This time, it’s your turn…

My good Katie Cooke (who I’ve featured on Photocritic before, and who might be familiar to you as the author of Slowlight - a fantastic resource on pinhole photography) wrote up a 20-step guide on the mysterious world of ambrotype photography.

Arguably, it’s not a very useful skill to learn (as opposed to, say, learning black and white, and subsequently colour developing in a darkroom), but we’re all photography geeks for a reason, dammit, so let’s start the new year by geeking out like it’s 1859!

Let’s start off with a bit of a disclaimer - The old photography processes aren’t as straight forward as clicking a button: The worst damage you can do to yourself with a digital camera is knocking yourself in the head (yeah, James, I’m looking at you) or falling off a cliff. Working with wetplates means you’re handling a lot of chemicals and suchlike - you need to understand which of the chemicals are dangerous, and which ones are less so.

I’d really recommend a workshop or tutorial for getting started: it’s a very physical process, and one that is much easier to learn by seeing and doing rather than reading. Watching a master in the art show you how it’s meant to be done will give you a massive head start. If that’s not possible, order John Coffer’s Doer’s guide (a text and 4 DVDs is available by post)

20 steps to Ambrotype victory…

Or: How not to make ambrotypes

1. Wash your glass pane

Take a piece of glass that’s cut to size to fit your plate holder, and wash it with washing up liquid and very hot water. Dry it and polish it. Breath on it, realise it’s still streaky, and polish it some more with your glasses cloth. Breath on it some more. Argh! Still streaky.

Juggle the glass to get a better look, cut your finger on the sharp edge because no, you couldn’t be bothered to knock the edges down could you. Bleed on the glass, and go back to washing it again. Wipe at it a bit more, and then declare it clean enough. Remember this would have been easier and less prone to fingermarks if you’d been wearing your stylish bright blue nitrile gloves.

2. Prepare the plate with egg. Yes, egg.

Sub the edges of the glass, by dipping a cotton bud into a mixture of egg white and distilled water that’s been sitting in the fridge for a while, and running that around the edges of the glass. This helps the collodion stick to the glass, particularly if it’s less than perfectly clean, and prevents it lifting up and peeling away your picture when you wash it later.

Do not leave the bowl of albumen mix where the cats will get at it and eat it. Egg white is Very Bad for moggies. Also, cat hair is not good for albumen.

3. Let the plate dry

Let the plate dry, and the eggy bits harden, while you set up the shot.

4. Set up your shot.

It’s easier if it doesn’t involve people at this stage, as there’s a lot of hanging around to do between now and the shutter opening. Create the scene for a bee-you-tiff-full picture, with large format camera on the tripod, all locked down and, no, you really aren’t going to bump the tripod just after you get the perfect focus, are you?

5. Look at the light and frown.

You’re inside, because you can’t leave the camera set up all alone on the front steps, your only bit of outside space, and, frankly, it’s pretty bloody dark in here, even by the big window. It’s december, get over it. Reach for your light meter, and then frown some more. That’s no damn use to you.

All you have learned about how to read light and work out the EV? Useless. You’re dealing with UV light now, not regular old school light. Collodion is not sensitive to red light, only blue. Look at your set up again, all those lovely red things in there? They will go black. The blue things? They might go white. Hard to tell, some do, some don’t. You’re probably going to get the first exposure very wrong, but that’s ok. You can do it again.

6. Add some silver

Go and get the glass plate, with dried eggy bits, from the kitchen, wiping off the half-pound of dust that’s fallen on it since, and take it the bathroom, your magic and marvellous darkroom. This, in true Blue Peter fashion, has been prepared earlier: the floor is covered in black bin bags, which are covered with newspaper, and the bath is lined with the same.

On the board across the bath is a mysterious, mostly vertical black box, containing a 9% solution of silver nitrate that has been excited (yes, really, excited. It’s already had plates dipped in it, so has some other salts in there, iodine and cadmium ones, to be precise), a stack of paper towels, and various other bottles. You’ve already filtered this, with coffee filters, and funnels, while crouching on the bathroom floor and trying not to catch the funnel full of silver with your sleeve and send it flying across the room, so, it’s ready to use.

7. Gloves!

Get the damn gloves on or you’ll have black-splotched fingers for the next week.

8. Dust your glass again.

You’re almost ready to pour the collodion. This is the sticky film which will make the silver hold to the plate, and turn a reject from a cheap frame into a photograph. Before you open it, warn your significant other that if he wants a cigarette, he’d better go outside, as you don’t want anything to explode. You’re being paranoid, but paranoid is better than explodey. Two bottles: one to pour, and one to drain. Put a funnel in the drain bottle.

9. Add the collodion to your plate

Balance the clean glass, ok, the dusty glass, as the bathroom fan seems to generate dust but damn it, you are now beyond caring about this and you’ll probably never make a plate without dust on it (and at least the bright, dragged dust spots have a charming name in this process: comets)…oh, sorry, yes, balance the clean glass on the fingertips of your non-dominant hand, as though it was a waiter’s tray.

Pour a puddle of collodion onto middle of the glass, and gently, no, gently, tilt it so the collodion runs to the corner but not over the edge, and then around to the next corner and not over the edge. Oh, well, that’s why you put the newspaper down in the bath. Aren’t you glad you were wearing gloves? And so on around to the final corner, never letting the collodion run back on itself. Head for the bottle-with the funnel, and tip the plate right up, final corner down, to run off the excess, shaking the plate side to side madly while not dropping it, face down and sticky, onto paper towels and newspapers. Knock the last drop off, and hold that plate vertically–no, don’t touch the front–while you cap the bottles and wait for the collodion to skin over slightly. Press your ungloved thumb into the corner, and check it takes a finger print. This should only take about 30 seconds from starting to pour. You were getting a move on, no?

10. Start your timer…

Open the mysterious black box of silver, put the plate on the perspex dipper, sticky-side out, and slide it smoothly into the depths, and get the lid back on pronto. Start the timer. You brought the timer into the bathroom, right? Run around the house yelling about where the hell you left the timer. Discover it clipped to your pocket. Start the four minute count, for the silver to coat the plate.

11. Set up the developing while the plate is sucking in silver.

Measure out some developer liquid and pour it into a small shot glass, and add a tiny splosh of distilled water to slow it down just a touch so you don’t get into a panic about the short amount of time you have to develop things. Mix some fixer.

Yes, the hardcore wetplaters use potassium cyanide, but, I’ll stick to regular modern fixer, thanks. Find some space on the shelf above the loo to hold the tray of fixer. Get a jug of water ready, and an empty tray. Put these on the loo. It’s the only space you have left.

12. Breathe deeply - Ahh, fixer and ether and alcohol fumes all mixed in to the tiny bathroom space.

13. Check the timer.

Four minutes is almost here. Find the dorky torch. (The LED headlamp thingy, with a red filter on, that makes everyone looks dorky, but works a treat as a darkroom light.) Close the bathroom door and put a towel along the gap. Marvel at how bright it is with the dorky torch. Realise you’ve left the light on. Open door, turn off light, turn off hall light, close door, apply towel.

When the four minutes is done, open up the silver box and lift out the plate on the dipper. It should be a creamy yellow, and the clear silver nitrate solution should be running off it rather than beading up. Remove the plate without knocking the front against the dipper, the box, your fingers or anything–it’s very fragile at the moment, and will tear if you look at it harshly. Hold it over the box and let some of the silver drip back in. Stand it up on some paper towels, to take the wet edge off the bottom, and wipe the back carefully. Any silver on the back will somehow magically get around to the front between now and developing, and create blotches and splotches (a.k.a. oysters.)

