Assignment 4: Re-shoot - Texture

The second shoot to be discussed is the texture image. Here is the original shoot.

Here is the comment from Alan:

“You have chosen to concentrate on the stippled area of the body of the subject.   In my opinion there is too much strong contrast in this image because the unlit areas in the frame are almost too dense to discern any detail. You have avoided this problem in all your other images by the arrangement of your lighting to fill the shadows. An image which showed some of the areas of brushed aluminium or the carrying strap would have also been quite appropriate for this task.”

So, the problem with this image (according to Alan) is the contrast is too high. It is possible to put a fill light in to reduce the contrast, and bring up some details on the originally unlit area. Let’s try this one first. This image was the one that I took earlier but didn’t select for the assignment. It is on a different orientation, because I prefer the details on the exposure dial instead of the rewinding knob. The idea is the same, one side of the prism area is lit by a hard light to show the texture of the leather, but this one has a fill for the front.

My feeling is: it is a little bit too distracting. There are more things to look at instead of just texture on the leather. It might not be the first thing viewers will pick up on.

Personally I prefer the original image. In theory the viewer can only focus on the aluminium and one side of the leather: One is smooth and one is rough. The contrast is very high, but I think it is more obvious on where you should look.

I wonder if I should have chosen something different to photograph on “texture”. I have another image on colour, which shows the texture on the strap quite well. However, I choose this one as the “texture” image, because the strap is the only thing that has strong colour in this camera, and I want to keep the strap associated with “colour” as much as possible. On the other hand, I could have done a macro shot with the leather fills most of the frame, I can have less contrast while showing the texture across the board. At the moment, I cannot try this type of shoot because none of my lens has marco capacity and cannot focus that close. I think maybe the next gear I should buy is a lens reversal ring to try this idea out.  

Assignment 4: Reshoot - Form

My tutor got back to me on assignment 4 two weeks ago. Because I have to work on the Life in the UK exam, I can’t get around to reshoot some of the images.

This is the first tutor report I got from Alan. The comments are generally quite positive. To be honest, it is somewhat too positive for someone at my level. Somehow I wonder if this is how the British education system works. When I was young, I don’t remember getting a nice word unless your work is so stunning that it shocks the teacher. I have a look at the last assessment result in July. Only one person get above 80 for this course, which is consistent with what it was like in my Chinese composition class. My teacher used to say if you get above 90, that is Literature with a big “L”.     

Never mind, let’s focus on the negative comments.

Reshoot

There are three images I am looking at: Texture, shape and form. I will put them into three posts. So let’s start with the shape. Here is the original image.

  

This is Alan’s comment.

“This is a good angle and lighting plan to demonstrate the principle shape of your camera.  Unfortunately, although the manufacturer’s logo on the front panel is sharp, I am afraid that the rewind knob on the right and the lettering on the ring on the front of the lens have both drifted out of focus.   I suspect that the aperture was too wide open to create sufficient depth of focus.”

The re-shoot in theory is simple, but it takes a while to setup the subject, camera and light roughly the same to the original shoot. After some trial and error, here is at f/32, flash at full power (compare to the original image at around f/13).

We can see that the “Nikkor” letter is sharp, while there are more detail on the rewind knob. Still if we look at this at 100% corp, the knob is sharp but not exactly pin-sharp. I think there is limited depth of field (DOF). I will go into this in more discussion later. However, since the DOF is limited, I prefer to have the front “Nikkor” to be as sharp as possible instead of keeping the knob sharp. I think it is too easy to spot if the letter is not sharp.

DOF

I have to admit that depth of field is one of the thing I rarely pay attention of. Why? Because most of the photographs I took are sport related. Most of the time I need to shutter speed to be very high. Trying to keep the ISO noise to a manageable level, there is rarely any room to maneuver the aperture. To be honest, I am not sure how small I should set the aperture in assignment 3 when I do urban landscape piece. It is more of a guess work if this f-stop is good enough.

