Detroit Photographer - Paul Manoian Photography » Tips and Tricks

Digital Photography Myths

Paul Manoian — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:49:40 +0000

“Oh, you’re a photographer? Aren’t you glad photography is so much easier now with digital?”

– Everyone

As a photographer, it seems I’m asked that question at least once a week these days. There’s no wondering why. Take one step into a typical consumer gadgets store like Circuit City and Best Buy and you would be hard pressed to find a film camera. In fact, the last time I was in a Ritz Camera, one of the nation’s largest camera/photo chains, they did not have a single film camera. I actually had to go to a camera store to find a film camera the last time I wanted to check them out.

“Oh c’mon guys, it’s so simple, maybe you need a refresher course. It’s all ball bearings these days.”

– Fletch

Just like the great Fletch quote, it’s all digital these days. Digital TV. Digital music. Digital movies. Digital phones. Digital radio.

Let’s set the record straight, just because something is “digital”, it does not automatically make it better than analog. Many audiophiles will tell you the fidelity from vinyl albums far surpasses what CDs are capable of reproducing. If you take it one step further into the world of mp3′s, the audio quality is actually far worse as a result of all the compression that’s applied to the “digital” files. So, while the audio quality might be higher from vinyl, carrying an iPod around in your shirt pocket is far more convenient if you want to listen to your music on the go. There are trade offs and the world of photography is no different.

So, I’ve decided to take on the Top 3 myths of digital photography to help settle the score. In no particular order:

Digital photography is cheaper than film photography
Digital photography is easier than film photography
Digital photography is faster than film photography

And, lest I get ahead of myself, I believe all three myths are false. Stay tuned and I’ll tell you why! In the mean time, check out my previous post questioning if digital really was better than film.

Is Digital Really Better Than Film?!

Paul Manoian — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:01:49 +0000

As a photographer, I am constantly asked, “Aren’t you glad everything is so much easier with digital than with film?”

I usually just grin and nod, but the truth is, I’m not always so sure. In terms of “ease” of taking lots of pictures, I believe digital beats film hands down. However, in professional photography, there’s so much more to consider.

I’ve only recently converted to digital and sold my last film camera with all the accessories. I probably would have done it sooner; however, digital quality has only started to rival film in the last few years.

While I enjoy the ability to instantly review shots for perfect exposure and depth of field, there just seems to be so much more to worry about with digital. With film, all I needed was a few bodies, some lenses and I would be set for many years ahead. I could just grab a pocket full of film rolls, shoot one, rewind it and start over with the next one. But now, there’s a whole new set of things to consider including: having enough batteries, recharging batteries, megapixels, pixel size/sensitivity/sharpness, sensor size, color accuracy, multi-gigabyte memory cards, multi-terabyte storage, multiple multi-terabyte backups, corrupt memory cards, camera burst rates, cleaning camera sensors, etc.

Ken Rockwell made have said it best with:

When you get back to your motel at the end of the day, you can just go to sleep. Your film is already in the can safe and sound. You’re done for the day.

You have no digital garbage to take out, like downloading, filing, cataloging, sorting, organizing, posting, backing-up, burning CDs or organizing.

You can get to sleep and get up refreshed, You’ll be out there the next day before dawn ready to shoot with open and excited eyes, which is what makes great pictures.

Night time is spent asleep, or planning tomorrow, not reviewing the day’s old photos. With film, we get to defer reviewing our images until we’re home and can enjoy them fully, and spend out time in the field on making photos.

With film, you can spend any motel time each night cleaning your cameras for a few minutes, researching tomorrow’s locations and activities, and getting to sleep.

With film, your entire nightly regimen is:
1.) Stow exposed film.
2.) Put new film in your photo vest (or camera bag).
3.) Clean your gear.
4.) Put all filters, lenses and caps back where they belong on your lenses and in your photo vest, so you know where it all is when you start out tomorrow. Just as digital cameras wind up set to ISO 1600 and blue (tungsten) WB at night unless you remember to reset them before morning, you’ll probably have your glass filters and lenses not where you expect them for dawn’s first shots.