14. Load the plate up into the holder.

Try not to think about the uneven patches you can see, or the great globs of dust. Put in the dark slide, and, holding your plate vertical (you have been keeping the down edge down all this time, no?) waltz back to your camera. See now why this is trickier with portraits?

15. Make the exposure

Check your camera set up, do not kick the tripod. Make sure the shutter is closed. Go on, check again. Trust me on this. Set the timer for your best guess exposure because this is going to be way beyond shutter speed and probably into the minutes as the room is practically dark and you’re going to use artificial light to give it a boost. Plate holder into the camera, plate facing the front. Pull the slide. Cock the shutter.

Turn the light on (nasty face tanner with four UV bulbs, in my case) and hold it in the right spot, while not looking into the light at all. Reach around, without dropping the light, to get the shutter release and start the timer. Expose, all the while fretting that you are under or overcooking the exposure. Close the shutter, put the slide back in, remove the holder from the camera, and back to the bathroom with you.

16. Add developer

Dorky torch on, light off. Unload the plate and balance it on your finger tips again, waiter-style, only this time you want the long edge towards you, and tilt the plate just slightly away from you. Hover over the tray that’s on the loo seat, and take the shot glass of developer.

Take a deep breath. Pour the developer quickly but steadily onto the plate, running it along the close top edge, and letting it flow over the plate, but not off the edge, tilt it back up and shimmer-shake it gently so the liquid sits and moves around on the top. If you’ve missed any, it’s too late, if there are islands and holes and gaps in the developer, it’s too late, they are gone and you’ll never see them again.

Were you counting seconds? You should have been counting seconds. By the time you get to about seven seconds from the developer hitting the plate, you should have some image up, the highlights at least. And then the midtones come in quickly, oh hell, time to stop. Grab that jug of water and slosh it over the plate, fast, to stop the development. If your image flashed up immediately, it was over exposed. If it was sluggish and wouldn’t come up and you were there muttering and shaking your plate, it’s under exposed.

If you over develop it, all contrast will be lost, and it will be foggy and flat. But hey, you might be able to use it with an enlarger.

17. Fix it

Slide the developed plate into the tray of fixer, and slosh it gently back and forth. Wash the shot glass, wash the other tray, put the lights on. Slosh it till its clear, and this doesn’t take long, except for the stubborn bit at the edge which is looking decidedly blue, but that’s ok, keep going. You’re not using KCN, so the fixer won’t eat the image away. Lift it out and rinse it in the bathroom sink, so you don’t dribble fixer through the house as you take it into the kitchen to look at it.

18. Check it

Put the glass into a black tray, with water above and below it, and look at it in good light. If you got it right (ahahahaha) then it will show up as a perfectly exposed positive, with the clear parts black and the highlights white, and a lovely range of warm silvery greys inbetween. An ambrotype is a very thin negative, that, on black, reverses out to positive (yes, it’s magic.) They are often framed sitting against black velvet, or you can enamel the back, so that it looks like a positive without being in a black tray of water. If it’s over-exposed, then the highlights and midtones are going to be dense and solid. You might be able to print it with modern silver gelatin paper, and treat it like a thin negative. But that’s a fuss for another day.

19. Rinse it

Leave it in that tray, with something underneath to prop it up just a touch to let the water flow underneath too, and keep the water running gently for about 20 minutes. They dry it. You can let it drip dry, or dry it with a hair dryer (or, for the hardcore, an open-flame spirit lamp.) Do not fret when it goes about two stops lighter, just admire the lovely shimmery silver. This is a good time to scan it, otherwise you are going to have to wait 24 hours.

20. Varnishing

When it’s bone dry, you can varnish it. Varnish smells glorious–it’s made of alcohol and gum sanderac and lavender oil–and is a complete pain in the arse. Get the plate hot with the hair dryer, and warm the bottle of varnish in a jog of hot water. You really want gloves for this, as this varnish is the stickiest substance on the planet. Juggle the hot plate, trying not to drop it, back to the bathroom, and, almost like you did with the collodion, pour it onto the image-side of the glass.

Hold it flat a moment, and let the varnish get drawn into the silver, and the alcohol evaporate off, then tip it straight up–no shaking this time–and drain it into the drain bottle for filtering later. Look, it’s gone back to the colour and tone it was when it was wet. Hurrah!

Wait a couple of minutes, and then back to the hair dryer until the varnish is dry to the touch. Then let it cure overnight. At which point you can use meths and cotton wool to get rid of the globs of varnish that got mysteriously all over the back of the the plate.

Put the image on a piece of black cloth. Voila. One ambrotype.

Further reading:

Wikipedia’s article on Collodion photography is a bit lacking, but can at least give some historical perspective.

Joe Smigiel’s “Getting Started In Wetplate Collodion Photography” is an excellent starter read if you want to find out how to do this properly.

John Coffer’s Doer’s guide (a text and 4 DVDs)

Quinn Jacobson’s book, “The Contemporary Wet Plate Collodion Experience” is no longer available, but he has a new one coming out in February 2009, along with a video-based workshop series online.

The wet plate collodion forum board that he runs is friendly, helpful, and packed full of knowledgeable people http://collodion.com/forum

And reading John Towler’s 1864 book, “The Silver Sunbeam“, is never a waste of time, particularly for trouble-shooting.

Also, Matthew Carey Lea’s 1871 book, “A manual of photography”

And here is a far from exhaustive list of some of the people who are doing amazing work with the process: Sally Mann, Kerik Kouklis, Quinn Jacobson, Jodi Sternbach, Luther Gerlach, Jody Ake, Matthew Larkin, Scully & Osterman, Ellen Susan, and interesting stuff pops up in the flickr wetplate pool (I really like Alexey Alexeev’s work there)

Just a reminder…

Just to re-iterate: This is not meant to be a practical guide to working with wet plate collodion. Before you do any work with wet plate collodion, you should make sure you understand the chemicals and their risks, as many are toxic, carcinogenic, highly flammable, or explosive. Do not handle these chemicals without understanding their risks, how to handle them, and how to dispose of them safely. Using any of them is at your own risk, and the author does not accept any liability or responsibility for your improper use of these chemicals or processes.

A huge thank you to Katie for writing up this guide!

I just received an e-mail from the editor over at JPG magazine, bearing a rather quite sad message: They’re shutting the doors for good. I was a subscriber (and hell, when I was working in publishing I tried to talk the publishing firm I was working for into buying the magazine, but nothing ever came of it). I’m not even bothered about whether or not I lose money as a result - the amazingly original concept of JPG was a breath of fresh air, and a lot of my friends got their first (and - for some - only) images in print on the venerable pages of JPG.

JPG - you’ll be missed. I hope that the economic tides will turn so it turns out not to be the final nail in the coffin for one of the most inspirational and creative magazines out there!

The e-mail from Laura, the editor over at 8020 media below…

Today is a particularly sad day for all of us at JPG and 8020 Media.

We’ve spent the last few months trying to make the business behind JPG sustain itself, and we’ve reached the end of the line. We all deeply believe in everything JPG represents, but we just weren’t able to raise the money needed to keep JPG alive in these extraordinary economic times. We sought out buyers, spoke with numerous potential investors, and pitched several last-ditch creative efforts, all without success. As a result, jpgmag.com will shut down on Monday, January 5, 2009.

The one thing we’ve been the most proud of: your amazing talent. We feel honored and humbled to have been able to share jpgmag.com with such a dynamic, warm, and wonderful community of nearly 200,000 photographers. The photography on the website and in the magazine was adored by many, leaving no doubt that this community created work of the highest caliber. The kindness, generosity, and support shared among members made it a community in the truest sense of the word, and one that we have loved being a part of for these past two years.