As a result I look at the DOF calculation on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field). The calculation is done by using thin lens equation in classical optics, combining with some geometry (similar triangles). I replicate the formulas and put it on a spreadsheet. Here are couple questions I am interested in:

1) What was the DOF of the setting of this shot?
2) Apart of from stopping down, what else can I improve on the DOF?

The first one is simple. At f=70mm, the subject is about 40cm away (near the minimal focus distance). Let’s say the distance is 50cm since the subject has depth. With the circle of confusion set at 0.02mm, I get 3.98cm with f/22 and 5.63cm at f/32. The subject depth (from the “Nikkor” to the knob) is about 10cm. Thus, it explains why the knob is not sharp enough even at f/22. f/32 barely makes it, but as I said earlier, the knob is not exactly pin-sharp.

The second question is more interesting. In the solution to the DOF calculation, there are 4 variables: focal length, subject distance, f-stop (which is the same as focal length/aperture diameter), and circle of confusion. I can adjust each of them to get more DOF. So what is the post and con?

Circle of confusion (CoC): The most foreign term is the fastest way to improve DOF. The CoC is defined as the diameter of a spot to spread to be considered to be unsharp. It has to do with the grain or sensor size. The larger the sensor grid (not the number of pixel, but sensor size divide by the number of pixel), the bigger CoC. Some says viewing condition as well, but it is less controllable. This is a short extract from Wikipedia, with the calculation of the DOF at f/22 and f/32.

Image Format	Frame size	CoC (mm)	DOF at f/22 (mm)	DOF at f/32 (mm)
APS-C Nikon	15.7 mm × 23.6 mm	0.019	40	56
35mm Full Frame	24 mm × 36 mm	0.029	58	82
6×6 Medium Format	56 mm × 56 mm	0.053	106	152
8×10 Large Format	203 mm × 254 mm	0.22	540	999

One can see that, while I only have 5.6cm to maneuver in an APS-C frame, I will have three times more in a 6x6 medium format. Simple! However, as Henry Louis Mencken said, “For every complex problem, there is a simple answer – and it’s wrong.”, here is the price list:

Image Format	Example	Price (GBP)
APS-C Nikon	Nikon D7000	559
35mm Full Frame	Nikon D600	1,429
Medium Format	Hasselblad H4D-60	22,962
Large Format	Deardorff View Camera V8 (film)	3,795

The Hasselblad H4D is not a 6x6, but something like a 4x5. It costs 41-times more than my D7000. There is no digital large format camera around, so I find a film one, it still cost 6 times more than what I have. Then, I also have to process my own film because there is no shop that does large format film processing.

Focal Length and Subject Distance: These two go together. Unless I corp, I cannot move the subject further away and maintain the composition. Assume that I don’t corp, then I have to increase the focal length as I move the subject further away. Re-run this calculation, this is what I get.

Focal Length (mm)	Subject Distance (mm)	DOF at f/22 (mm)
70	500	38.67
135	1,000	41.79
200	1,500	42.91

I am not sure if this works at all, given that I am not getting even 1cm worth of improvement.

Aperture: I went all the way down to f/32. I am glad that my lens is old enough to have f/32. Most modern lens only got as low as f/22. If somebody is making an f/64 lens, I can put it in and get a DOF of 109mm. Here is a problem: someone told me that with small sensor camera (like mine), I have to worry about diffraction when the f-stop goes below f/16. I am not sure how to check diffraction pattern in an image. I can’t see anything very exciting at f/32, but will it be the same at f/64?

The Airy disk function is just a 2D Fourier transform of a circular aperture. Adding two together side by side will give me an idea on how close they have to be for the sensor to fail to detect two peaks. To be honest, I haven’t done math for a while. Therefore, I used the online calculator from Cambridge in Colour (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm). At f/32, the diameter of the Airy dist is only 41 micron, larger than the CoC of 21 micron. A quick calculation with the thin lens equation assuming that my maximum resolution at the sensor is 41 mircon, with 70mm focal length, at f/32, subject at 50cm, it implies that I will not be able to resolve two points that is 0.252mm apart (only at the 50cm plane).

