Do you really need 36 megapixels?

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

How's that for being definitive?  I think I have pretty much covered all the bases there, don't you?

I recently purchased a Nikon D800.  While I do make money from photography, I don't make a living with it so acquiring a 36 megapixel camera is a bit of a stretch for me.  Certainly one does not need that much resolution to make a good photo.  My Olympus PEN E-P3 does just fine in most situations, and it is a micro four-thirds format.  It's only about 12 MP, so that would actually be a little small for making big prints, but otherwise it works fine, especially if you can control the lighting.  It's easy to carry and you can attach high quality lenses to it.

My other cameras have always been APS-C sensors, with about 12 MP resolution.  The larger pixels are better than the micro 4/3 sensor in the Olympus, but not as good as full frame, nor do they have the low noise/high ISO performance of the 16 MP Nikon D7000.

When I decided to move up, I had basically three choices, given that I have so much nice Nikon glass already:  (1) used or new D700, (2) D800, and (3) D4.  I never really considered a D3.

I like the D700, but it's getting a bit long in the tooth and I didn't want to remain behind the technology curve.  The D800 is a bit pricey, but at $3k not totally out of reach for a serious semi-pro.  All my research on image quality tells me that the D4 is the way to go, but at 2X the price of the D800, I just can't justify it.

So, I settled on the D800, even though I had some reservations about the file sizes:  RAW files uncompressed on the D800 are about 77 MB.  My aging iMac had to be taken into account.

Anyway, after searching to find a vendor who actually had a D800 to sell, I finally got it a few days ago and took a few random shots to see how it performed.  I was not disappointed, and I'll show you why.

Here is a full frame jpg at 72 dpi converted from the original photo I took using the D800 with a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.5, 1/160 sec, ISO 1250.  

Here is a crop from the center of the frame, at 120 dpi.

And here is a further crop, still at 120 dpi.  You can see a larger version on the flickr page, here.

So, what's the deal?  Ok, here is what I have seen so far.   The raw images are simply wonderful.  I suspect the noise in the image, which can in fact be seen when you crop down this much, is not as good as a top of the line D4 or Canon 5D MkIII, although I can't really compare myself.  But the noise is very tiny and adds a slight, fine-grain look so it's not objectionable at all.  This photo was shot in relatively dim room light, and so I am very impressed.

Did I need a 36MP camera to make these photos?  Maybe not.  Probably the D7000 might have given the same low-light images in this instance.  But there is something important that the high resolution sensor gives me, and that is....HIGH RESOLUTION.

See, I don't want to go out and buy another $5k of lenses, and this camera pretty much requires nice primes to fully appreciate the tiny pixels.  So, I can, as in this instance, use a 50mm lens and crop down pretty much to my heart's desire and still get good images.

For those who like to display their work in large format, printing 400ppi or 500ppi with these large files is possible, when utilizing an APS-C sensor would probably not be.

The price point on the camera is really a huge selling point.  Lots of D700s, hardly used, are showing up on eBay for about $1800 now, often with the battery grip and a lens, as D700 users upgrade to the D800.  Once the D800s really start shipping, I suspect the D700s will be much easier to pick up.  But it won't give you this resolution.

All in all, it's a spectacular opportunity.

Brenizer portraits

I would love to be able to afford a medium format camera, say, like a Hasselblad, with a digital back and lots of insanely expensive lenses.  That large format can't be beat for landscape and portrait work.

But, I can't.

However, there is an alternative.  It's called the Brenizer method, and it was created by a wedding photographer Ryan Brenizer.  Using this method, you can simulate a much larger camera than the one used to actually take the photo.

Here's how it works.  First, you take a bunch of overlapping images with a very shallow depth of field.  Then you use a post processing program, like Photoshop, for example, to stitch them back together into a larger image.  The result, as shown below, is the equivalent of having a camera sensor many times the size of the one actually in the camera you used.

This is an image of my son, Erik, that was stitched together from about a dozen separate photos. [Here is a larger version so you can see more detail.] Now, you may think it's just a typical photo, but look closely.  The detail is much greater than I could have gotten with a single shot, especially considering the shallow depth of field.  I did crop this down from a larger frame to eliminate some of the distracting background.  If I were trying to do this for money, I would have taken the photo someplace with a better background.  But I was just playing.

