Your subject and personal style in photography

I am an amateur photographer who is completely self taught. Admittedly, that is not saying much; I believe the quality of my photographs fall in the "okayish to decent" category, so I've achieved probably as much as a million other self taught amateur photographers. But, I really want to change that; I would want to decrease that number of people who can be compared to me to 10,000 maybe, self taught or not (one can dream, right?). After about 4-5 years of doing photography, my interested gravitated towards "controlled" studio photography and bought some studio equipment last year, to practice. (I've since realized that even in studio photography, "complete control" is an illusion. There is always luck involved).

One of the things that I've been reading quite often lately is the importance of personal style. Most recently, this article at Luminous Landscape discusses why personal style is important. Personal style is what differentiates you from any other photographer. If you and any other photographer is put under exactly the same conditions, both of you would probably come back with very different pictures. That is personal style.

Now, how do you go about finding your personal style? Probably the first thing you do is get inspired from others' work. That is really helpful in general to improve photography, but I found that to be of little help in trying to find personal style. I've probably found more success just thinking in my mind what I want to photograph next, and trying to set it up. One example of it is in the following picture: It is an attempt to have an early morning feeling with window light, but is actually taken in a studio at 10.30 pm in the night! There is no window in that direction.

Early morning looks from Aditi (click on image for larger version).

I tried to analyze why this photo works as intended: Firstly, there is of course the soft light which looks like there is a window just outside the frame. But the real reason is the combination of clothes, unmade hair and the ruffled instead of stretched curtains in the back. Her expression that looks like she is interested in what is outside adds to the overall idea (this is the luck part - only one in about 30 photos had this expression). Editing this photo was really simple: I took the RAW out of the camera and simply selected one of B&W presets in Lightroom.

This analysis also made me realize one thing: your subject and the environment makes or breaks the photo. Great sensor, great lens, and even great lighting will fail you if your subject is boring. And if you think about all the great photographs in history, you'll realize they are loved mainly because of their subject (look at these for e.g.: Afghan girl, Pepper #30, Girl holding kitten, Man jumping over puddle). It has motivated me to put more and more effort into setting up what is in front of my camera. Frankly speaking, though this realization looks very obvious, it is very easy to get lost in the whole technique (lighting is technique too) and editing it differently routine. The current fad of "Art" Filters like cross processing or miniaturization is one example.

Coming back the question of personal style, I think I've at least found a direction. I am going to take studio photos of people (or, rather, photos in controlled lighting), but I want people never to describe it as studio photo of someone. No more headshots on a white background. No more beauty shots. Instead, setup ever more unexpected scenes in front of the camera. Where the picture makes sense, but something one would not expect to see based on a verbal description, say. One great example I found recently for the above idea is the following photo of Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas by Martin Schoeller:

A great example of an unexpected visual setup but still displaying the dexterity of the gymnast. Click on the image to see more images of Olympic athletes from the same photographer.

Inventing technology vs market segment

One of the most widely discussed topics in the tech world is the patent warfare that is happening in the smartphone and tablet world. I specifically want to discuss the ongoing Apple vs Samsung patent case being discussed over their tablets. This case has taken the limelight for many reasons; it is one of the few cases which has went on to the stage of jury based trial, and also because it has revealed interesting facts about inside workings of Apple. But there is also widespread disagreement if that the case actually has any merit.

It is widely acknowledged that Apple really invented the modern smartphone. It created a device which was completely about touch, using no stylus. It designed and implemented a smooth and intuitive user interface totally from ground up. After that, anybody who didn't have a touchscreen smartphone like that was immediately relegated to the last generation. There was definitely a lot of invention going on around here - starting from the electronics of the device to the design and, crucially, the smooth implementation of the the UI.

A couple of years later, Apple released the iPad. Unlike in the case of iPhone, iPad was largely rejected by the media in the time between it was announced and it was actually released in the market. Everyone said it was a large iPod touch, and will never sell. But turns out, just the different screen size makes all the difference. Though the UI was mostly same, access to larger screen space makes web surfing easier, and viewing photos and movies more pleasurable. But, here is the big question: was there any new technology in the iPad? Was iPad an invention? I don't believe so. Apple showed the world that there is use and there is market for a touchscreen device with a larger screen. It did a great implementation of the device, with most people agreeing that is still the case. But an invention, like the iPhone, it was not.

Then why is the Apple vs Samsung tablet case a patent battle? The only possible patent that can be new in the case of tablets is probably the design of the device. The Wired magazine recently discussed few of the patents covered in this exact trial. Here is one of the drawings from Apple's iPad patent. I am not sure how you reacted on seeing it, but I just went wow! There is absolutely nothing specific about that design.

