.

I created this image about one year ago on color transparency film (Fuji Provia F), medium format 6x6, using the venerable Bronica SQA. (That was the last time I used film.) Scanned to digital at 4000dpi, the digital image is a bit more than 70 megapixels, allowing a life-size 36-inch print. At 33x33 inches, this image was printed on a canvas gallery-wrap, stretched on a wood frame much like a painters canvas. The image wraps around the edges, 1.5 inches on every side, such that the face of the print is 30x30. This is the second canvas gallery-wrap I have printed this year. The first was a panorama, five feet wide.

What I want to share with you is a comparison of three different print types.

Printing on canvas has become very accessible these days, available from many vendors. Upload the digital image to the vendors website, choose your options, and provide payment. I chose Artistic Photo Canvas, having seen the excellent prints first hand. Of course, canvas is remarkable for the texture. APC uses only a high-quality cotton canvas and provides a protective clear coat over the final print. However, be aware that the maximum black density (Dmax) and the highlight intensity cannot match printing on more traditional photo papers. The overall contrast is therefore reduced. Although APC boasts one of the highest Dmax available on canvas, it is poor compared to traditional photo paper. None-the-less, it is an impressive way to display a photograph.

Then, I had the same image printed on metallic photo paper. This print is craaazy! The highlights in the image have a 3-dimensional quality that seems to exceed the 2-dimensional nature of the medium. Compared to a traditional photo paper, metalic paper may exhibit some minor loss in subtle color gradation; but holy cats, man, it is stunning. It is not suitable for every image; for example, I would not recommend metallic paper for portraits. To get the most from a metallic print, ensure good illumination; without good light, it tends to look like any ordinary print.
.

Seasonal fun

I love autumn in New England. The mixed hardwood forests can produce a magical display of color. So, I have to post some nice seasonal image.

However, while I am sharing here an image from New England, this particular image is not peculiar to the region. This image is simple seasonal fun that happens all across the country. This was a simple grab shot; driving down a rural road, I saw this beside the road, stopped the car, took a handful of photographs, and then left.

The artistic vision here is not my own, but someone else's. I can only claim good composition and exposure. The one trick here regards the white fence, which was overly bright relative to the rest of the scene; so I underexposed the image by 2/3 stop and later adjusted the curves in Photoshop.

Olympus C5060; ISO 200; f/4.5

.

An Evening with Photographer Joe Buissink

Just returned from seeing a presentation by photographer Joe Buissink. I confess Joe shattered any pre-concieved notions I held about high-paid celebrity photographers. He shared many images and his passion for capturing fleeting moments between people.

He still shoots film and his clientel are people who seek that and appreciate that. He primarily shoots available light at ISO 1600 and 3200. His images tend to be less grainy than most of us associate with high ISO. His film processing lab will visually inspect the film during development, empirically pushing the development until the density is good. This avoids low density low contrast, which requires compensation during printing and thereby incurs enhanced graininess.

Joe seeks emotional moments, not necessarily perfect sharpness or perfect composition. His pitch to prospective clients is more about himself and his passion. He tells the stories behind the images that you would not know from the image alone. Once people are hooked on his passionate approach, they tend to give him less direction and restrictions. He typically does not have to align himself to a required shot list.

Joe does more than just weddings. He recently completed work on a book about autism and the images comminicate a compelling joyful story. He photographed Stephen Spielberg's birthday party, Christina Aguilara on tour, and the closing episode of the Frasier television show at request of Kelsey Grammer.

The Buissink approach to photographing people is eye opening (to me anyway) and it was a truly enjoyable evening. However, it is no secret that he caters to very wealthy people and the cost for his services is adjusted to their financial means. I personally do not know anyone who can afford him.

Pixels (part 1)

Perhaps the most common question regarding digital photography is ... how many megapixels do I need? The answer depends upon how you intend to use the photo. You need to answer two questions: how large will the photo appear (inches or centimeters) and how many dots per inch (or centimeter).

If you want to share it on a computer screen, one megapixel is more than enough. Why? Computer displays typically have either 72 pixels per inch or 96 dots per inch. So, for example, to display a photo at a size of 6 by 9 inches, you need (6 x 96) x (9 x 96) = 497,664 pixels = 0.497 megapixels.

