PKR
Mentor
A visionary photojournalist ahead of his time: Q&A with Larry Towell, Canada’s first member of Magnum Photos - JSource
Tamara Baluja
15-19 minutes
He rarely touches Twitter or Facebook, doesn’t own a cell phone and shoots mostly on film. And yet, midway through his seventh decade, Larry Towell remains one of the best and busiest photojournalists in the world. Towell, the first Canadian member of the world’s most prestigious photo agency, Magnum Photos, recently took the time to tell photojournalism editor Mark Taylor how he got started, what he's working on now, and why he’ll never stop.
J-Source: How’s your day going?
Larry Towell: Pretty good. I’m just looking at work. Do you know Jerome Sessini? He’s our newest Magnum nominee. He’s just uploaded work. He’s been travelling in Mexico with vigilantes re-taking towns from the drug cartels. It’s quite amazing. There are a number of photographers who are working in Mexico with the drug wars, but he has a way of getting extremely close to the situation. I met him in the Middle East 10 or 15 years ago when he was just starting out. He hung around with me and, lo and behold, last summer he applied to Magnum and he got in. I’m just looking at his work here and it’s great. He just has a way of getting very close to the action. He has a way of working with people.
J-Source: Is that something you look for?
LT: If a person is shooting hard news, conflict, civil disasters, upheavals, those sorts of things, I look for a connection between the photographer and the subject so it’s not just a sense that the photographer is being voyeuristic. But also an ability to photograph things as they unfold, the desire to want to document history in the making. But it depends on the story. That’s not just what photojournalism is about. It’s documenting people and what they’re going through. For me, more than anything, I think a photojournalist’s core has to be moral. If it’s not, I think it’s going to become pretty clear.
J-Source: Let’s start at the beginning. What was your very first interaction with photography?
LT: I never really paid much attention to photography when I was young. I didn’t want to be a photographer. It wasn’t my ambition. I studied visual arts. Photography was part of the visual arts program but it was certainly not photojournalism. It was art photography. I never cared about photography. It’s people I care about.
J-Source: When did you get serious about photography?
LT: When I got out of university I realized that I didn’t want to be an artist. So I did some volunteer work in India and that started me asking questions about the balance of power in the world and the distribution of wealth. Then, during the Reagan years, I went to Central America on a human rights fact-finding mission. Then photography became serious because I was dealing with human lives and photography gave me the excuse to be there and it allowed me to interact with the type of people I wanted to interact with—people I found inspirational. People standing up, trying to make their voices heard, screaming against dictatorships.
J-Source: At this point you were a writer doing oral histories right?
LT: For my first books, yes. I carried around tape recorders and I started interviewing people and photographing a little bit. I was writing poetry. I wanted to be a creative writer. I was struggling with language. In those years there wasn’t anybody to look up to for me. There weren’t any Canadian photojournalists. So I never even thought of that really. Canada was more of a culture of literature. And it was much easier to get a book published or do a project in creative writing than it was in photography. Poets and writers were being funded by the government. But photography was not. Photography was very stagnant in Canada. When I went to Central America I realized there was a horrible war going on and a media disinformation campaign going on and I wanted to be a part of the process of presenting some language that demonstrated that a lot of what we were hearing were lies.
J-Source: So at that point your photography experience was just art school?
LT: Yes, art school. Good teachers, but I wasn’t encouraged to go out into the world. I was encouraged to make art in my studio. I realized that was a very shallow existence, at least for me. By examining human rights and interviewing people—campesinos, labour unions, students, people like that—who were being repressed and being killed, and killed by death squads, and meeting relatives of the disappeared. My first contact with that world was stimulating to say the least. Photography gave me the excuse to be there and I started photographing.
J-Source: So you come home and send a portfolio to Magnum. Can you tell me that story?
LT: I didn’t know about Magnum.I wasn’t very aware of photography but I’d heard of them. I didn’t know any of them and I didn’t know their work. So I was figuring out what to do with my work and I called information in New York and they told me Magnum’s phone number. I phoned them up and asked if they were interested in seeing my pictures. The secretary said to send in a carousel of work. I didn’t know it but the photographers were having their annual meeting then and the photographers at Magnum looked at it. It was my early work from Central America and they invited me to come and join.
J-Source: So at that point in your life how many roles of film had you shot?
LT: Not much. I was writing more. Film was expensive and I was pretty poor. My first trip to India I shot 40 rolls in three months. Then when I went to Nicaragua and Central America, I doubt that I’d have been shooting a roll a day.
J-Source: How long were you there?
LT: I went there three or four times. My first trip I was there for three months.
J-Source: So not a lot. That’s incredible.
LT: Yes but that was the days of film. My grandmother was a better photographer than my mother was and better than my daughter, or even me. They shot film very selectively so the pictures counted. Today, with digital photography, it’s just like shooting a machine gun in the air and you miss just about everything. If you’re not concentrating, you’re going to get a different picture.
J-Source: Do you think it helped that you hadn’t been exposed to a lot of photography?
LT: I wasn’t trying to copy anybody. I was just shooting what was in front of me. I was a visual artist and I had a natural instinct to create symmetry and balance visually.
J-Source: Your world must have changed quite a bit after you got into Magnum. What did your folks think of all this?
LT: They didn’t care. They didn’t pay any attention to me and they had their own problems. My parents were very working class. The idea of travelling was very foreign to them. My dad never went anywhere and neither did my mom. They raised eight children and were quite poor and we lived on a little farm. My dad was an auto body repairman. He had a grade-school education. So the fact that I went to university was something. But in the 1970s that was normal because there were government grants for students and because of my parents’ income, a lot of the student assistance I got— half of it—was grants. They didn’t know what university was really. They didn’t care. When I came back from India I lived on a raft for over two years. And never once did my dad ever say, “What are you going to do for a living?” Never asked me. They just let me go.
J-Source: Who at Magnum helped or taught you the most?