For the sharp shot, I have to say that I don’t care about a resolution of 0.252mm. It is probably more important if I am doing the texture shot, when the small details make all the difference in the texture.

Anyway, that’s all for the sharp. This analysis is simply too tiring. I am sure I will never finish this course if I keep doing this. I will write less for the next two re-shoots.

Robert Frank: The American

I am actual overdue for the reshoot for assignment 4. I got the tutor report on the 29th but I keep getting distracted by other things. Along all the excuses, here is one. My tutor recommends me to read Robert Frank's work "The American". I went over to the book store and found a Chinese version of the book. The book itself contains 83 photographs. It was a controversial work back in the 1950's that it was described as a "wart-covered… neurotic… a sad poem for sick people". However, there are also shares of admiration from other photographers. One of which described this works as "stunning, ground-trembling". So, which one is true?

Chinese preface. Anyone interested?

It happens that I have lived in America for many years. Due to school and work commitment, I have moved every couple years and have lived in four different states. So,  Robert Frank's work is not very surprising to me. It is consistent with what I have seen when I live there, even though the work is over 60 years old. Obviously, technology advances and many of the screens, the type of cars and the sign in the store in Robert Frank's work will be obsolete today, but the people are as confusing before as today.

One of the photographs that I found humours is a photograph of a black woman holding a white baby. It does not strike me about the photograph itself but the idea of taking such a photograph. If you take a photograph of something, it implies that you want to share this moment that speaks something to you, right? Race discrimination had been a long standing problem in American. Law against discrimination had passed many years ago, but for people to truly content with it, it takes more of a generation to forget what the grandpa said about the other race. On the surface, there is no discrimination in America, and there is no way there is any. However, when I was driving along in the suburb Chicago, my white friend told me that he feels uncomfortable to stop at the area that is predominately black. That was in 1997.

Of course, the America and the Americans have gone a long way since then. President Obama is a mixed race American. A lot of top athletes are black. New waves of immigrates comes from Asia. However, the most interesting part of American is that, it is a big melting pot. There are always new people coming in. The old mis-conception never quite dies out, while the new mis-conception will show up somewhere. It is so easy to find faults in the Americans to poke fun at. Someone, somewhere, decides that it is cool to burn a Koran a day (here), despite it is totally offensive to the Muslims. Someone, somewhere, thinks that it is a weekend family activity to go a protest next to a soldier's funeral (here) with obscene remarks. We are speaking in the 21 century. 

For Robert Frank’s work, I have seen something similar with my own eye. The part that is interesting to me is why he photographed this instead of anything else. There are other things happens in America, both good and bad. But why only this set of photographs are selected? I think it is quite obvious that he must be a foreigner, hoping that there is some unified personality for the "Americans", but only find out that exceptions are everywhere, and get disappointed. There was a book titled "The Nature of Photographs" written by Stephen Store. The book mentioned that a photograph can be viewed in three levels, and the last one is the mental level. Robert Frank's work is based on the "mental model" he had. Or, to phase it differently, he selected those works because he thought they worth to be photographed. Thus it says more about him than his work. 

So, what is "worthy" to photograph? What is so interesting about taking photograph of a common life that we go through day after day, to something that we are so familiar with that we almost ignored? Is it precisely we start to ignore it, it becomes part of our blind spot and thus, worthy to bring it out once more for discussion? Back in the 15, 16^th century, art works are created because the rich and powerful commission them to be made. Many Michelangelo’s work has a religious theme may or may not because he is a religious man, but the members of the churches commission him to do so. At 21^st century, if we were working for the press, only images that cause public sensation is really worthy (thus there is so much paparazzi). However, if we work for nobody and do photography as a hobby, what is left to judge what is worth apart from our own opinion? Then, what is left to judge if a piece of art work is good or bad if this is all up to our personal opinion? And is it why for the many degree show I have seen produced very low quality of work because amateur photography is essentially an art of talking to ourselves but never mind if it has any value to other people?

