been previously. Once in the hide, I was able to easily keep warm, well except for my hands and feet anyway.
It then had the ultimate test, crouching and lying in the snow, while trying to photograph water rails on the ice. Crouching wasn't too much of a problem, as it wasn't really in much contact with the snow, but even after lying in the snow for abouit half an hour, I didn't have any effect from the cold snow and I was completely dry. At one point a water rail came from behind me and walked across the pathway, but it was only when it got close, that it realised I was a person and flew into the woodland, even then though, it didn't alarm like it would normally, so I was able to continue photographing those in front of me.

While it isn't perfect, it is a very good piece of clothing that does the job it's supposed to, keeping you warm and dry in the most extreme of weather the UK can throw at you. The biggest problem is the sizing, while I'm not large, I'm not small either, yet the smallest size is large on me. This is something that Laurie Campbell also noted and I believe they are addresing this. There a a few stockists across the country, but I ordered mine online from Extreme Nature Gear and although their communication could be improved, I received it in a week, with New Year in between, so not bad delivery really. Full details of the features (which I haven't even begun to list, there are so many) can be found at both companies websites.

Winter Around Bridgwater

Like most of the UK and much of Europe, we have been having some pretty cold weather over the past few weeks. Last night, the Southwest of England had a rare dousing of heavy snow, giving the opportunity of photographs not normally possible. I have now uploaded a number of snow landscapes from near Bridgwater, to go with the earlier frosty dawn shots from December and some other snow scenes from last February.

Somerset Rural and Town Life Photographs - Images by Richard Winn