LT: Well, this is what I used to do. I would go on a trip, shoot film, process the film, make work prints and then I would bring them to New York. So I got to know those photographers, Gene Richards, Alex Webb, Susan Meiselas. I would show my pictures to them and they would edit with me, say, “I like this one, don’t like that one.” Then I’d shuffle the pictures up and I’d give the same stack to another photographer and I would ask them to sort them—which ones do you like, which ones don’t you like? I would say that the collective process of editing, which is a very important process, helped formulate my visual language. There were certain photographers I became more close to. Josef Koudelka has always been someone I respect greatly. He’s an incredibly dedicated photographer. Completely non-commercial. Really a man of his own vision. He’s an enigma. He was quite supportive and still is. He still helps me sometimes edit my books. Doing that helped improve my photography a lot. Meeting everyone and getting to know people as friends helps. If I wouldn’t have gotten into Magnum back then I probably wouldn’t even be a photographer today. Because it was the association that drove me and turned me from a poet to a journalist.
J-Source: You’ve covered natural and man-made disasters, conflicts and social issues. And yet you’ve said photographing your children has been the most difficult. (Towell lives on and share crops a small farm in southwestern Ontario). Can you explain?
LT: No, I don’t want to explain it. I travel but I stay home a lot for a photojournalist—because I have kids and that means something to me. I’m still married to the same person that I started out with many decades ago. I tend to work on long-term projects and I work slowly because of that.
J-Source: You’ve said you shoot for history’s sake, that you shouldn’t produce work that gets stale in a day. How does one do that?
LT: If I was racing against the 24-hour deadline I wouldn’t be doing what I do. I don’t even try to cover current events for the sake of the news. It’s dead in a day and you just spend your life running on a treadmill. Independent photographers can’t do that. If we’re freelance, you shouldn’t be even trying. Let the people who’ve got full-time jobs and get their paycheque do that and as long as they get the picture they’re going to be happy. But what’s it going to be worth in 10 or 20 years? So I try and shoot with a perspective of time that is a little more long-term. Part of the problem is we live in a world where everyone expects immediate results. I’m just not like that.
J-Source: Many daily newspapers are now asking their photographers to gather sound and video while taking pictures, which is something you’ve been doing for years. What are your thoughts on multimedia?
LT: Yes. I’ve been doing that long before it was popular. But I’m a musician, you know. So sound has always been important to me, and I’ve always collected sound. I have a library of sound. My first projects were people talking and people’s testimonies. I started carrying a video camera and tapes. When the first (audio) DAT recorder was invented, I bought one and it revolutionized my ability to collect sound in the field. A pair of headphones brings you into another world. I’ve always been a mixed media personality and I bring them together in different forms. But yeah, I did it before it was a fad and now it’s in demand and anybody working as a still photographer also has to be multimedia.
J-Source: Do you like what you’re seeing?
LT: I’m not paying a whole lot of attention. There’s an awful lot of it. Yeah, sure, there’s some very interesting work going on out there. I mentioned Jerome Sessini. His little film about Syria got some sort of World Press Award last year. Boy, it brings you right there. There’s nothing fancy about it. Movement and sound just bring a different dimension to what you do but it definitely changes the nature of what you do and sometimes the nature of how you photograph. One positive thing about the digital revolution is that it has allowed everyone to be a portable recording studio in the field. But the question is, what do you do with it when you have it? How can you really make it work? And what is it worth because there’s so much of it?
J-Source: What are you working on right now?
LT: I just sent the artwork to Aperture and they’re publishing my work on Afghanistan, photographed between 2008 and 2011. It’s going to be a pretty unusual book. I made it with all fibre prints and colour prints taped to the page and written on with a pencil. So it’s going to look like a work book, more like an object than an ordinary photo book. In my life I have a number of projects going on simultaneously. Some are on the front burner, some are on the back burner. Right now I’m working on an Idle No More project and another project in Toronto. I’m working on a film and working on some family things. I’m always working on a lot of stuff. But Afghanistan is on the front burner. I’m finishing up writing the text. It’s mostly experiential. But it’s also analysis of this disastrous war, through my eyes, which I’m sure I’ll be drawn and quartered for. It comes out this fall.
J-Source: Is there anything you’d like to cover that you haven’t yet?
LT: I just want to be able to continue to work until I die. I’m 60 years old. People around me are dropping like flies and those who aren’t, they are talking about retiring. It never even enters my mind. Dying does enter my mind but certainly not retiring. I just want to continue to do what I do until I die. Just keep my ear to the ground and try and have an opinion and the only way you can have an informed opinion is going and looking. Given all that's happening in the Ukraine I might just drop things and go. I think I would relate to that story, but I’ve never been there. I’m fleshing it out right now. I have a little window of opportunity. I’m also meeting with a filmmaker and I think in the next year or two I'm going to make a film using the audio and video material I've collected in the field from Afghanistan, Haiti, Rwanda and other places of conflict and social turmoil. It's currently just gathering dust waiting to do something.
J-Source: Anything you’d like to add?
LT: As I said, when I started there wasn’t anybody doing what I’m doing in Canada. Fortunately for me, Magnum took me on and beat me about until I became a photojournalist. Today I look around and there’s some really good work. There are good Canadian photographers out there now—Don Weber. Louie Palu. Lana Slezic, Rita Leistner—lots of Canadians that are sticking their neck out and I find that very encouraging. And I think that list is growing. Even though it is in many ways very difficult to be a freelance photographer, it’s the best career a person can have.
https://j-source.ca/article/a-visio...towell-canadas-first-member-of-magnum-photos/
Tamara Baluja
15-19 minutes
He rarely touches Twitter or Facebook, doesn’t own a cell phone and shoots mostly on film. And yet, midway through his seventh decade, Larry Towell remains one of the best and busiest photojournalists in the world. Towell, the first Canadian member of the world’s most prestigious photo agency, Magnum Photos, recently took the time to tell photojournalism editor Mark Taylor how he got started, what he's working on now, and why he’ll never stop.
J-Source: How’s your day going?