Note that step 4 is the same for digital, except that there are far more settings on far more cameras to reset, and that digital shooters are usually too busy jacking on their computers to bother with step 3.)

Steps 1.) and 2.) take less than a minute, compared to the hours wasted by digital shooters downloading, jacking, backing and organizing files.

Ken’s comments may seem to come off a tad extreme, but he certainly has a point. Still, for me, the biggest difference is the time spent after the shoot. I never really realized it, but a photo lab can do a LOT of work for you in terms of color adjustment, etc. However, when you shoot in a digital RAW format, all of the work lies on the photographer’s shoulders. It is entirely up to them to handle the white balance, color balance, saturation, exposure adjustment … the list goes on and on!

So, which do you prefer? Digital or film? Why??

What is the Best Digital Camera for Me?

Paul Manoian — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:18:30 +0000

I am often asked, “Which camera should I buy?” It’s a simple question with a million possible answers. When you are thinking, which digital camera is right for me, there are a number of questions you must answer for yourself first.

Budget – How much do you want to spend? This really is the most important question as it will determine the type of camera you should be looking at. Prices always fluctuate, but here are some guidelines: $100-350 range will get you a simple “no frills” point-and-shoot camera, $300-$600 puts you into a compact camera that will have a lens will optical zoom capabilities, $600-1200 is the typical range for prosumer DSLR (a consumer camera with some professional features including interchangeable lenses) $1200-2500 for a professional DLSR camera with an APS-C sized sensor (a sensor smaller than the size of a 35mm negative) , and $2500-8000 for a professional camera with a “full frame” sensor (the sensor is the same size as a 35mm negative).
Size - Do you want a camera that will fit in your pocket? If so, a point-and-shoot or compact camera is the only want to go!
Zoom - Do you want to take photos of a baseball player swinging at the plate from deep right field? The only way you’re going to get excellent results is with a DLSR and a 400-500mm telephoto lens. I know this is an extreme example, but I think you get the point.
Picture – How much control do you want over the final image? If you’re only looking to take snapshots to document vacations, kids growing up, birthdays, holidays, etc, a point-and-shoot or compact camera will likely serve you just fine. If you’re a Pixel Peeper that wants to capture the best image possible, a professional DLSR is a requirement. Don’t forget amout megapixels too!

Not all digital cameras are created equal. Every one of them has made some tradeoffs between cost, size and picture quality. Therefore, these are the things you need to consider to determine what will fit your needs the best.

End the Megapixel War Now!

Paul Manoian — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:21:59 +0000

Enough is enough!

Digitalrev.com hit the nail on the head when they stated: “The Megapixels War has been raging on since digital cameras first hit the market.” It seems that everyone has fallen into the trap that “more pixels = better camera“. I hate to be the one to break the news, but the more pixels argument simply isn’t entirely true. While we have become more adept at cramming smaller pixels on to tiny sensors, there are definite trade offs.

The Canon 40D and 50D comparison is a good case in study since the 40D is a 10MP camera while the 50D has 15MP, in otherwise similar bodies. I have used the 50D for quite some time now and, upon detailed inspection at a pixel level, there’s no denying the raw images it produces are softer than those produced by the 40D. This is to be expected in a camera that bumps the resolution up 50% on the same-sized sensor simply because there is less wiggle room. However, it is capable of capturing slightly more detail.

The same is true for compact point-and-shoot consumer cameras. However, the sensor size in these cameras are tiny when compared to a pro-level DSLR. Packing more pixels on a smaller sensor increases the heat generated thereby increasing the amount of noise in the final image. This is one of the key reasons why the image sharpness captured by a consumer camera is no where close to the sharpness captured by a professional camera, even when compared to one that’s almost two years old like the Canon 40D.