I suppose, someone will find me strange to say that I don't find Robert Frank's work ground breaking. Well, try to see this in the era that I live in: Two Iraq wars, Guantanamo Bay, high school shootings, religious fanatic, housing market, loans requires no income proof, a quarter of the population with no health insurance, state government defaults on its own debt, George W Bush, Sarah Palin... The list can go on. Did anyone say that Robert Frank's work look bleak? Which one?

In this book, I only see it as a typical documentary of "normal" Americans, of which we tends to ignore. People in that era has very negative comment toward his work, which they don’t seem to have against other documentary photographer of that era such as Henri Cartier-Bresson. Does Cartier-Bresson’s work make the subject appears in more positive light? Or does it work not concentrate on one nationality, therefore any negativity is less offensive if viewed individually?

I am not ready to discuss the composition and technique of the individual image. This is very strange, but I find it difficult to comment on somebody who is already very famous which we are supposed to learn from if not emulate. I rarely critique on technique level even for my own classmates.

Let’s shift focus a little bit. I live in Britain for a while, so what Britishness is like? Honestly, I can't say much apart from saying that people trying keep themselves to themselves, and everyone is at an arm length. Do we all think that the British are quiet, reserve and polite? Well, here is the work by Leo Maguire during the 2011 Joop Swart master class. His subject is dogging, meaning people engage in outdoor sexual act.  

The Brits? Surprising, isn't it? Here is the link:

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/photo/jsm2011leo-01?gallery=1982

I wonder what is the verdict of his work from the British people? Ground breaking? Offensive? Somebody pigeon-hole into a sub-culture and put the whole population looks in bad light? Personally, I see it not that far from Robert Frank’s work, except that, this is even more shocking when we have a more unity sense of Britishness. 

Exercise 46: Rain

In this exercise, I have to make a magazine cover on rain. To be honest, getting a photograph of rain is easy, but getting a great photograph of rain is very difficult. To turn the question the other way around: what is a good picture of rain? It shows rain drops?

I turn my focus elsewhere. In the last post on “Evidence of Action”, I posted the image on OCA forum for critique. One issue brought up was whether the photograph shown something “have happened” or “going to happen”. I have that in mind when I was doing this exercise. The reason is, it is easier to do it here. I can look at what happen before and after the rain. In the other case, it is much harder for me because I have little experience on what suicide is like for real.

There are before, during and after I want to look at, so what happened.
Before the rain:

1)     Sky gets darker

2)     Wind blow stronger

During the rain:

1)     Sky is still dark

2)     Wind still blow strongly

3)     Rain falls from the sky (what else can it be?)

4)     The street (floor, windows, plants, wall) getting wet

5)     People holding umbrellas

6)     Flooding may happen

7)     Leaks (from ceiling?) may happen

After the rain:

1)     Water droplets

2)     Floor still wet

3)     Sun may shine

Why listing them out? Because a random photograph of rain is easy, but I have no idea what I want to present to you (actually, I am still clueless after doing the shot). Before the rain is very difficult to shoot. I walk along on the street and wonder if this is just another typical (gloomy) day in England, or this is before the rain. There maybe signs of windy, but it leaves the subject wild open.

During the rain is easier. I don’t have any leaks (luckily) at home and no access to flooding. So I want to show something wet.

As a hindsight, I wonder if compositional wise I should shoot from a lower angle and used a wide angle angle lens instead.

After the rain is more interesting, but I wonder if there is a little bit ambitious. The sun happens to be at a good angle to the rubbish bin, so I see rain drops and the sun ray.

To be honest, the composition is quite boring. I want to get closer to the rain drop, but there is a minimal focus distance.

The more typical image of shooting windows with raindrops. However, I wait until the rain is over to shoot this. So I get water droplet and blue sky. I wonder if it hints “after the rain” or it is too unclear (ie. can this be in a car wash or window wash)?
 

So what is the final verdict: the first shot is the easiest and the most clear one. I wonder, if we want to present an idea, why not just use something simple and effective? What is the issue of having cliche, when our goal is to communication the informaton? Is it too boring? Or this is just some what-so-called artist trying to show off their ingenity and end up in confusing the viewers?