The second thing that people don't really factor in into these discussions is the effort required in the implementation. People think that once you have the idea, implementation is easy. That is simply not true: implementation is really hard to do. Android itself is the biggest example: From version 1 to version 2.3 (Gingerbread), overall Android was not as good as the iOS. Nexus One with Android 2.2 (Froyo) was still much more inconsistent than the iPhone 4 - both in terms of design of small operations and in the performance of the UI and the apps. And I am sure Google must have had to work really hard to bring Android to what it is now in the form of Jelly Bean. Punishing Samsung simply because it chose a similar shaped rectangle is really an injustice to all the Samsung engineers who've worked hard to do its implementation. Even with their work, Apple iPad is still the better device; I've used both Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and iPad 2 and assure you Samsung's Honeycomb tablet had really bad performance in comparison to the iPad. Apple enjoys a monopoly like market share in the tablet market not without reason. Samsung is getting exactly what they deserve directly from the market.

Eventually, I am sure Apple must have realized that it is next to impossible to eliminate its main competitors from the market through patents. People will design around the patents. My guess is that Apple wants the public to think that the competitors are stealing its inventions. And going through the comments on many tech news sites and blogs, that really seems to be working. Their official line about how others "must not steal their inventions" is pretty catchy too!

Small cameras for serious photographers

Having recently bought a new camera, I am still riding the excitement wave and I continue to spend a lot of time thinking about photos I want to take and reading online about photography (equipment, tips and looking at great photos by others). As part of this excitement, here is another post about photography - on equipment which I believe hasn't been getting as much attention as it deserves.

If you want to take seriously good pictures, you'll be most likely be recommended a DSLR, most probably a Nikon or a Canon. Which is not wrong at all as both companies make excellent cameras at all price ranges. The sales figures reflect this - entry level Canon and Nikon DSLRs are among the largest selling cameras in the world.

But I've seen many people complain that these cameras are bigger than they would like to carry everywhere. These people not professional photographers, so its not like they lose money by not carrying their cameras. What they lose is a number of interesting opportunities to get a good photograph. And even for pros sometimes smaller size helps.

Thus, I've compiled a list of some great recent cameras that can replace your DSLRs giving your similar image quality and many other features at similar price, but are much more smaller. All these cameras are 'mirrorless' which means that they don't have a mirror to reflect the image formed by the lens into the optical viewfinder of an SLR (this is the definition of an Single Lens Reflex cameras), and this is what makes them small. To compose the image, only electronic finder is made available - which is either just the LCD on the back or sometimes an EVF (Electronic View Finder) which is useful in bright light. The reason they offer image quality at similar level to modern DSLRs is because of their large sensors (read more about sensor sizes here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm).

Here is a comparison of the camera I bought, the Olympus E-M5, with the Canon Rebel DSLR, for size. The cameras listed below are similar in size to the E-M5 or even smaller.

Photo credit - dpreview.com

The camera names in headings below are linked to the dpreview.com review page of that camera.

Panasonic G3

Belonging to the Micro Four Thirds standard (for which Olympus also makes cameras), this is one of the best value cameras that exist in the market. It is a traditional DSLR styled camera which has an integrated EVF. It has a 16 MP sensor which has really image quality - almost as good as DSLRs like Nikon D5100. One of the best things about Micro Four Thirds standard is that the lenses for this system are also very small. One of the most highly recommended lenses is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, which is so small, its called a 'pancake' lens!

Sony NEX-5N

This the mid range model in the Sony's relatively new NEX range. It has a 16MP APS-C size sensor (same as Nikon DX size) and its image quality is thus just as good as the Nikon or Canon DSLRs and slightly better than the Panasonic G3 above. But the downsides include no inbuilt EVF and that the lenses are not quite as small as the cameras itself. The lens range is also a bit small right now. Overall, though, this has some of the best image quality for the money and size, and its no wonder it got a Gold award from dpreview.com.

Nikon J1

This is the Nikon's entry in the mirrorless market and has its own pros and cons. It uses a 1" sensor which is smaller than both Micro Four Thirds and APS-C sensors. It makes do with 10MP whereas most of its competitors have 12 or 16 MP (but I believe 10MP is enough for most), and its low light image quality is not as good either. Though, it's still a big step up from the compact cameras which have much smaller sensors and is good enough for indoor photography. Its biggest plus point is its picture taking speed and its Auto Focus system - its blazing fast and gets you accurately focused pictures even when your subject is moving fast or erratically.