The other major downside to more megapixels is that the quality of the camera’s optics become paramount to the quality of the final product. It is essential to use top quality optics with camera bodies capable of capturing high pixel counts if you want to take advantage of the higher levels of detail the body is capable of capturing. Images captured with lenses, that were considered “decent” on other bodies, may appear fuzzy since the optics are not capable of focusing as sharply as needed. If the lens provides a less-than-perfect image to the sensor, the 15MP sensor will definitely capture a magnified blurry image. So, are you really gaining anything when you need to spend $2000 on a lens?!

At this point, a consumer level camera gains very little by increasing the megapixel count due to the tiny sensor size. If picture quality is your number one priority, you may actually be better off with a camera that had fewer megapixels. Let me put it this way … most standard sized prints done in a professional photo lab are printed at 300dpi. If you wanted to print an 8×10, you would only need an image that’s 2400×3000 pixels. Some quick math will show you that a camera with ~6MP can capture the necessary image. For example, 13″x19″ limited-edition prints of Joe Holme’s “American Musuem of Natural History” series were selling at the Jen Bekman Gallery in Manhattan for $650 each at one point. What camera did he use? A 6MP Nikon D70.

Cramming two to three times as many pixels on the sensor may not doing you any favors. You may only be ending up with bloated file sizes as a result

Why is child photography different?

Paul Manoian — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:19:11 +0000

Children may be smaller than adults but their personalities are much larger than life. While it is possible to work with adults and pose then in flattering positions, the same effect is not often achieved with child. Why not?? The answer is actually quite simple. Children do not behave like adults and often express their personalities with quirky mannerisms. Posed portraits tend to be the exact opposite.

This is one of the reasons why I loathe typical studio portraits of children. They look fake and my clients agree. It is imperative to let kids be kids. When you are capturing children in print, their own personality needs to shine through … not that of the adult posing the child.

I am very well known as a child photographer in Michigan and recently ran a child photography contest entitled “Kids Being Kids“. It was for children ages 1-6 that displayed extraordinary personality and character. The family of the winning child received a free on-location photography session, an 8×10 print from their favorite proof and a complimentary annual membership in the Paul Manoian Photography V.I.P. portrait program. The whole purpose, as a child photographer, was to capture children being themselves.

I’d be lying if I said professionally photographing children was easy. It isn’t. To put it in perspective, I shoot 200-300 frames per hour during an adult portrait session and 300-400 frames per hour for a wedding. In contrast, I shoot 400-500 frames per hour for children. The reason? They are constantly on the move and I’m shooting the whole time.

Most of my on location portrait sessions run approximately 1-2 hours which means I have a lot of proofs to go through at the end of the child’s portrait session. So, while the session time may be on par with adults, I have 2-3 times as many proofs to go through equating to 2-3 times as much effort on my part, the photographer. In fact, it would not be unusual for me to invest 4-8 hours of time in their portrait session, image review, proof color/white balancing, print optimization, etc.

So, how do I do it??

Firstly, being a father of two, I recognizes the importance of keeping young children happy and relaxed during a photography session. They are encouraged to eat snacks and have breaks as often as necessary. I may even ask you to step aside so they can play and be themselves without constantly being prompted to smile or “look at the camera”.

Secondly, locations where they are comfortable provide the best environment for child photography. They need to be free to be themselves. Beautiful parks and beaches make wonderful locations.

Thirdly, I continue to expand and incorporate the latest technology into my digital workflow. This allows me to keep pace with the evolutionary progressions in photography and ultimately improve the quality of the products I am able to offer my clients. This applies to child photography, family photography and even wedding photography.

Having child portraits made should be an exciting and enjoyable experience, one where we can capture endearing images that your family will cherish for years to come.

Would you rather take your children to a studio where they are pigeon-holed into a time slot with people waiting in line behind them or to someone that does not schedule two portrait sessions in the same day?