Computer screen: 72 - 96 dots (pixels) per inch
Photo print: 240 - 300 dots per inch
Magazine: 100 - 200 dots per inch
Poster or banner: 100 - 150 dots per inch
Billboard: 10 - 20 dots per inch

Magazines print fewer dots per inch. If you look real close, you may see the individual dots, but maybe not. It depends upon the exact printing equipment and the tendency of ink dots to blend together. Billboards, viewed from far way, use very low resolution simply because it is not apparent from far away.

So, here is another example. For a photo print 6 x 9 inches, you need (6 x 240) x (9 x 240) = 3,110,400 pixels = 3 megapixels. More pixels in your camera means that you can get larger prints without sacrificing quality. Using the same math, you can easily see that a 20 x 24 inch print needs 27 megapixels.

You may ask: 240 dots per inch? My printer supports 1000 dots per inch.
OK, here is the bottom line. If you print at the higher resolution, can you see a difference in the final print? You might see a tiny difference, but 240 dpi usually provides excellent quality and sharpness. If you are using a photo lab to make your prints, consult their guidelines, but 240dpi or 250 dpi is very common.

Water Lilly

Paddling the river this evening, I had planned on a quick trip; however, I stopped a half dozen times to photograph flowers (aquatic or nearly so). The day was waning and yet another stop may mean I would finish my trip in the dark. But each time I stowed the compact camera safely in my dry bag, I soon found another reason to dig it out of the bag yet again. This continued until the battery expired.

Worth a thousand words?

While I have long loved nature photography, sometimes a still image, a photo, cannot possibly communicate a simple concept that a video can. Here is an example of moving fog with some unexpected colors. Although I tried to photograph this as a still image, it just looked like mush. Had to switch to video.

River Fog Fire from Kevin Davis on Vimeo.

Give us your photos and abandon all your rights

Here is a recent invitation printed by the Boston Globe.

Send Us Woodstock Photos
By submitting your photo(s) to Boston.com, you agree that such photo(s) and the accompanying information will become the property of Boston.com and you grant Boston.com, The Boston Globe, Boston Metro and their sublicensees permission to publicly display, reproduce and use the videos in any form or media for any and (all editorial and related promotional purposes) purposes.. You also warrant that (i) the photo is your original work, or is properly licensed, and does not violate the copyright or any other personal or property right of any third party, and (ii) you have obtained any and all releases and permissions necessary for our intended use. Your submission also allows Boston.com to edit, crop or adjust the colors of the image(s) on an as needed basis.

Translation: give us your photos without any conditions; the photos will then become our property, not yours. You forfeit all rights and we can do whatever we please with them. While we cannot foresee all possible ways in which we might use these photos, whatever the use might be, you hereby certify that anyone appearing in the photo has granted you permission to use the photo in that way and you now transfer that right to the Globe.

Sadly, this tactic seems more and more common today. The implications for possible abuse, particularly on the internet, are astounding. This allows Boston.com to display your photo and print an insulting caption. This allows Boston.com to place your head on someone else's body. This allows Boston.com to sell your photo for a profit and give you nothing in return.

Just say no.

Digital Effects with Slide Projectors

Back in 1997, digital cameras were new and rare. Typical camera resolution was only 0.5 megapixels. You could get 10 megapixels, but it would cost you $15,000. If you needed digital, you probably relied upon a film lab with a scanner to convert film images to digital. Most scanners were very expensive drum scanners, but Kodak provided us with the cost-effective Kodak Photo CD system; price for a scan was only a few dollars.

Well, here is a nifty trick from 1997. This effect was included in a slide show using two 35mm projectors and a dissolve controller.

The original image was a 35mm color transparency, which was scanned to digital (Kodak Photo CD). I digitally manipulated the image to a line drawing, like a child's coloring book, and filled in some color. Then the digital image was output back to a 35mm slide using a digital-to-film recorder.

Under the direction of a dissolve controller, one slide projector faded out while the second projector faded in. Projected onto a big screen, it was a really great effect.