Sony RX100

This is the latest camera from Sony and isn't even available for purchase yet. It features a 1" sensor like the Nikon J1, and packs 20MP instead of 10 in the Nikon. But unlike other cameras mentioned here, it has a fixed lens. Early reports suggest that its image quality is very good. Among other things Sony emphasizes is its control system (the ring around the lens rotates to change settings like shutter speed or aperture) and its fast Auto Focus speeds. Of course, the real reason to consider this camera is that it packs all that in a really small size - its in the same league as compact cameras like Canon S100, Panasonic LX5 or Olympus XZ-1. If you didn't think you'd ever buy other lenses with DSLRs or want a second camera to take carry everywhere, this looks like the best option currently available.

Why I bought the Olympus E-M5 instead of Nikon D7000?

After thinking about what camera to buy for the last week or so, I bought the Olympus E-M5. This means a shift of systems for me because I've been using a Nikon D40 for last 5 years. I currently have 3 AF Nikon mount lenses: Sigma 18-200mm, Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro (which I use for portrait), all bought within last 2 years. Plus a couple of old MF lenses: 50mm f/1.8 and 75-150mm f/3.5 E series lenses which I occasionally use. It would seem foolish to change systems, especially considering the excellence of latest Nikon cameras.

Why, then, did I still decide to change my primary system? Simply because I wanted a camera which is with me more of the times and allows me to the take good pictures in all situations. The olympus got chosen over D7000 mainly because its much smaller. I currently also own the Olympus E-PL1 (which I'll obviously sell now). Though I don't like that camera much as compared to Nikon D40 (slower and erratic AF, slightly worse high ISO image quality), I carry that camera more often simply because its small. E-M5 is very similar in size. Both E-M5 and D7000 are better than D40 in other respects:

• Magnesium alloy weather sealed body. Twice the Nikon D40 has given up on me at crucial moments because it got wet (Hogenakkal falls and Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe incident is the reason I had to buy E-PL1). The E-M5 feels very solid and a bit heavy for its size.
• Larger, higher resolution screen on the back.
• Much faster AF and more focus points for manual selection. Having only 3 focus points in D40 is a frequent pain. The AF speed on E-M5 is simply amazing!
• Olympus EVF is better to have than the Nikon D40 viewfinder - its bigger, brighter and shows a lot more info. Of course, the D7000 viewfinder trumps all and is one of the ways Nikon beats the Olympus.
• Live view, with Olympus having a tiltable screen. Helps when camera is mounted on tripod. Also helps in rare situations when I need to focus manually. Olympus actually has a touchscreen which has touch to click feature - I predict this will be frequently used in studio when camera is on tripod. Right now, though, it  only helps takes pictures when I don't want to, so I've assigned it to touch to focus.
• Video is not high on my priority list, but there have been times I wanted a video and had to use my phone even when I had the D40.
• Another feature I don't usually use but can be helpful: Faster continuous shooting rates (6fps on Nikon, 9fps on Olympus).

Of course, one of the biggest reasons for upgrade is the image quality. And that's the critical reason why Olympus got chosen. It's image quality is almost there with Nikon D7000. And Nikon D7000 probably has the best image quality for APS-C sensors (only the new Fujifilm X-Pro1 beats it convincingly). And for me, its more than adequate. Had Olympus put the same sensor as E-PL1 in E-M5, it would've never made the cut. I am not looking for the last iota of improvement in image quality, but rather the other usability features of the camera as long as an image quality bar is met. First impressions suggest that the image quality improvement is no magic bullet as I had assumed before buying. But still, ISO 3200-4000 should see regular use and ISO 5000 is also pretty usable. The picture below is at ISO 5000 (RAW, has seen minor adjustments for tone and colour, plus a little bit of noise reduction in Lightroom).

IIT Madras junta at the Biere Club in Bangalore

There are other factors:

• Lens selection: Nikon simply walks over Micro Four Thirds (MFT) here. But crucially, if I had the money and I wanted to buy 4 lenses right now, MFT has all of them (20mm f/1.7, 40-150mm f/4-5.6, 45mm f/1.8, 7-14mm f/4 if my budget ever allows). The shining stars of Nikon lens range are anyways hopelessly out of my budget (like 85mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2)
• Image Stabilization/Vibration Reduction: Olympus has in body system which works with all lenses. And the implementation in E-M5 is excellent and as good as VR in most Nikon lenses. Combined with lack of mirror shake and the high ISO capabilities over Nikon D40, I think I am able to take usable shots in light levels 3-4 EV less than before. The picture below was taken handheld, with elbows resting on a table, at 1s shutter speed! Its a JPEG out of the camera with a bit of colour correction.
• Battery life: Nikon will usually not consume power for framing with its optical finder, but Olympus always does with its electronic finder. This makes Nikon last upto 3 times longer on a battery charge. Something I'll have to live with by buying backup batteries (I've also started to keep at least one backup camera on trips where photography is important).