Larry Towell: Pretty good. I’m just looking at work. Do you know Jerome Sessini? He’s our newest Magnum nominee. He’s just uploaded work. He’s been travelling in Mexico with vigilantes re-taking towns from the drug cartels. It’s quite amazing. There are a number of photographers who are working in Mexico with the drug wars, but he has a way of getting extremely close to the situation. I met him in the Middle East 10 or 15 years ago when he was just starting out. He hung around with me and, lo and behold, last summer he applied to Magnum and he got in. I’m just looking at his work here and it’s great. He just has a way of getting very close to the action. He has a way of working with people.
J-Source: Is that something you look for?
LT: If a person is shooting hard news, conflict, civil disasters, upheavals, those sorts of things, I look for a connection between the photographer and the subject so it’s not just a sense that the photographer is being voyeuristic. But also an ability to photograph things as they unfold, the desire to want to document history in the making. But it depends on the story. That’s not just what photojournalism is about. It’s documenting people and what they’re going through. For me, more than anything, I think a photojournalist’s core has to be moral. If it’s not, I think it’s going to become pretty clear.
J-Source: Let’s start at the beginning. What was your very first interaction with photography?
LT: I never really paid much attention to photography when I was young. I didn’t want to be a photographer. It wasn’t my ambition. I studied visual arts. Photography was part of the visual arts program but it was certainly not photojournalism. It was art photography. I never cared about photography. It’s people I care about.
J-Source: When did you get serious about photography?
LT: When I got out of university I realized that I didn’t want to be an artist. So I did some volunteer work in India and that started me asking questions about the balance of power in the world and the distribution of wealth. Then, during the Reagan years, I went to Central America on a human rights fact-finding mission. Then photography became serious because I was dealing with human lives and photography gave me the excuse to be there and it allowed me to interact with the type of people I wanted to interact with—people I found inspirational. People standing up, trying to make their voices heard, screaming against dictatorships.
J-Source: At this point you were a writer doing oral histories right?
LT: For my first books, yes. I carried around tape recorders and I started interviewing people and photographing a little bit. I was writing poetry. I wanted to be a creative writer. I was struggling with language. In those years there wasn’t anybody to look up to for me. There weren’t any Canadian photojournalists. So I never even thought of that really. Canada was more of a culture of literature. And it was much easier to get a book published or do a project in creative writing than it was in photography. Poets and writers were being funded by the government. But photography was not. Photography was very stagnant in Canada. When I went to Central America I realized there was a horrible war going on and a media disinformation campaign going on and I wanted to be a part of the process of presenting some language that demonstrated that a lot of what we were hearing were lies.
J-Source: So at that point your photography experience was just art school?
LT: Yes, art school. Good teachers, but I wasn’t encouraged to go out into the world. I was encouraged to make art in my studio. I realized that was a very shallow existence, at least for me. By examining human rights and interviewing people—campesinos, labour unions, students, people like that—who were being repressed and being killed, and killed by death squads, and meeting relatives of the disappeared. My first contact with that world was stimulating to say the least. Photography gave me the excuse to be there and I started photographing.
J-Source: So you come home and send a portfolio to Magnum. Can you tell me that story?
LT: I didn’t know about Magnum.I wasn’t very aware of photography but I’d heard of them. I didn’t know any of them and I didn’t know their work. So I was figuring out what to do with my work and I called information in New York and they told me Magnum’s phone number. I phoned them up and asked if they were interested in seeing my pictures. The secretary said to send in a carousel of work. I didn’t know it but the photographers were having their annual meeting then and the photographers at Magnum looked at it. It was my early work from Central America and they invited me to come and join.
J-Source: So at that point in your life how many roles of film had you shot?
LT: Not much. I was writing more. Film was expensive and I was pretty poor. My first trip to India I shot 40 rolls in three months. Then when I went to Nicaragua and Central America, I doubt that I’d have been shooting a roll a day.
J-Source: How long were you there?
LT: I went there three or four times. My first trip I was there for three months.
J-Source: So not a lot. That’s incredible.
LT: Yes but that was the days of film. My grandmother was a better photographer than my mother was and better than my daughter, or even me. They shot film very selectively so the pictures counted. Today, with digital photography, it’s just like shooting a machine gun in the air and you miss just about everything. If you’re not concentrating, you’re going to get a different picture.
J-Source: Do you think it helped that you hadn’t been exposed to a lot of photography?
LT: I wasn’t trying to copy anybody. I was just shooting what was in front of me. I was a visual artist and I had a natural instinct to create symmetry and balance visually.
J-Source: Your world must have changed quite a bit after you got into Magnum. What did your folks think of all this?
LT: They didn’t care. They didn’t pay any attention to me and they had their own problems. My parents were very working class. The idea of travelling was very foreign to them. My dad never went anywhere and neither did my mom. They raised eight children and were quite poor and we lived on a little farm. My dad was an auto body repairman. He had a grade-school education. So the fact that I went to university was something. But in the 1970s that was normal because there were government grants for students and because of my parents’ income, a lot of the student assistance I got— half of it—was grants. They didn’t know what university was really. They didn’t care. When I came back from India I lived on a raft for over two years. And never once did my dad ever say, “What are you going to do for a living?” Never asked me. They just let me go.
J-Source: Who at Magnum helped or taught you the most?
LT: Well, this is what I used to do. I would go on a trip, shoot film, process the film, make work prints and then I would bring them to New York. So I got to know those photographers, Gene Richards, Alex Webb, Susan Meiselas. I would show my pictures to them and they would edit with me, say, “I like this one, don’t like that one.” Then I’d shuffle the pictures up and I’d give the same stack to another photographer and I would ask them to sort them—which ones do you like, which ones don’t you like? I would say that the collective process of editing, which is a very important process, helped formulate my visual language. There were certain photographers I became more close to. Josef Koudelka has always been someone I respect greatly. He’s an incredibly dedicated photographer. Completely non-commercial. Really a man of his own vision. He’s an enigma. He was quite supportive and still is. He still helps me sometimes edit my books. Doing that helped improve my photography a lot. Meeting everyone and getting to know people as friends helps. If I wouldn’t have gotten into Magnum back then I probably wouldn’t even be a photographer today. Because it was the association that drove me and turned me from a poet to a journalist.