We wish we could have found a way to leave the site running for the benefit of the amazing folks who have made JPG what it is, and we have spent sleepless nights trying to figure something out, all to no avail. Some things you may want to do before the site closes:

- Download the PDFs of back issues, outtakes, and photo challenge selections. We’ll always have the memories! www.jpgmag.com/downloads/archives.html
- Make note of your favorite photographers. You may want to flip through your favorites list and jot down names and URLs of some of the people you’d like to stay in touch with. You may even want to cut and paste your contacts page into a personal record.
- Catch up with your fellow members. Our roots are in this humble flickr forum and we recommend going back to find fellow members, discuss the situation, or participate in another great photo community. www.flickr.com/groups/jpgmag/
- Keep in touch. This has always been much more than just a job to each of us, and we’ll miss you guys! We’ll be checking the account jpgletters@gmail.com in our free time going forward. We can’t promise to reply to every email (since we’ll be busy tuning up our resumes) but we’d love to hear from you.
- Stay posted. Although the magazine is ceasing publication, we’ll be updating you on what’s happening with your subscription early next week.

We’re soggy-eyed messes, but it is what it is. At that, JPGers, we bid you goodbye, and good luck in 2009 and the future.

Laura Brunow Miner
Editor in Chief

So have a lovely celebration folks, if you’re of the drinking kind, then try to stay vaguely upright until midnight, at least, and give 2009 a becoming welcome!

Rock on…

Many a budding shutterbug has attempted unsuccessfully to photograph fireworks by merely pointing their film camera to the sky and shooting, resulting dark useless prints. With the advent of digital photography, photographing fireworks has become easy, just by following some basic steps…

Find a location away from the crowd and power lines. An elevated location on a hillside might be adequate. You might even want to scout out your perch beforehand.

Set your camera to use standard quality pics. Having too high quality settings will result in too long of write speed, thereby making you miss shots.

Set the shutter speed to 1 second or longer. Don’t be afraid of underexposing your photos, though. You won’t.

Use a tripod. If you can’t find a tripod use a nice steady base.

Turn off the flash. This might seem like common sense, but remember you are photographing lights, so you don’t need to add more light yourself.

Point your camera toward the sky and shoot. A key to getting a good shot is anticipating when the firework will explode. Initially you will have many hit and miss shots. As the show goes along, you will be able to perfect your timing thereby getting excellent shots.

Can’t get enough? Well, try the guides, tutorials and tips from Better Photo.com, Garry Black, about.com, calphoto, DPchallenge, and Smithsonian institute!

The way the local population expects you as a photographer to behave with your camera may be very different in countries other than your own. This Photo Etiquette may, however, not be easy to understand or adhere to, especially when it comes to photographing people as a subject, so we decided to have a closer look at what you might encounter…

When travelling, I find that shots of sights, animals and nature are often rewarding, but not enough. Photographing people gives a richer texture to the cultures you have visited. In hindsight, I have often regretted foregoing on a large part of the experience, simply because I did not know whether it was okay to take photos of people.

Not wishing to be photographed

Many people do not wish to be photographed, for many different reasons. Native peoples, such as some Native Americans in the US, might refuse being photographed because they believe a mirror does not reflect reality, but a persons’ soul. A picture, taken by a device that relies heavily on mirrors, may therefore capture and enslave the soul. Sometimes, this restriction only counts for infants and children, as their souls are fragile, and can more easily leave the body.

Others, such as some Caribbean cultures, believe that a representation of a person may be used in ‘sympathetic magic’ to cast voodoo spells on the person in question. Others again, especially in tourist areas, do not want to be in photos because, frankly, they are sick of them. Try to imagine how you would feel if a constant stream of tourists would come by your office and photograph you.

In some countries, such as China, taking someone’s picture without their consent is simply extremely rude. Others might feel they are not photogenic, and do not want their face to be splashed all over Flickr. And you need to be wary that some locations (places of worship, official buildings and structures, museums and military bases) may prohibit photography for security reasons.

If all that was not enough, you also need to consider the implications of a photo. If you might land someone in trouble for taking the photo (if photographing individuals at a political rally etc.) you might want to reconsider taking the photo. In other words, there should be a lot of prudence and respect on your part as the photographer.

Permission is key

Figuring out when it is okay to take a photo and when it is not will help you bring home more than just pictures of puppies, buildings and your travelling partner. The best way of finding this out is simply by asking. I have been asked for money in exchange for a photo on several occasions in India, and you will have to consider whether that money is worth the photo. If you deem it is not, just smile, shake your head and move along. Alternatively, they might ask you to buy something off them. Again, by all means do, if it is something you wanted, and if you think the price is worth the photo, if not, just keep going.

But, in general, rule number one is, get permission. It is essential that your behaviour and attitude is not one of right, but one of friendly coexistence. When you smile and nod while pointing at your camera, it is pretty clear what you want. This might sometimes mean that your photo will not be as spontaneous as you might wish, but at least you will not end up in sticky situations where the subject feels their personal space, or religion is violated. Especially on the topic of photographing children, you need to be very cautious, make sure to ask the parents or guardians for permission, no matter where in the world you are.

Rule number two is respect people’s wishes. If a person refuses your request of a photo, just move along and find other subjects. This will sometimes mean you do not get a photo at all, but do not try to sneak one in if someone has already said no. Never forget that there will be other opportunities for photos elsewhere.

Rule number three is that if someone asks you to stop taking photos, either verbally, by turning away, by looking uncomfortable, or by running for cover, as happened to me in Vietnam, stop. No matter the reason why someone might want you to stop, it is important that you keep in mind what Darren Rowse said on his blog: people are not tourist sites. They have feelings that must be respected. And you will only end up with photos of people with their backs turned to you, and minimal amounts of goodwill. It is just not worth it.

And finally, if you wish to finish a friendly exchange with a stranger whom you just took a photo of on a high note, you may wish to show them the photo afterwards if you have a digital display. It is not only courteous, but it has sometimes caused me to have a multitude of other subjects wanting to be photographed to see themselves on the little screen, including in Indonesia and Vietnam.

This article was written by Meke Kamps for Photocritic

SO… 2 things:

Twitter - Photocritic now has a Twitter account; you can see the updates in the side-bar (look for the Twitter-coloured box, you can’t miss it really) or follow me @photocritic. Go on, you know it makes sense. If you’re really curious, I’ve got a personal Twitter account too…

RSS / Syndication feeds - Turns out that the 30,000-odd RSS subscribers (Yes, really! Amazing stuff - thank you everybody!) are taking their toll on the server, so I’ve moved the RSS feeds across to Feedburner. I’ve done some clever redirection malarkey, so if you were already subscribing, you should just simply be redirected to the new feed, and you don’t have to do anything. If you’d rather get the feed from feedburner directly, check out feeds.feedburner.com/photocritic

The world of photography turns quickly, so it can be a challenge for many of us to keep up. That’s why I thought I’d bring out this handy Christmas gift guide just in time for the holidays. (Well, that, and last year’s guide was one of my better visited pages, so I figured it’d be rude to not do a re-run with a bit of an update, too)

No matter what your budget, you should find something on this list that will bring a picture perfect smile to your photo-junky friend’s face.

Behold… Photocritic’s From sub-$40 to credit crisis-incurring gift guide (of DOOM)

In the $40s and below range:

Looking for an inexpensive photography related gift? I won’t lie; sometimes it can be tough to find a good photography gift in this price range, especially with everyone switching to digital.