Just after purchasing the camera, at Blue Ginger restaurant in Bangalore. The actual light levels were much darker than what it looks like in the image above.

I wondered that if money was no object, what camera system would I buy if I could own only one. Nothing from Nikon because anything better than D7000 is also bigger. Similarly no to Canon. Fujifilm X-Pro1 would've been a great option, but it doesn't have a standard zoom right now, its slow AF speed can be frustrating and has no built in flash. Compact cameras have poor image quality, medium format is way too large, bad in low light etc. Pentax Q has almost compact like image quality, and its K-01 is too large for mirrorless. Sony's NEX range is good and its especially tempting to use M mount lenses with the help of its focus peaking feature, but has very few good (and large) E system lenses and no weather sealed body (it was the closest competitor though). Leica M9 maybe? Lack of AF lenses and zooms have multiple problems - zoom and AF are user friendly and it also means I can't assume anyone else will be able to use the camera (sometimes, I like being in the photograph too :-) ). Don't judge me negatively here - I like using primes and manual focus if its well implemented, but would feel constrained if they were the only choice for the only camera I own. Thus, it seems the camera I bought is the best camera in the money no object scenario!

I'm still keeping my Nikon kit. I would never get rid of Nikon D40 I suppose, it has become an emotional attachment now, being the primary moment capturing device for the last 5 years. Also, it's working as well as when it was new, even after getting dunked in water twice. As for the lenses, I still have hope that Nikon will someday give me a smaller body to attach those to (Nikon 1 doesn't count). Or if I get richer, I may be invested in 2 upto date systems at the same time. I will sell the 18-200mm though, I don't expect it to see any use now.

Lastly, buying a new camera has made me excited over photography again. My studio equipment was lying unused for months but this week I started to practise again. Equipment might not be the biggest reason behind quality photos, but it does motivate the photographer if it's enjoyable to use.

Fujifilm to go mainstream?

Fujifilm can never be called a traditional camera company. It has always been the one to find niches - some of its most famous cameras, including in the film era, barely had any peers: 6x7 Rangefinder, TX-1 Panaromic Rangefinder (more famous as Hasselblad Xpan), and even the recent X100 had just one competitor in the form Leica X1. But their latest camera announcement puts them in direct competition with what is becoming the staple offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung etc. and hottest new camera segment - mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.

Fujifilm has just announced the X-Pro1 camera, part of its new X-Series system. At first glance, this camera is largely similar to other offerings - 16M APS-C sensor, contrast detect autofocus and back LCD and EVF to compose. But delve just a bit deeper and Fujifilm's desire to remain different clearly shows:

• fixed focal length optical viewfinder with rangefinder like brightlines, along with an EVF
• aperture ring on the lenses
• the fact they are launching with 3 lenses, all of which are primes
• thoroughly old school and drool worthy looks

There are more innovations - for e.g. they claim a new colour array in the sensor whereby moire is reduced without using a low pass filter (which removes very fine detail from photos). If you understand why moire occurs in the Bayer array, it is clear that periodic arrangement of pixels is the main reason. Fujifilm, instead of letting the colour pixels repeating regularly throughout the sensor, have made blocks of 6x6 pixels inside of which the different coloured pixels are randomly arranged. Clever stuff!

Do we have the king of mirrorless?

Looks like the new Fuji has all the ingredients for success - they are already known for making well built cameras (latest X10 and X100 are the best examples), their imaging pipelines have generally been great - from lens till image processing, and they are bringing a host of innovations along with their traditional strengths. What could go wrong? Well, a few things can:

• User interface: As good as the X100 was, it was universally panned for its poor user interface. Fujifilm claims a new paradigm for X-Pro1 - let's hope they nail it this time.
• Stuff not mentioned in the highlights: stuff like autofocus speed and accuracy, or even poor battery life can sometimes become a big problem.
• Lack of standard zoom: It launches without one. This may be a short lived issue, though, as their roadmap indicates zoom lenses are to be introduced in 2012 itself.
• High price: Judging from the high prices of X100 and X10 and barely any concession made here to keep the costs in control - it doesn't look like this one's going to be cheap. Expect upwards of $1500 for the body alone.