J-Source: You’ve covered natural and man-made disasters, conflicts and social issues. And yet you’ve said photographing your children has been the most difficult. (Towell lives on and share crops a small farm in southwestern Ontario). Can you explain?
LT: No, I don’t want to explain it. I travel but I stay home a lot for a photojournalist—because I have kids and that means something to me. I’m still married to the same person that I started out with many decades ago. I tend to work on long-term projects and I work slowly because of that.
J-Source: You’ve said you shoot for history’s sake, that you shouldn’t produce work that gets stale in a day. How does one do that?
LT: If I was racing against the 24-hour deadline I wouldn’t be doing what I do. I don’t even try to cover current events for the sake of the news. It’s dead in a day and you just spend your life running on a treadmill. Independent photographers can’t do that. If we’re freelance, you shouldn’t be even trying. Let the people who’ve got full-time jobs and get their paycheque do that and as long as they get the picture they’re going to be happy. But what’s it going to be worth in 10 or 20 years? So I try and shoot with a perspective of time that is a little more long-term. Part of the problem is we live in a world where everyone expects immediate results. I’m just not like that.
J-Source: Many daily newspapers are now asking their photographers to gather sound and video while taking pictures, which is something you’ve been doing for years. What are your thoughts on multimedia?
LT: Yes. I’ve been doing that long before it was popular. But I’m a musician, you know. So sound has always been important to me, and I’ve always collected sound. I have a library of sound. My first projects were people talking and people’s testimonies. I started carrying a video camera and tapes. When the first (audio) DAT recorder was invented, I bought one and it revolutionized my ability to collect sound in the field. A pair of headphones brings you into another world. I’ve always been a mixed media personality and I bring them together in different forms. But yeah, I did it before it was a fad and now it’s in demand and anybody working as a still photographer also has to be multimedia.
J-Source: Do you like what you’re seeing?
LT: I’m not paying a whole lot of attention. There’s an awful lot of it. Yeah, sure, there’s some very interesting work going on out there. I mentioned Jerome Sessini. His little film about Syria got some sort of World Press Award last year. Boy, it brings you right there. There’s nothing fancy about it. Movement and sound just bring a different dimension to what you do but it definitely changes the nature of what you do and sometimes the nature of how you photograph. One positive thing about the digital revolution is that it has allowed everyone to be a portable recording studio in the field. But the question is, what do you do with it when you have it? How can you really make it work? And what is it worth because there’s so much of it?
J-Source: What are you working on right now?
LT: I just sent the artwork to Aperture and they’re publishing my work on Afghanistan, photographed between 2008 and 2011. It’s going to be a pretty unusual book. I made it with all fibre prints and colour prints taped to the page and written on with a pencil. So it’s going to look like a work book, more like an object than an ordinary photo book. In my life I have a number of projects going on simultaneously. Some are on the front burner, some are on the back burner. Right now I’m working on an Idle No More project and another project in Toronto. I’m working on a film and working on some family things. I’m always working on a lot of stuff. But Afghanistan is on the front burner. I’m finishing up writing the text. It’s mostly experiential. But it’s also analysis of this disastrous war, through my eyes, which I’m sure I’ll be drawn and quartered for. It comes out this fall.
J-Source: Is there anything you’d like to cover that you haven’t yet?
LT: I just want to be able to continue to work until I die. I’m 60 years old. People around me are dropping like flies and those who aren’t, they are talking about retiring. It never even enters my mind. Dying does enter my mind but certainly not retiring. I just want to continue to do what I do until I die. Just keep my ear to the ground and try and have an opinion and the only way you can have an informed opinion is going and looking. Given all that's happening in the Ukraine I might just drop things and go. I think I would relate to that story, but I’ve never been there. I’m fleshing it out right now. I have a little window of opportunity. I’m also meeting with a filmmaker and I think in the next year or two I'm going to make a film using the audio and video material I've collected in the field from Afghanistan, Haiti, Rwanda and other places of conflict and social turmoil. It's currently just gathering dust waiting to do something.
J-Source: Anything you’d like to add?
LT: As I said, when I started there wasn’t anybody doing what I’m doing in Canada. Fortunately for me, Magnum took me on and beat me about until I became a photojournalist. Today I look around and there’s some really good work. There are good Canadian photographers out there now—Don Weber. Louie Palu. Lana Slezic, Rita Leistner—lots of Canadians that are sticking their neck out and I find that very encouraging. And I think that list is growing. Even though it is in many ways very difficult to be a freelance photographer, it’s the best career a person can have.
https://j-source.ca/article/a-visio...towell-canadas-first-member-of-magnum-photos/
PKR
Mentor
I found this troubling. I don't know David Harvey but, know and enjoy his work.
It seems, there are two separate incidents involved here and that, the suspension was caused by a comment made to a female staffer?
I understand that, there is some division among Magnum members over the incident and the punishment issued to Harvey.
Following Investigation, Magnum Photos Suspends David Alan Harvey for One Year
Oct 29, 2020
Jaron Schneider
Fstoppers
PetaPixel
Earlier this year, the Magnum Photos agency suspended prominent photojournalist David Alan Harvey indefinitely pending an investigation into a historical allegation. Today that suspension was made punitive and given the timeline of one year.
According to a press release, Magnum Photos temporarily suspended Harvey’s membership with the agency immediately after it received a specific allegation following a past incident involving the sale of images of teenage sex workers in 1989. Harvey has denied that the images from 1989 depict sexually exploited children.
The details of this particular incident have never been made public, but Magnum clarified to PetaPixel previously that the suspension was related entirely to Harvey’s personal conduct and not related in any way to the incident in 1989.
Magnum has stated that “following a thorough investigation carried out by an independent investigator,” the agency’s board and legal counsel concluded that Harvey had breached its code of conduct and by-laws.