Unless you know for a fact that your friend still uses film on a regular basis a well-wrapped box of film canisters and photopaper won’t cut it like it did in past years. However, we’ve been able to scrounge up a few interesting possibilities.

Out of the five listed below, we feel that the Westcott 750 Photo Basics 7.5-Foot Light Stand ($29.90) is the best buy in the $20-$40 dollar range. This sturdy 7.5 foot stand receives consistently good reviews and enjoys uniform popularity. Unlike some accessories, an extra one of these is almost never a bad thing.

For other low cost options try the Photography Studio Continuous Lighting Umbrella Kit ($39.99) or the Digital Concepts Ps-101 Portable Lighting Studio ($40.67).

If none of these seem quite right, you could always resort to buying one of these two popular photography related books: Microstock Photography: How to Make Money from Your Digital Images ($16.47), or the bestseller The Digital Photography Book ($11.99). Or, you know, my book; Macro Photography Workshop :)

In the $40 to $100 range:

In this range, I’d recommend the XPRO Studio Photography White Photo Light Tent ($49.99). This cleverly designed light tent is perfect for creating professional looking photos of medium sized objects.

Since it is made out of special outer nylon shell, it diffuses light much better than other light tents in this price range. Not only this, but its comes with an easy portable carrying case and contains internal elastic tabs for suspending objects by clear wires.

Does your friend already have one of these? You could also try another one of the following options in this price range:
American Recorder SIB-101CS Photo Studio-in-a-Box ($69.99)
Small Stand for Background Support from Interfit COR755 ($76.99)
Philips 6.5-Inch Digital Photo Frame ($89.99). Who doesn’t like these?
2 Photography Studio Continuous Lighting Kits for just under $80! This is a great deal for any photographer who needs lighting equipment for a good price.

In the $100 to $250 range:

Once you get into this price range its possible to start looking at some decent tripods and lenses. However, before you go out and buy a tripod for your photographer friend, be warned that both tripods and lenses can be very personal things for some photographers.

If you can, try to get the low down on what your friend already has versus what they might want. If he or she isn’t sure, you might consider going with the sturdy Manafrotto 725B Digi Tripod. This model gets top reviews over and over again ceaselessly repeating the same word: “sturdy”;

But what if your friend already has one? Never fear; try one of these alternative gift ideas:
Lowepro SlingShot 300 All-Weather Camera Bag ($109.95)
Black & White Backdrop System from Steve Kaeser ($132.00)
Westcott Photo Basics 501 Backlight Kit ($99.95)
SPD100 Digital Exposure Meter from Polaris ($169.99)

In the $250 to $500 range:

Alright, now we’re talkin’. In this price range, you can really find some quality lenses.

If your photography buddy already has their standard lenses set, why not spring for a high quality wide angle lens? This lens from Tamron is less expensive than many of its kind and is specifically designed to work well with the popular Canon Digital SLR cameras. This is great for any photographer who is looking to get into landscape portraits for the first time.

Or, if you’re not sure about what your friend wants, why not just get a gift voucher from Amazon? Then they can get whatever they want. Even so, you might find some of these other suggestions useful:
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras ($449.00)
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($427.01)
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($319.95)
Induro C213 Carbon 8X C-Series Tripod Leg Set, Extends to 62.49″, Supports 17 lbs. ($279.99)

In the $500 to $1000 range:

Bestower of Christmas joy…

…you have just stepped into the digital SLR camera zone.

If your photographer friend has not yet experienced owning a digital SLR camera, this might be your opportunity to change his or her life forever.

With a 10.1 megapixel CMOS censor, a lightweight body, automatic cleaning system, and a 2.5″ LCD monitor, there are few cameras like the Canon Digital Rebel XTi (Canon EOS 1000D) ($499.95) for its price. This is a perfect gift for someone who is either just making the conversion from film to digital, or who wants to finally quite fooling around with simple point and shoot digital cameras.

You might also consider the Nikon model as an alternative:
Nikon D40 6.1MP Digital SLR Camera ($549.00)
Or, if your friend already has one of these, maybe one of these lenses could work:
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens ($634.95)
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($921.90)
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($630.13)

In the $1000 to $2000 range:

Now that you’re ready to start pulling out the big bucks, you’ve got a very important choice to make.

Do you want to buy that oh-so-special photographer a top of the line camera (like this one: the Olympus Evolt E-3 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera with Mechanical Image Stabilization with ED 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Lens and FL-50R Flash ($1,999.99), or should you choose one of these groovy telephoto lenses($1,140), eh? (They’re perfect for taking photos of moving objects and capturing elements of vision that are imperceptible to the human eye.)

You’re best bet is to get the inside word about whether or not your friend is interested in switching camera models. If so, you might want to go with a new camera. But if not, I’d say consider going with the lens.

And then again, if you feel like you still need more options, you might want to take a look at these other viable choices:
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($1,109.95)
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L II USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras ($1,828.98)
Canon 14mm f/2.8L II EF USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras ($1,879.95)
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($1,529.95)

If price is not a concern…

If you are really willing to go all out this Christmas (and I mean really all out), then consider buying a medium format digital camera from Hasselblad. We’re talking about the high end of the high end here. Hasselblad’s H3DII-31 ($37,995.00) offers picture quality that is absolutely unimaginable with even the highest quality 35mm cameras.

Imagine shooting at 31 Mpix with some of the most advanced lenses in the world. Let it be known that the people at Hasselblad don’t mess around when it comes to digital photography!

Want to take a look at a few other (potentially wallet-busting) jaw-droppers? Check these out:
Hassleblad’s H3DII-50 ($21,995.00)
Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Super Telephoto Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras ($10,998.98)
Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM Super Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($7,399.00)
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Super Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras  ($6,800.00)

Happy Christmas!

Finally, when you click on the Amazon links above, it’s tied to my affiliate account. That means that you pay the same as you always would for any of the goods listed, but I get a couple of percent in return for sending the traffic from this blog to Amazon, which I can spend to save up to buy a kitten and a mountain of cat-food… Having said that, Amazon might not always be the cheapest, so do shop around to get the best deal you can.

So, all that’s left to say - have a fantastic holiday (whether you celebrate Christmas or something else - and I’m probably going to take a bit of a break for the holidays… Catch you in the new year!

My black and white film development database is designed to look up times for combinations of black-and-white film and a specific developer. If it can’t find it, it does it best to calculate a likely development time for any given combination of film of developer.

Seeing as it was one of the very first things I ever coded in PHP, the code was a bloody mess, and it used a horrible tables-based layout, so I’ve spent a fair bit of time tonight not only tidying up the PHP code, but I’ve also given it a bit of a CSS-driven layout update, which means that the HTML pages went down in size significantly.

So, Haje, how did you come up with the idea?

Well. I came up with the idea when I was doing some processing with some obscure films. I could find processing times for a combination of my film and another developer, and I could find the combination of my developer and another film. However, I also found the combination of the other film and other developer. I thought: There has to be some way to interpolate the data so I can make an educated guess as to how long the films need to be in the developer!

So I came up with a clever formula that calculates how long any given film needs to be in any given developer, as long as you have the information for a known film in both developers.

But how accurate is it?

Surprisingly, actually. Most of the time, I’d find the time to be off by only about 30-60 seconds. Which is obviously not perfect, but significantly better than just taking a wild guess. Of course, some times the times would be off by WAY more than that, in which case I’d ruin my films, but at least the formula gave me a starting point.