How many more years of Leica M?

Leica M series has been braving the digital world with some difficulties. There is no doubt that its latest offering, the M9, can take spectacular photos, particularly due to its brilliant lenses. Its bright rangefinder window is often praised to greatly aid composition. But its defining characteristic is also its biggest problem - being a rangefinder it has no autofocus and no zoom lenses (and no live view, no video capture ... the list is long). And no matter how much Leica fanboys say that these features are not required, they can't convince the modern generation.

In general, the Fujifilm, and the modern technology in general, can take on everything that Leica offers. Fujifilm has a history of making great lenses, and the lenses available at launch shows that Fujifilm cares about prime loving market - a category into which every Leica lover falls into. The hybrid viewfinder technology can give the same benefits as Leica M's large rangefinder window (without, of course, the focus mechanism itself). And there is no doubt that the X-Pro1 will be built to a standard.

Leica M cameras have perennially been an object of desire for enthusiasts, but very few can really afford it. This is a new system which can replicate all the charm of the Leica M, has all the modern conveniences, and costs a fraction of its price! Time to start saving :-)

Google+ now equivalent to Android in 2009?

One of the news items I read today was about the estimation that Google+ now has 62 million users. Considering it was about 40 million in October, this number looks about right. This may make it the fastest growing social network ever, but its still a david to the goliath that is Facebook.

One of the things that the post mentions is the network effect - that as more people use it, its inherent value increases as a social network, hence it will add users at greater speed. That means that growth will be "super linear", the visualization of which is sometimes called the hockey stick graph. Now, where have I seen such a graph before...

Android, of course! Android was a relatively slow starter. This changed soon, though, and due to the huge marketing that went with the first Verizon Droid, and the availability of android phones from many manufacturers for all carriers, it got a strong kick. It may or may not have been the best phone OS, but it provided different things to different people - they were available with or without physical keyboards, small and big, cheap or expensive etc.

How does this all relate to Google+? Because the biggest reason for Android's hockey stick growth is the same as is being predicted for Google+. The reason is that increasing usage drives even more adoption. People see their friends using Androids and buy them. Manufacturers and carriers put more effort into their range, developing better quality phones with a wider range of features and specifications. And most importantly, developers consider it an important platform to support.

Of course, all this growth must be supported by real development and innovation in the platform. It is clear that Android has shown that - the UI has improved with every new release, its implementation of notifications and multitasking cannot be beaten, its the only platform that supports the new 4G networks, and the only real supporter of third party innovation like in the form of amazing Swype and SwiftKeyX keyboards. Google+, one can argue, is following this trend - Hangouts keeps adding interesting new features, Google+ search is amazing, and I really like the privacy model which prevents me from reading all the spam (updates not meant for me) at Facebook. Every new improvement to Google+ will pull in more users, and some day its usage will reach critical mass, after which its hockey stick growth is all but guaranteed.

Chromebook silently successful?

I was looking at amazon.com today to look for a laptop, and saw that Acer's chromebook is actually at number 5 in the bestseller's list. Its a pretty surprising find because I remember when the Samsung's chromebook was launched, it was universally panned by reviewers and media (save engadget). If you search for a chromebook, you will see that all of them are rated a solid 4 stars.

Why is that the media reacted so different from actual users? The biggest argument that media had against chromebook was that for the same price you could buy a windows netbook which could do so much more. But it seems actual users are not looking to do so much more. Connectivity requirement was a big negative. But we are almost always connected. Most reviews of the chromebook laud its ease of use. They say that it may not replace someone's primary computer, but 90% of the use case is just using the internet for which it works very well. With decent hardware and good battery life, to me it all seems like a recipe for success.

Media inconsistent in their reviews?

When you look at the mobile rivalry between iOS and Android, the blogosphere generally tends to favour iOS, citing ease of use being more important than sheer number of features. Why is it, then, that in the case of chromebook ease of use and less features is a worse combination than a more complicated interface and more features? Frankly, I don't know. It maybe the case that most tech writers use a lot of windows or mac software, which obviously don't have any chrome OS equivalents, and therefore couldn't imagine themselves using them. But then, reviewers should be able to put themselves in the shoes of potential users when reviewing the product and not just use their own profile to judge a product.

Whatever the reason, it seems like media can't predict every trend. And when buying something for yourself, it always pays to do some work yourself to know if the product fits your needs.