A year-long suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction for Mr Harvey’s breach of the bylaws and the code of conduct that all members adopted in 2018. This decision affirms Magnum’s ongoing commitment to create a culture of dignity and respect, free of inappropriate conduct within the organisation and among the photographic community.
In addition to the suspension, Harvey has been asked by Magnum to willingly engage in sensitivity and anti-harassment training “among other requirements.”
In seeking to improve transparency, an independent speak-up hotline with Safecall has been established and Magnum’s policies regarding conduct and acceptable behaviour are being further strengthened.
It should be noted that it has been reported that Magnum refuses to publish its code of conduct, citing that it is a confidential Human Resouces document.
When the original suspension was announced, Harvey’s profile on Magnum’s website was still active. As of publication, his profile has been removed.
Magnum has made public precious few details in this case, so it is difficult to scrutinize the organization’s decision or the merit of the one-year suspension – this is likely strategic. No details of which code of conduct or by-laws were breached were provided. Giving the public little information into the details of this case prevents Magnum from coming under fire for either being too harsh or too lenient on Harvey. It is unlikely we will learn more about the details of this case, and Harvey will very likely resume his membership with Magnum next year.
(Via Fstoppers)
https://petapixel.com/2020/10/29/fo...otos-suspends-david-alan-harvey-for-one-year/
It seems, there are two separate incidents involved here and that, the suspension was caused by a comment made to a female staffer?
I understand that, there is some division among Magnum members over the incident and the punishment issued to Harvey.
Following Investigation, Magnum Photos Suspends David Alan Harvey for One Year
Oct 29, 2020
Jaron Schneider
Fstoppers
PetaPixel
Earlier this year, the Magnum Photos agency suspended prominent photojournalist David Alan Harvey indefinitely pending an investigation into a historical allegation. Today that suspension was made punitive and given the timeline of one year.
According to a press release, Magnum Photos temporarily suspended Harvey’s membership with the agency immediately after it received a specific allegation following a past incident involving the sale of images of teenage sex workers in 1989. Harvey has denied that the images from 1989 depict sexually exploited children.
The details of this particular incident have never been made public, but Magnum clarified to PetaPixel previously that the suspension was related entirely to Harvey’s personal conduct and not related in any way to the incident in 1989.
Magnum has stated that “following a thorough investigation carried out by an independent investigator,” the agency’s board and legal counsel concluded that Harvey had breached its code of conduct and by-laws.
A year-long suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction for Mr Harvey’s breach of the bylaws and the code of conduct that all members adopted in 2018. This decision affirms Magnum’s ongoing commitment to create a culture of dignity and respect, free of inappropriate conduct within the organisation and among the photographic community.
In addition to the suspension, Harvey has been asked by Magnum to willingly engage in sensitivity and anti-harassment training “among other requirements.”
In seeking to improve transparency, an independent speak-up hotline with Safecall has been established and Magnum’s policies regarding conduct and acceptable behaviour are being further strengthened.
It should be noted that it has been reported that Magnum refuses to publish its code of conduct, citing that it is a confidential Human Resouces document.
When the original suspension was announced, Harvey’s profile on Magnum’s website was still active. As of publication, his profile has been removed.
Magnum has made public precious few details in this case, so it is difficult to scrutinize the organization’s decision or the merit of the one-year suspension – this is likely strategic. No details of which code of conduct or by-laws were breached were provided. Giving the public little information into the details of this case prevents Magnum from coming under fire for either being too harsh or too lenient on Harvey. It is unlikely we will learn more about the details of this case, and Harvey will very likely resume his membership with Magnum next year.
(Via Fstoppers)
https://petapixel.com/2020/10/29/fo...otos-suspends-david-alan-harvey-for-one-year/
PKR
Mentor
Company Update: 28 October 2020 | Magnum Photos
- Written by BrunoB · Oct 28, 2020
2 minutes
Magnum Photos has announced that David Alan Harvey has been suspended for a period of one year – with conditions attached to any reinstatement – following a formal investigation into an historical allegation.
Magnum temporarily suspended Mr. Harvey’s membership immediately after it received the specific allegation in August 2020. After a thorough investigation carried out by an independent investigator, Magnum’s board, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, concluded that the behaviour represented a breach of its code of conduct and by-laws.
A year-long suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction for Mr Harvey’s breach of the bylaws and the code of conduct that all members adopted in 2018. This decision affirms Magnum’s ongoing commitment to create a culture of dignity and respect, free of inappropriate conduct within the organisation and among the photographic community.
Mr Harvey has been asked to engage willingly in sensitivity and anti-harassment training among other requirements.
In seeking to improve transparency, an independent speak-up hotline with Safecall has been established and Magnum’s policies regarding conduct and acceptable behaviour are being further strengthened.
https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/company-update-28-october-2020/
- Written by BrunoB · Oct 28, 2020
2 minutes
Magnum Photos has announced that David Alan Harvey has been suspended for a period of one year – with conditions attached to any reinstatement – following a formal investigation into an historical allegation.
Magnum temporarily suspended Mr. Harvey’s membership immediately after it received the specific allegation in August 2020. After a thorough investigation carried out by an independent investigator, Magnum’s board, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, concluded that the behaviour represented a breach of its code of conduct and by-laws.
A year-long suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction for Mr Harvey’s breach of the bylaws and the code of conduct that all members adopted in 2018. This decision affirms Magnum’s ongoing commitment to create a culture of dignity and respect, free of inappropriate conduct within the organisation and among the photographic community.
Mr Harvey has been asked to engage willingly in sensitivity and anti-harassment training among other requirements.
In seeking to improve transparency, an independent speak-up hotline with Safecall has been established and Magnum’s policies regarding conduct and acceptable behaviour are being further strengthened.
https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/company-update-28-october-2020/
PKR
Mentor
Will Magnum Answer These Questions About Potential Child Sexual Abuse Images?
by Andy Day
7-9 minutes
It emerged on Thursday that Magnum Photos may have been selling photographs of child sexual abuse for more than 30 years. Until it can answer some critical questions about its past and how it runs its business, its reputation is under threat.