As I started refining my formula, I discovered that some combinations of films and developers have predictable deviations (T-Max, for example, tends to need 15 % less than other films in similar developers), and I started adding this data into the formula, rendering it even more accurate

But you use lookup tables as well, don’t you?

Damn right. You can’t beat looking up the developing time in a table. Which is why the Photocritic Developing Database first looks up the combination of films and developers in a database, before it tries to calculate. This way, you are guaranteed either a 100% accurate processing time (provided I entered the information correctly in the first place, of course), or a very well educated guess as to how long the processing will need to be!

Wow, that sounds pretty amazing

I have my moments.

Don’t you feel pretty daft, interviewing yourself like this?

Yeah, I do, but I’m so damn tired I can’t think straight, and it seems like a good idea right now. We’ll see if I feel the same way tomorrow, and if I don’t, I guess I could always go in and edit this article to be sober and boring. For now, I’ll just stick with it…

But I see that film X or developer X is missing from your database!

My bad. Send me an email with all the available information you have about the film, and I will add it both to the calculations and to the available lookup tables.

I want to give the developer Database a shot!

No problem it is right here!

See also the - Digital Truth Dev Chart, which my database nicely complements.

It seems as if people are cottoning on in a big way, too - I ran a poll about 2 years ago about whether people were shooting in JPEG or RAW… And I re-ran the same poll earlier this month.

The changes are staggering…

2 years ago

Early 2007, 36% used Raw mostly or exclusively. 55% used JPEG mostly or exclusively:

Today

Today, a whopping 66% of you use Raw mostly or exclusively, and only 26% still prefer to shoot in JPEG:

Why’d this happen?

Hey, I think if you read the three articles linked at the top of this blog post, it’s pretty clear why I stopped taking photos in JPEG… But I’d love to hear about your reasons in the comments…

Interestingly, it seems as if Nikon is generally doing quite a bit better than Canon, and that a camera launched almost 5 years ago is actually one of the ones with the very best dynamic ranges out there - And it’s not the brand you’d think, either!

Oh, and interestingly, there’s been a serious shift in the number of photographers shooting in raw - more about that in the end of this article.

The list…

1 - FujiFilm Finepix S5 Pro (13.5 ev)
2 - FujiFilm Finepix S3 Pro (13.5 ev)
3 - Nikon D90 (12.5 ev)
4 - Sony Alpha 900 (12.3 ev)
5 - Nikon D3 (12.2 ev)
6 - Nikon D700 (12.2 ev)
7 - Nikon D300 (12 ev)
8 - Canon EOS 1Ds mk III (12 ev)
9 - Canon EOS 1D mk III (11.7 ev)
10 - Pentax K10D (11.6 ev)
11 - Sony Alpha 350 (11.5 ev)
12 - Nikon D200 (11.5 ev)
13 - Nikon D40x (11.5 ev)
14 - Canon EOS 50D (11.4 ev)
15 - Konica Minolta DYNAX 5D (11.4 ev)
16 - Nikon D60 (11.4 ev)
17 - Canon EOS 1DS mk II (11.3 ev)
18 - Leica M8 (11.3 ev)
19 - Canon EOS 40D (11.3 ev)
20 - Sony Alpha 100 (11.2 ev)
21 - Samsung GX20 (11.2 ev)
22 - Nikon D80 (11.2 ev)
23 - Canon EOS 1D mk2 N (11.2 ev)
24 - Canon EOS 5D (11.1 ev)
25 - Canon EOS 1D mk2 (11.1 ev)

A huge thanks to DXOmark for the figures - check out their site for lots of more interesting uber-geekery about digital camera sensors and suchlike!

Update: Sorry, I had the D200 in there twice - the top one should have been the D300 instead. Fixed now - thanks for the heads-up!

Let’s launch into the third and final installment in our 3-part series: The history of photography: The Era of Digital.

The history of digital photography is one that is as much about the technology of digital photography as it is about the photographers themselves; it is a history of advances in image quality and the violent manipulation of images; most importantly, it is a history which is still being written.

Many photographers who established themselves during the era of film (such as Annie Lebovitz) have made or are making the switch to digital photography. Others, (including Yann Arthus Bertrand, famous for his amazing aerial photography) have resisted the change and cite several reasons why the older model remains superior. However, few will question the fact that digital photography has changed the status of photography and the photograph in our 21st century society.

Rise of the Digital Camera

Although the digital camera was not available to consumers until 1990, the most important technology behind digital cameras, the CCD or charge-couple device, was invented in 1969. CCD is an image sensor which allows for the direct conversion of images into digital data without a chemical process. In the begging the technology was mostly applied to video cameras for use in television broadcasts. In 1981, Sony came out with a prototype digital camera which could take still images and store them on a floppy disk. Over the next ten years, companies like Logitech and Kodak worked on their own models.

The first digital camera which was actually available for consumer use was produced by Logitech and was called the “Dycam Model 1.” It had onboard memory which could store thirty-two images at once and shot pictures in black, white, and shades of gray only. With a resolution of only 376 x 240 it wasn’t exactly impressive by today’s standards, but it did open up an entirely new world for digital photography.

In the nearly two decades since the first digital camera was placed on the market, digital technology has developed at an astounding rate. The resolution of just over 90,000 pixels of the original logitech model has given way to resolutions of several millions, creating cameras which can rival the level of detail offered by film based models.

For more on the history of the digital camera, try the following links; Brief History of Digital Photography by Bob Brooke, History of the Digital Camera on CNET and SnapJunky.com’s History of the Digital Camera.

Changes to the Industry

With improvements in technology, digital cameras have not only become more powerful, but they have become less and less expensive as well. Cameras with resolutions of two megapixels or more can now be purchased for under $100. While this may still be more expensive than some film cameras, the money saved in film, chemicals, and other development hardware is well worth it to many photographers young and old.

As a result, many companies have been forced to scrap or greatly reduce their film camera lines and up their production of digital models. As would be expected, photographers have met this news with mixed feelings. For many, this symbolizes progress and increased accessibility for photographic equipment, a sort of populist revolution (not to mention the impact on feature film makers, many of whom are making movies with smaller budgets than ever before).

For others, the advent of digital photography means the end of an era, quite possibly an era that they loved. And for those who still believe that film photography offers a level of quality unmatched by digital cameras, feelings cannot be wholly positive. Nevertheless, the industry has followed suit with demand and continues to move toward a more and more digital oriented business model.

Changes to the Art Form

The question of quality is only one of the controversial issues surrounding the ascension of digital photography, and perhaps not even the biggest one. In fact as time goes on, those who argue that digital photography offers an image quality which is not meaningfully distinguished from that of film photography increase in numbers.

But at the same time, the art form is faced with what is perhaps an even more interesting issue. As digital photographic technology continues to increase, the potential for the manipulation of images increases as well.

Of course, artificial manipulation of images is not unique to digital photography. In fact, photographers have been reworking photographic images since at least the 1860’s (one famous example is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln in which his head has been pasted onto another politician’s body). However, the equipment required to perform this kind of manipulation was not widely available at this time. But in the last two decades, the digital camera has coupled with the personal computer to grant digital manipulation technology to the masses.

Some, photographers have used computer based programs such as photoshop as a means for creating new types of photographs based on principles of collage. Often, these remediated photographs purposefully draw attention to their “unreal” quality. However, others have used computers in order to cause photographs for magazine publication to look more appealing without making it explicitly clear that the image has been altered. As the monetary price for this technology has become less and less expensive, digital manipulation of published photographs is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Look at this study on Photo Tampering Throughout History by H. Farid for more information on digital manipulation.