I could have gotten a somewhat similar shot using a single frame, but it would not have looked like this.  A normal lens shot this close would have produced perspective distortion, and a telephoto would not have produced the same bokeh.

Brenizer couples this with some crazy lighting, where he has an assistant walk around lighting up different parts of the scene with a remotely triggered flash, then uses additional post processing to blend the images.  The result is an image that really can't be obtained any other way, and it's pretty cool.

Anyway, if you have PS, you should try this.  Just be sure to not change your own location when you take the shots - otherwise the program will give you some strange results.

Black and White photography

I am liking black and white photography more and more.

There are lots of different types of photographs, and the use of color can be spectacular, especially in landscapes.  But lately I have been thinking a lot about portraits, and how much I always liked to see the old black and white versions.  Sure, back in the day it was all that was really available.  But there's something fundamentally interesting about reducing the portrait to its basic elements by eliminating the distraction of color.  Here's an example.

This was originally a color shot from a live performance of Chris Thile and the Punch Brothers.  The lighting was very poor and sort of crazy with all the colored spots.  And there is a certain interest in those color shots.  But I took a crop from the original shot and converted it to black and white, while bumping the contrast and adding noise.  The blurring of Chris' features is the result of a relatively slow shutter speed coupled with his trademark stage action.  The black and white image focuses attention on the subject without distracting colors, and the blurring of parts of the image communicate the frenzied style of his performance.  I think this really captures more of the 'essence' of the performer, which is exactly what we want in an environmental portrait.

There are lots of ways to communicate with a camera, but I am liking black and white these days.

Punch Brothers Wow Crowd on Snowy February Evening

Chris Thile brought his band, the Punch Brothers, to the Jefferson Center Sunday night to play to a sellout crowd.  The only problem was, half of the ticket holders were unable to slog through 7 inches of wet snow to experience the concert.  For those of us who made it, we were certainly not disappointed.

Thile's style of music, and musicianship, continues to evolve into a higher form of entertainment experience.  In it's current incarnation, it is alternately experimental acoustic jazz with classical overtones and traditional bluegrass, but with the sharp edges worn off by Thile's distinctive musical vision.  The addition of an experienced bass player has enriched the music indescribably, and the impeccable skills of the band members truly weave a unique acoustic tapestry that simply cannot be duplicated by any other band.

Thile seems to have a special affinity for Roanoke and the Jefferson Center.  During a break he remarked about how many times he has played the venue.  "I'm so excited, because this time we sold out!" he remarked as he scanned the many empty seats in the auditorium due to the weather.  "It's just that you can't tell...".

The Punch Brothers are not just a backup band for Thile.  They are highly skilled musicians making serious music.  And although the sound is clearly derived from Thile's past, the richness and complexity as well as the addition of significant rhythm elements has taken them to a new level of performance.

Check out their schedule on the website at punchbrothers.com for dates and venues, and whatever you do, make it to one of the concerts.  I drove through 35 miles of blinding snow, and it was worth it.  You won't be disappointed.

Shooting with a purpose

It's great to just wander around in the world taking photos as you go. Once in a while you happen to be in the right place at the right time to get an interesting shot.  However, I find that those opportunities are rare.  To me, the point of photography is more communicating a message than just making pretty pictures.  Don't get me wrong, I like pretty pictures.  Love 'em, in fact.  But I suppose the journalist in me is always looking for something else going on.  The image should pull you into the story and make you wonder what is going on - maybe fill in the blanks for yourself.  Take this series of shots, for example.

My daughter and her husband were visiting yesterday, and at some point decided to break out the instruments and play a little music.  Guitar and banjo, in the old time style.  They are both good musicians and it's great to hear them play together, particularly when they are working on an original composition, like they were when I took these shots.

Now, I was really just playing around with my Olympus PEN camera with a Nikon 50mm lens, shooting totally manual, and I decided to use one of the built-in art processes and get some grainy black and white shots.  But when I looked at the proofs, I decided I would string them together like this to try to communicate a little bit of what making music is about.  You can begin to understand a little when you look at this arrangement.  It's fun and it's work.  Music demands some precision, and of course skill, but the point is to have fun creating something ephemerically beautiful.  You weave a tapestry of auditory color that hangs in the air for a moment and then exists only in your memory.  And when it's over, both the performer and the listener walk away a little richer.