Discovered in Magnum’s archive a few days ago was a series of photographs by David Alan Harvey from his time spent with sex workers in Bangkok in 1989. Several of the photographs were sexually explicit, appeared to feature child nudity and were tagged with keywords “Teenage girl - 13 to 18 years.” Magnum has since stated that it understands that these images are “inappropriate” and has removed them from its website. When asked if it acknowledged that these sexually explicit photographs of children constituted child sexual abuse, it declined to comment.
Lots more at the link
https://fstoppers.com/originals/mag...wn-until-it-can-answer-these-questions-505078
by Andy Day
7-9 minutes
It emerged on Thursday that Magnum Photos may have been selling photographs of child sexual abuse for more than 30 years. Until it can answer some critical questions about its past and how it runs its business, its reputation is under threat.
Discovered in Magnum’s archive a few days ago was a series of photographs by David Alan Harvey from his time spent with sex workers in Bangkok in 1989. Several of the photographs were sexually explicit, appeared to feature child nudity and were tagged with keywords “Teenage girl - 13 to 18 years.” Magnum has since stated that it understands that these images are “inappropriate” and has removed them from its website. When asked if it acknowledged that these sexually explicit photographs of children constituted child sexual abuse, it declined to comment.
Lots more at the link
https://fstoppers.com/originals/mag...wn-until-it-can-answer-these-questions-505078
Larry H-L
Well-known
An interesting and well done piece in the Detroit Free Press about photographer Mary Schroeder, the first woman photographer inducted into the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame.
https://www.freep.com/story/sports/...bson-michigan-sports-hall-of-fame/3923080001/
https://www.freep.com/story/sports/...bson-michigan-sports-hall-of-fame/3923080001/
PKR
Mentor
The following article, while it may not be of interest to the Camera People here, may be of interest to the Picture People.
This is a Tech piece, addressing the image quality differences in Full frame and larger vs APSC camera systems. It was published by PetaPixel. You'll find photo examples and the full article at the link.
https://petapixel.com/2020/12/31/camera-gear-overkill-why-bigger-and-faster-is-not-always-better/
Camera Gear 'Overkill': Why Bigger and Faster Is Not Always Better
Full frame and medium format systems can produce images of greater quality than APS-C. But that greater quality is rarely perceived, even in very large prints. I call it “overkill” because we cannot perceive the advantage of this more expensive and heavier equipment.
Author’s note: Dear Reader, The article below may initially appear to contain my opinions. But I ask you to read closely. There are no opinions in this article. Only facts. Sincerely yours, Alan.
Comparing Image Quality of APS-C and Full Frame
It’s widely thought that large prints are where larger sensors might be perceived as better. There are many online articles and discussions which address the question, “At what print size does full frame quality perceivably surpass APS-C?” But these discussions are rarely backed up with actual tests.
This comparison, by Norwegian professional photographer and photography teacher/author Magnar W. Fjørtoft, is backed up with a real test. He shot this scene of a shipyard containing great detail at f/8 on his old 12mp APS-C camera and his brand new 24mp full frame camera.
He printed each photo 43″ wide and asked a group of 30 photo professionals and enthusiasts to write down which camera shot each print. Was it the 12mp APS-C or the 24mp full frame? They were allowed to examine the prints as closely as they wished.
Only 50% of their calls were correct, which is the same a flipping a coin. Magnar said that he himself could not detect a difference between the prints and had to label them on the back “A” and “B” to keep track of which was which.
He briefly described the comparison here. However, he kindly sent me a more detailed description and this actual test image. He is very experienced at printing images for maximum possible quality and took great care in producing the comparison prints. After printing both images, Magnar wrote, “We simply could not believe our eyes! Then we laughed and laughed. We could not spot any differences!”
Magnar and his colleagues compared 12mp APS-C and 24mp full frame cameras. My discussion which follows compares 24mp APS-C and full frame, which brings the APS-C image quality much closer to full frame.
There are also arguments that we won’t perceive a difference with even larger prints, because we view larger prints from farther away.
My Comparisons of APS-C and the Highest Resolution Full Frame
The bookshelf below was shot with a Sony a6400 (24mp APS-C) and a Sony a7R IV (61MP full frame). The a7R IV is the highest resolution full frame camera available at the time of this writing (December 2020). Thus it has the greatest available resolution advantage over APS-C. Both cameras used the same Sony 90mm f/2.8 macro lens, which is one of the sharpest lenses available for these cameras. The aperture was set at f/5.6.
This is the complete frame:
The full frame camera was moved closer to the subject so that both images had the same field of view. The original images are available for you to download and study.
For the image below I reduced the full frame image to about 67% so both images have the same number of pixels. Reductions like this increase image quality. Then I cropped a 1,000-pixel wide center from each camera’s image and placed them on the same background. Viewing this on a 15″ laptop, these cropped images simulate viewing the center of a print 42″ wide.
The upper image was taken with APS-C and the lower image was taken with full frame. I cannot see a difference. Download the original images here: Sony a6400 and Sony a7R IV. Can you see a difference?
Comparison at High ISO
The above comparison is 24mp APS-C to 61mp full frame. Both sensors have about the same pixel size and thus the same noise.
But what about comparing 24mp APS-C to 24mp FF? In this case, the resolutions are identical, but the FF pixels are larger and will have lower noise, but only at high ISO.
These images are taken from DPReview‘s Studio Scene comparison tool. The image on the left is from a 24mp a6400 and the right is from a 24mp a7 III. Both are ISO 6400, which is higher than I can recall ever shooting.
Upon close inspection, the full frame image has slightly lower noise. But each of these image crops is only one-tenth of the 6000 pixel-wide image. Step back about four feet as if you are looking at a 30- to 40-inch wide print, ten times wider than each face. The noise difference between these images is not perceivable at viewing distance.
Full Frame Depth of Field for Portraits
A fallacious argument in favor of full frame over APS-C is that it has shallower depth of field for portraits. But opening your APS-C lens one stop greater than the FF lens will match its depth of field. For example, an APS-C camera with a 50mm lens at f/2 and an FF camera with a 75mm lens at f/2.8 have the same field of view and depth of field.