Future Greats of Digital Photography?

Digital photography is still a young art form, and ultimately, it isn’t actually any different from film photography - the techniques are the same, it’s just the technology that’s shifting.

Having said that, I think that these are some of the young photographers who are currently producing compelling photographic work, often in the digital medium…

Michael Wolf

Wolf is best known for his photographs of cities, especially those of Chicago. Many of his photos attempt to capture elements of the city which are obvious, and yet which normally escape the eye of the camera.

Michael Wolfe at the Museum of Contemporary Photography.

Deanna Dikeman

Dikeman is slightly less well known, but has a very original style of depicting clothing. It is almost never shown on the body, but instead in the wardrobe. A photography that finds itself on the other side of fashion.

Deana Dikeman at the Museum of Contemporary Photography.

Johnathan Gitelson

Gitelson is an excellent example of how collage has been absorbed by the general practices of digital photography. His art has been compared to the comic book, and his playful/serious wit confirms this.

Johnathan Gitelson at the Museum of Contemporary Photography.

Tim Long

Long follows in the tradition of early 20th century realism with his “heartbreaking” photographs of the city of Havana. His work as a whole however, shows a great sense of diversity and a large scope of vision.

Tim Long at the Museum of Contemporary Photography.

Matt Siber

Siber’s work is an excellent example of the power of digital editing to act as a critique of the image and of culture itself. His most famous photographic series “Floating Logos” acts as a study of the icons of our time, Playboy, Denny’s, etc. Floating signs at gas stations litter his photographic vision of America.

Matt Siber at the Museum of Contemporary Photography.

Additional Information on Digital Photography and its History - Digital Photography on Wikipedia, Digital Versus Film, DMOZ’s Digital Photography Links, Digital Photography FAQ from Ronald Parr, Digital Versus Film Website and finally A List of Photographer’s who’ve Chosen to Revert Back to Film (they do exist!)

Photocritic’s History of Photography

This is the last article in a series of 3 - check out all of ‘em by listing all articles tagged History of Photography.

So without further ado, the second installment in our 3-part series: The history of photography: The Era of Film.

In 1884, the world of photography was changed forever through the invention of film. The bulky, cumbersome photographic plates which had been the standard in photography up until this point became a thing of the past as they were replaced by the much more practical film roll technology.

George Eastman and Kodak

At age twenty-three George Eastman abandoned his career as a bank clerk and started working in a photographic lab. It was then that George imagined a new type of photographic plate which would be lighter and more portable. This would become what Eastman called the “dry plate” and what we call “film.” Once he had fully worked out this technology, Eastman invented a compact camera to compliment the film and started his own company to market this product. The company was called “Eastman Kodak” and continues to be one of the largest commercial photography companies to this day. (You know - Kodak, as in “Kodak moment.”)

Eastman’s Kodak camera was sold to consumers with 100 pictures-worth of film preloaded. For the first time, a camera had been built which was small enough to take anywhere, and which required no technical knowledge to use. Any person with $25 could buy Eastman’s camera and take pictures with the push of a button. Once the customer had taken 100 pictures, they would merely post the camera back to the Eastman Kodak Co. and within weeks they would receive back prints of their pictures and a fresh load of film. This sudden burst of accessibility completely changed the photography industry. Eastman Kodak’s slogan was “You press the button, we do the rest.”

More? Sure thing, how about George Eastman’s Grave, Kodak’s own Biography of George Eastman, The George Eastman House (A museum dedicated to Eastman) and Information on and Pictures of Antique Kodak Cameras

Film Photography Going into the 20th Century

As the world moved into the twentieth century photography was still attempting to define its role in society. As photography became more accessible, it in some ways took over the function which painting had fulfilled in the nineteenth century. Many felt, that it was a superior tool for creating realistic portraits, as well as landscape and still life studies. At the same time, advances in the technology of film resulted in increased commercialization as well as the rapid development of the world’s newest art form: cinema.

But throughout all of these changes, photography as an art never ceased to flourish, and many of the photographs which have become indelible elements of our global consciousness were created during this period. Below are just a few of the important names who helped to capture these images.

Jacob Riis

The Danish-American Riis began his career in photography at just about the time when film was becoming an industry standard. From the beginning Riis had an unflagging dedication to using his art as a means for bringing the lives of the poor of New York City into a venue of representation visible to all.

It was Riis’ great collection of photographs How the Other Half Lives (1890) which exposed the sordid reality of poverty in America to the public eye and which convinced the then president Theodore Roosevelt to shut down the inhuman state run poor houses of New York. His photographs of working class people and their lives still communicate a sense of awe and shocking immediacy today.

It’s well worth delving into Riis’ history a bit further, so check out Riis on Wikipedia, A short biography of Riis on the Harvard site, and some Photographs by Riis

Edward Curtis

By the beginning of the twentieth century, many of the cultures of the native peoples of the North American continent had begun to disappear as a result of United States expansionism. Wealthy American financier J.P. Morgan paid photographer Edward Curtis to photograph these cultures and compile his photos into a book called The North American Indian.

Although Curtis has sometimes been criticized for manipulating his photographs to represent Native Americans in a way consistent with the stereotypes of his day, it nevertheless remains that he succeeded in capturing images of many Native American leaders who would have otherwise been forgotten by history.

More on Curtis on Wikipedia, and a good essay; Edward S. Curtis in Context.

André Kertész

By the 1920’s, while many photographers continued in the tradition of the realism of Curtis and Riis (most notably: Dorothea Lange), other photographers worked to discover a more esoteric style which could answer to the new developments in Modernist painting and sculpture. Hungarian born André Kertész was just such a photographer.

Born in the final years of the nineteenth century, Kertész was completely self-educated in photography. When he moved to France in 1925, he fit in easily with the Dada movement of artists and poets. His work is conceptual, and often attempts to make visible elements of the world which are not immediately visible to the naked eye. He accomplishes this through close-ups, unusual lighting, and mirrors, among other tropes.

More on Kertész: Photographs by Kertész, André Kertész on PBS’s American Masters and More photographs by Kertész

Ansel Adams

Ansel Adams is perhaps the most well known photographer in the English Speaking world for his famous landscape and nature photographs. Images such as Monolith, Adam’s imposing portrait of the Half Dome cliff in Yosemite California have made his name internationally recognizable.

Throughout his life, which lasted well into the latter years of the twentieth century, Adams was dedicated to nature photography and to nature itself as a treasure to be protected. He saw his photographs as a way to communicate the value of natural open spaces. However, Adams always insisted that beyond any political motivation, the final purpose of any photograph should be its sheer aesthetic beauty.

More on Adams can be found at The Ansel Adams Gallery, Zpub’s Short Biography of Adams and Ansel Adams: A Documentary Film on PBS

Annie Leibovitz

Moving closer towards the digital age the role of photography again found itself destabilized. Annie Leibovitz, born in 1949 is a contemporary photographer who has repeatedly problematized the distinction between art and popular photography. She has worked in both media, but her work is powerful regardless of its “content.”

Most famously, she captured the final photograph of John Lennon of Beatles fame. What had been intended as a solo portrait of Lennon became the famous image of a nude John holding on desperately to the fully clothed Yoko. Leibovitz has continued to produce work in all subject categories which is varied in conception. From political to comic, dense to sparse, it continues to amaze.

More on Leibovitz; Leibovitz’s Portraits.

Oh, and if you’re hanging about in London, there’s a Leibovitz exhibit on at the National Portrait Gallery until mid-February. Well worth a trip.

Photocritic’s History of Photography

This is the second article in a series of 3 - check out all of ‘em by listing all articles tagged History of Photography.

Obviously, that had to change - I give you the first in a 3-part series entitled, without a shred of originality, History of Photography. This time around, we’re having a look at what happened before they went ahead and invented film…

The Camera Obscura

The primary grounding principle of photography was already know as early as the fifth century B.C.E. It was the Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti who remarked at this time that when a small hole is opened up on one side of a darkened room, light diffuses through this hole onto the opposite wall in the form of an upside-down projection of the outside scene, a phenomenon almost identical to what happens on the inside of a modern film camera.

In the eleventh century the Islamic scientist Ibn al-Haytham elaborated this principle further by conducting experiments which made use of a lantern placed strategically in front of a similar setup in order to create this effect artificially. He was also the first to document this phenomenon in detail by creating diagrams which give a hypothetical account of the trajectory of light as it passes through the dark room hole. Al-Haytham is to this day widely respected for this important contribution. (His face is printed on the Iraqi 10,000 Dinar note.)

During the Renaissance period in Europe many other scientists including Leonardo Da Vinci invented further improvements to this device, including modifications that allowed for the use of a small box for projection instead of a large room and a lens instead of a simple hole. This allowed for a much clearer projection of the image. Using mirrors, the image could then be projected onto a piece of paper which artists would use as a tracing image. However, it was not until 17th century that the German scientist Johannes Kepler gave the device its name: the camera obscura, Latin for “Dark Room.”

Several room size camera obscuras still exist today including a very large one in San Francisco, California which, built in the shape of a modern 35mm film camera!

For more information on camera obscuras, Bright Bytes and Wikipedia have loads of interesting info

Nicéphore Niépce

Photography developed out of the principle of the camera obscura when the French inventor Nicéphore Niépce created the first permanent photograph in 1825. Now, instead of projecting the image onto a blank screen, it was projected onto a pewter plate which was coated with a light-sensitive petroleum derivative. This chemical then reacted to the light by creating a colored imprint of the projected image. However, because of the nature of the chemical, it took eight full hours for the picture to become exposed. Niépce’s first photograph using this process is also the earliest known photograph which is still in existence. It can be seen here along with further information about its creation and preservation.

Later Niépce began experimenting with a new silver-based compound which allowed for a shorter fifteen minute exposure time. This was still arguably too long for practical photographic portraiture. However, one of Niépce’s photographs from this period did accidentally become the first photograph of a human being. He had set his equipment up at the end of a street and intended to capture the landscape of the town. Most of the traffic on the street is invisible to the camera since it is moving to fast for the fifteen minute exposure to capture. However, there just happened to be a single man stopping to have his shoe shined on the corner for a period which was just long enough for his image to be imprinted on the photograph. This picture can be seen here.

Louis Daguerre

After the death of Nicéphore Niépce, his assistant Louis Daguerre continued his work and made improvements to the photographic process. Most importantly he invented what is known as the “Daguerrotype Process.” The process further reduced total exposure time and thereby made photographic portraiture a commercial reality. At the same time that Daguerre was perfecting his process a Brazilian inventor named Hercules Florence was developing an almost identical process. It was he who gave this process the name “Photographie.”

More about Daguerre? It’s fascinating stuff - check out wwar.com and Wikipedia’s entry on the Daguerrotype

William Fox Talbot

Meanwhile in England, another inventor was also working on a similar photographic process. This man was William Fox Talbot, the first photographer to employ a “negative” in his process. This would allow him to create a single negative image during exposure which would then be used to print an unlimited number of positive copies. This became the model for most photographic processes which would follow during the next 100 years and beyond. In addition to his achievements as a photographic inventor, Talbot was himself a groundbreaking photographer, with work ranging from portraiture to images of Paris and London.

Today there is an entire museum dedicated to Talbot, his inventions, and his photographs - for more, check out The Correspondence of William Fox Talbot and ‘Talbot’ vs. ‘Fox Talbot’

John Herschel and Anna Atkins

John Herschel was a mathematician and astronomer who made several improvements on and experimented with Talbot’s model. Among these improvements, was a process called “cyanotype” which produces a blue colored print. In addition, it was Herschel who supplied Talbot with the terms “negative” and “positive.” Another photographer named Anna Atkins later used Herschel’s cyanotype process to produce a series of books on plant life illustrated with blue-tinted photographs. For this work, she is known as the first female photographer.

For more on John Herschel try the following links on seds.org and wikipedia; For more on Anna Atkins and her beautiful cyanotype prints try
Getty

Frederick Scott Archer

By the 1850’s the interest in and demand for photographs was growing at an steady rate. Unfortunately, both of the dominant photographic procedures were still terribly flawed. The Daguerrotype could produce a very fine picture, but it required a still relatively long sitting time for portrait customers. On the other hand, Talbot’s process, although it was more efficient, produced an image with weak contrast and poor definition.

As a solution to the problem, Archer invented his own process named the collodion process. In an act of photography history sainthood, Archer decided not to patent his invention, but instead, to allow its use by one and all alike, without fee. Partially as a result of this failure to protect his own interests, Archer never attained financial success. When he died in 1857 he was poor and relatively unknown.

However, Archer’s developments and those of his predecessors led to the immanent invention of film which was to revolutionize the world of photography once again…

Photocritic’s History of Photography

This is the first article in a series of 3 - check out all of ‘em by listing all articles tagged History of Photography.

Interestingly, most manufacturers are continually improving the dynamic range of their cameras, but somehow seem to forget to tell us about it - which means that we’re witnessing - or should I say not witnessing - a quiet revolution.

It seems as if ‘dynamic range’ gets forgotten in PR world, where a bigger screen, better battery life or Live View is an easier way of getting regular consumers exited. The real technological leaps have been happening under the bonnet, though, and the result of the ongoing improvements will mean that your next camera will be significantly better than your current one - but you wouldn’t be able to tell from just reading its specification sheet.

So, why, exactly does this make a difference to us as photographers? All will be revealed…

Is this the same as HDR?

Well, we’re still talking about ‘Dynamic Range’, and higher-dynamic-range-than-before at that, but when people are usually talking about ‘HDR’, they mean multi-shot HDR photography, which we covered thoroughly a few weeks back.

Multi-shot HDR is very exciting stuff, and it’s a taste of what is to come, but this time around, we’re talking about single-shot HDR photography and how cameras have been steadily improving over the years.

The improvements have happened so slowly, it seems, that nobody has really noticed - but grab a 5 year old dSLR and compare it to a current-day snapper, and the biggest difference in picture comes from the dynamic range.

Let’s start with a quick poll

Last year, I ran a poll to see how many of you used JPG versus RAW. As it turns out, 28% used exclusively JPEGs, while 27% used mostly JPEG files. Pure RAW users were about 22% (see graph to the right). So let’s try again…

(to see the full results of the old poll, and of all the other polls we’ve run in the past, check out the creatively-titled ‘past polls‘ page.

Whatevz, can we start from the the beginning, please? What is dynamic range?

The human senses have an absolutely incredible dynamic range - think about it: when you’re inside a concert venue at a rock gig, you can hear every note and enjoy every instrument.

When you’re in a quiet room, you can hear water flowing through your radiator heater, and the extremely faint buzzing of the phone charger is loud enough to notice. More incredibly still, you can keep a conversation going with someone in the next seat while the jet you are sitting in is taking off, which is a testament to the width of dynamic range which is possible - although that particular example has more to do with psycho-acoustics than your ears themselves.