Telephoto Reach for Wildlife Photography
Recently I sought a camera body for bird photography and considered 24mp APS-C and 24mp full frame. Although both have the same number of pixels, the pixels are spaced farther apart on the full frame sensor. With the same telephoto lens, a bird would be only 67% as many pixels high on a 24MP FF sensor as it would be on a 24MP APS-C sensor. Thus, for this situation, full frame is inferior to APS-C.
I also considered the highest resolution full frame camera available, the 61mp Sony a7R IV which has 266 pixels per mm. But 24mp APS-C has 256 pixels per mm so they are almost equal. With a given telephoto lens, a bird would have nearly the same height in pixels on both sensors. But I always crop away surrounding imagery to emphasize the bird. So with this full frame camera, I’d just crop away more surrounding imagery.
Summary
When comparing image quality of 24mp APS-C and 61mp full frame, the greater resolution of full frame is not perceivable.
When comparing image quality of 24mp APS-C and 24mp full frame cameras, they only differ at very high ISO, such as 6400. But the small difference is not perceivable at ordinary viewing distance.
The oft-cited shallower depth of field “advantage” of full frame over APS-C vanishes when the APS-C lens is opened one stop larger than the full frame lens.
All currently available full frame cameras except the 61mp Sony a7R IV have coarser pixel spacing than 24mp APS-C cameras and thus have inferior telephoto reach for wildlife photography.
If we cannot perceive the greater quality of full frame over APS-C, it is unlikely that we can perceive the greater quality of medium format over APS-C. But let’s leave that question to future comparisons.
What About Micro Four Thirds?
You might ask, “If APS-C is so good, what about Micro Four Thirds?”. Although I don’t own this system, I’ve studied many resolution tests, and sample photos. The image quality usually falls slightly short of APS-C and full frame. Perhaps that’s because the lenses aren’t capable of sharply resolving the 300 pixels per millimeter sensors.
The argument for Micro Four Thirds rigs is light weight. However, the birding kits of camera plus telephoto lens that I’ve studied are not lighter than my APS-C. For example, my birding kit of Sony a6400 (403) grams and Sony 70-350 zoom (625g) weighs 1,028 grams. The equivalent Panasonic G9 (658g) kit with 100-300 zoom lens (520g) weighs 1,178 grams. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 III body is a bit lighter at 580g for a total kit weight of 1,100 grams, but it is still heavier than my APS-C kit. Note too that the Four Thirds bodies are heavier than my APS-C body.
More Overkill – Wasted Lens Speed
A lot of money and muscle are wasted on fast macro and portrait lenses. But their depth of field at large apertures is too shallow for the intended application.
Fast Macro Lenses
In macro photography, we always struggle for depth of field. Experienced photographers use f/16 and f/22. So if we shoot macro at f/16 and f/22, why are our macro lenses f/2.0 and f/22? This unused speed adds substantial cost and weight to macro lenses.
Some photographers avoid small apertures due to concern about diffraction. But slight softness due to diffraction is insignificant compared to the blurry images resulting from shallow depth of field. Also, diffraction effects are easily remedied with sharpening in edit. I ran macro tests which showed that diffraction was not perceivable at f/16 or wider apertures. Diffraction was barely perceivable at f/22 but easily sharpened in edit.
Sony a6400 with Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8 macro lens. f/8 (left), f/22 (center), and f/22 sharpened (right).
Each of these three squares is 1200 pixels wide, which is one-fifth of the 6000-pixel wide frame. The entire image would be about 15″ wide at this scale. I had to blow it up to double that size to see slight diffraction softening in the f/22 frame. And a bit of sharpening eliminated that. Yet photography gurus are constantly warning us about diffraction.
Focus stacking is sometimes done to increase depth of field in macro work, but stacks are not comprised of f/2.8 shots. f/16 would be a typical choice for stacking.
Depth of field increases with distance squared. So I just increase the distance when I want more depth. It’s very easy and very effective. Doubling the distance increases the depth of field by 4X.
Fast Portrait Lenses
f/1.4 has become the “must-have” aperture for portrait lenses. But the depth of field at f/1.4 is too shallow for a human face. A depth of 36mm is required to sharply capture the nose and the eyes. But an 85mm f/1.4 lens shooting a head shot from one meter has a depth of only 9mm. f/5.6 is required to sharply capture the tip of the nose and the eyes. f/16 is required to sharply capture the depth from the nose to the ears.
Fujifilm recently announced a $1,500, 50mm f/1.0 lens that weighs almost two pounds. The title of their announcement clearly states that portraits are the intended use of this lens, “Heralding a new age of portrait photography”. But a head shot with this lens has a depth of field of 5mm at f/1.0. That’s about the length of an eyelash.
I’ve asked what aperture professionals use for portraits. f/4 and f/5.6 are common answers. But much smaller apertures such as f/11 will completely isolate the head when the background is distant.
This portrait was shot at f/11.
About the author: Alan Adler lives in Los Altos, California. He has been an avid photographer for 60 years. He is also a well-known inventor with about 40 patents. His best-known inventions are the Aerobie flying ring and the AeroPress coffee maker.
This is a Tech piece, addressing the image quality differences in Full frame and larger vs APSC camera systems. It was published by PetaPixel. You'll find photo examples and the full article at the link.
https://petapixel.com/2020/12/31/camera-gear-overkill-why-bigger-and-faster-is-not-always-better/
Camera Gear 'Overkill': Why Bigger and Faster Is Not Always Better
Full frame and medium format systems can produce images of greater quality than APS-C. But that greater quality is rarely perceived, even in very large prints. I call it “overkill” because we cannot perceive the advantage of this more expensive and heavier equipment.
Author’s note: Dear Reader, The article below may initially appear to contain my opinions. But I ask you to read closely. There are no opinions in this article. Only facts. Sincerely yours, Alan.