If you thought your hearing was amazing, well, your eyes are even more incredible. On a bright day, you can see perfectly, but you can also see things by moon- and starlight on a clear night. Not impressed? Try taking a photograph or do some filming by starlight without using a tripod…

Now, these examples of your eyes’ dynamic range come with a caveat - you cannot stand in a dark room and look out into a sunny landscape and see both perfectly - you’ll either be able to see the indoors, or the outside, with the other being over- or under- exposed, respectively. For photography purposes, the important thing is how much dynamic range you can see simultaneously.

Allow me to illustrate: Take a landscape photo where the clouds are nearly over-exposed. The dynamic range of the particular imaging-chip you’ve got, decides how much details you get in the darker parties of the image. The higher dynamic range, the more shadow-details you can expect.

A theoretical camera with perfect dynamic range wouldn’t need shutter speeds - you would select an aperture to get your depth of field, and you could select any shutter speed you need. The sun would have texture, and the deepest, darkest shadow parties of your image would still have detail in them, too. Of course, perfect dynamic range is impossible (for now…) but that doesn’t mean that increasing dynamic range isn’t a great thing…

Riveting, I’m sure. But is it really that different from 5 years ago?

Back when I first started taking digital photographs in the mid-1990s (I know, we still listened to The Cardigans, Tracey Bonham, Marcy Playground and Tonic…) and I did some playing about with shooting in RAW format, comparing it to just using the JPEGs straight out of the camera. Back then, I decided that RAW was a complete waste of expensive memory stick space, because it was nigh-on impossible to spot the difference. I didn’t know why that was the case back then, but I think the answer is pretty clear right now: The dynamic range of 8-bit JPEG photographs was, in fact, pretty similar to that of the imaging sensor inside the camera.

A couple of years ago, I believe when I got the then-brand-new-on-the-market Canon EOS 20D, I decided to switch to RAW. I spotted that the quality was better than with JPEG, and I stuck with it. Mostly, I did it because I could never quite get the white balance right, and with RAW, you defer the decision until you’re at your computer, which always suited me quite well.

More recently, I upgraded again, this time to a Canon EOS 450D, and the difference is quite noticeable - right from the start, I felt that the 450D was taking better photos than my old 30D, but I was struggling to figure out why. Ignoring the resolution (the 30D delivers 8.2mpx files, whereas the 450D has a slightly smaller imaging chip, but saves 12.2 mpx files to the memory card), the 30D is a better camera in all possible ways: Better top ISO, faster top shutter speed, better autofocus, quicker continuous drive, magnesium body, and so on and so forth. Nonetheless, I swear I was getting better photos with the 450D than with the 30D, on quite a consistent basis.

Then, finally, a few days ago, the penny dropped. I did some test shots on my 450D, setting it to shoot JPEGs, and then some more shooting RAW. The difference was vast - by using Photoshop’s built-in RAW editing tool, I was able to pull incredible amounts of extra information out of the RAW images from the 450D, compared to the ones from my 30D.

Now, add to that the fact that the Canon EOS 450D is Canon’s entry-level digital SLR, and that Canon’s R&D department haven’t been twiddling their thumbs in the meantime either - but as always, they save the best goodies for the people who cough up serious cash for the more hard-core semi-pro and professional lines of cameras.

I haven’t had a chance to have a go myself yet, but it’s rumoured from various fora that the Canon EOS 5D mk2’s RAW files (in addition to being full-frame and significantly higher resolution) have a 15-bit dynamic range which is completely out of this world.

What’s in it for me? How does this mumbo-jumbo make my photos better?

Much in the same way as how tastefully done multi-shot HDR photographs can look realistic and fantastic at the same time, single-shot HDR photographs can do a lot of good for you as a photographer.

Already, photographers all over are shooting in RAW instead of JPEG, because they’ve noticed that it’s a Better Thing - but only rarely do people stop to think why that might be. The reasons are above: you simply gain a lot more flexibility by having a higher dynamic range to play with, than if you limit yourself to the 8-bit limit of JPEG.

This extra flexibility isn’t just camera geekery either: It’s extra raw data in your photograph which you can genuinely use to deliver better final photographs. When I’m out taking photos in difficult lighting situations (such as dancing, concert photography or similar), I now routinely dial back the exposure by a full stop.

Yes, I know that it means that I lose some data in the top end, but because I’m shooting in RAW, I get away with it: The software will save me, and, more importantly, I can get a full stop faster shutter speed. When you’re out taking photos at a concert, the difference between 1/60th of a second and 1/100th are significant.

It isn’t just in poor light that the benefits are obvious, however - In fact, I can’t think of a single genre of photography where extra flexibility isn’t a good thing.

Look at it this way: If you go on holiday and bring two sweaters, you can always choose to wear the thick one or the thin one; when you’re shooting in RAW, you can always decide to go with the suggested automatic choices, and at worst you’ll have lost a few megabytes of storage space for a few hours (or days, or weeks, depending on how long you keep your photos on your camera), but seeing how cheap memory cards are these days, that’s hardly a huge problem - the extra flexibility is there when you need it, and it’s better to throw away data when you don’t need it, than to wish you had more when you don’t.

OK, I’m convinced, how can I join the fun?

So, how can you gain from all this extra goodness already? Easy - just set your camera to RAW. Stop reading right now, and set your camera to RAW. Yes, you. Yes, now. Then experiment. See how much your photos allow themselves to be tweaked without losing significant quality in the process.

What’s coming up in the future?

Frankly, I think digital SLR cameras can only go in one direction.

We already have higher resolutions than we know what to do with (I stick to my opinion that we never needed more than 6 megapixels, although it’s nice to be able to crop your images when needed without quality loss), and the top professional cameras are currently better, both in terms of dynamic range and resolution, than the top film-based SLR cameras ever were (and are rapidly closing in on medium format film cameras), and there are DSLR cameras that can film in full 1080p high definition video.

The way forward, is that dSLRs drop further in price, as the components that go into them get cheaper, and people get bored of the megapixel race. Canon, Nikon, if you’re listening, start selling a $200 8-megapixel sub-entry-level, and you’ll make enough money on the licensing of your lens mounts to make up for the loss in body sales; much like the way printer manufacturers (including Canon, interestingly), sell cheap printers with expensive ink refills.

The other boundary that needs to be pushed is dynamic range - I want a camera with completely ridiculous dynamic range, please, and I don’t mind if I have to sacrifice a bit of resolution or ISO speed to get there either. 20 bits worth would be nice. 24 bits if I can get it, so the dynamic range of my camera matches that of my screen.

Having such a camera means that I can become sloppy, but I can still rescue any photo unless I really balls it up. More importantly, however, it’ll allow me to do stunning HDR photos in a single click of the shutter. And, finally, it’ll be the last nail in the celluloid for those poor sods who still hang on to their film with a desperation which is inversely proportional to their dignity - and directly proportional to the grin on my face.

But seriously - start using RAW now, you might be amazed at how good your camera really is.

Of course, there are lots of difficult things about different genres of photography. Portraits can be devilishly difficult, because it can be fiendish to get a good rapport with a model. Sports photography can be tricky because things are moving so fast - and indoor sports are even worse. Music photography can be a right bitch; landscapes are tricky because it’s all been done before; photographing fireworks is just plain hard; nude photography can be daunting because it’s a bit taboo, Food photography is hard because the photography subject spoils nearly immediately… and don’t even get me started on Macro…

In fact, I can’t really think of a single genre of photography which doesn’t bring its very own set of challenges to the table… What I’d love to know, however, is which particular genre is which gets you every time… Cast your vote below, and sound off in the comments if you’ve got a particular arch-enemy!