Comparing Image Quality of APS-C and Full Frame
It’s widely thought that large prints are where larger sensors might be perceived as better. There are many online articles and discussions which address the question, “At what print size does full frame quality perceivably surpass APS-C?” But these discussions are rarely backed up with actual tests.
This comparison, by Norwegian professional photographer and photography teacher/author Magnar W. Fjørtoft, is backed up with a real test. He shot this scene of a shipyard containing great detail at f/8 on his old 12mp APS-C camera and his brand new 24mp full frame camera.
He printed each photo 43″ wide and asked a group of 30 photo professionals and enthusiasts to write down which camera shot each print. Was it the 12mp APS-C or the 24mp full frame? They were allowed to examine the prints as closely as they wished.
Only 50% of their calls were correct, which is the same a flipping a coin. Magnar said that he himself could not detect a difference between the prints and had to label them on the back “A” and “B” to keep track of which was which.
He briefly described the comparison here. However, he kindly sent me a more detailed description and this actual test image. He is very experienced at printing images for maximum possible quality and took great care in producing the comparison prints. After printing both images, Magnar wrote, “We simply could not believe our eyes! Then we laughed and laughed. We could not spot any differences!”
Magnar and his colleagues compared 12mp APS-C and 24mp full frame cameras. My discussion which follows compares 24mp APS-C and full frame, which brings the APS-C image quality much closer to full frame.
There are also arguments that we won’t perceive a difference with even larger prints, because we view larger prints from farther away.
My Comparisons of APS-C and the Highest Resolution Full Frame
The bookshelf below was shot with a Sony a6400 (24mp APS-C) and a Sony a7R IV (61MP full frame). The a7R IV is the highest resolution full frame camera available at the time of this writing (December 2020). Thus it has the greatest available resolution advantage over APS-C. Both cameras used the same Sony 90mm f/2.8 macro lens, which is one of the sharpest lenses available for these cameras. The aperture was set at f/5.6.
This is the complete frame:
The full frame camera was moved closer to the subject so that both images had the same field of view. The original images are available for you to download and study.
For the image below I reduced the full frame image to about 67% so both images have the same number of pixels. Reductions like this increase image quality. Then I cropped a 1,000-pixel wide center from each camera’s image and placed them on the same background. Viewing this on a 15″ laptop, these cropped images simulate viewing the center of a print 42″ wide.
The upper image was taken with APS-C and the lower image was taken with full frame. I cannot see a difference. Download the original images here: Sony a6400 and Sony a7R IV. Can you see a difference?
Comparison at High ISO
The above comparison is 24mp APS-C to 61mp full frame. Both sensors have about the same pixel size and thus the same noise.
But what about comparing 24mp APS-C to 24mp FF? In this case, the resolutions are identical, but the FF pixels are larger and will have lower noise, but only at high ISO.
These images are taken from DPReview‘s Studio Scene comparison tool. The image on the left is from a 24mp a6400 and the right is from a 24mp a7 III. Both are ISO 6400, which is higher than I can recall ever shooting.
Upon close inspection, the full frame image has slightly lower noise. But each of these image crops is only one-tenth of the 6000 pixel-wide image. Step back about four feet as if you are looking at a 30- to 40-inch wide print, ten times wider than each face. The noise difference between these images is not perceivable at viewing distance.
Full Frame Depth of Field for Portraits
A fallacious argument in favor of full frame over APS-C is that it has shallower depth of field for portraits. But opening your APS-C lens one stop greater than the FF lens will match its depth of field. For example, an APS-C camera with a 50mm lens at f/2 and an FF camera with a 75mm lens at f/2.8 have the same field of view and depth of field.
Telephoto Reach for Wildlife Photography
Recently I sought a camera body for bird photography and considered 24mp APS-C and 24mp full frame. Although both have the same number of pixels, the pixels are spaced farther apart on the full frame sensor. With the same telephoto lens, a bird would be only 67% as many pixels high on a 24MP FF sensor as it would be on a 24MP APS-C sensor. Thus, for this situation, full frame is inferior to APS-C.
I also considered the highest resolution full frame camera available, the 61mp Sony a7R IV which has 266 pixels per mm. But 24mp APS-C has 256 pixels per mm so they are almost equal. With a given telephoto lens, a bird would have nearly the same height in pixels on both sensors. But I always crop away surrounding imagery to emphasize the bird. So with this full frame camera, I’d just crop away more surrounding imagery.
Summary
When comparing image quality of 24mp APS-C and 61mp full frame, the greater resolution of full frame is not perceivable.
When comparing image quality of 24mp APS-C and 24mp full frame cameras, they only differ at very high ISO, such as 6400. But the small difference is not perceivable at ordinary viewing distance.
The oft-cited shallower depth of field “advantage” of full frame over APS-C vanishes when the APS-C lens is opened one stop larger than the full frame lens.
All currently available full frame cameras except the 61mp Sony a7R IV have coarser pixel spacing than 24mp APS-C cameras and thus have inferior telephoto reach for wildlife photography.
If we cannot perceive the greater quality of full frame over APS-C, it is unlikely that we can perceive the greater quality of medium format over APS-C. But let’s leave that question to future comparisons.
What About Micro Four Thirds?
You might ask, “If APS-C is so good, what about Micro Four Thirds?”. Although I don’t own this system, I’ve studied many resolution tests, and sample photos. The image quality usually falls slightly short of APS-C and full frame. Perhaps that’s because the lenses aren’t capable of sharply resolving the 300 pixels per millimeter sensors.
The argument for Micro Four Thirds rigs is light weight. However, the birding kits of camera plus telephoto lens that I’ve studied are not lighter than my APS-C. For example, my birding kit of Sony a6400 (403) grams and Sony 70-350 zoom (625g) weighs 1,028 grams. The equivalent Panasonic G9 (658g) kit with 100-300 zoom lens (520g) weighs 1,178 grams. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 III body is a bit lighter at 580g for a total kit weight of 1,100 grams, but it is still heavier than my APS-C kit. Note too that the Four Thirds bodies are heavier than my APS-C body.
More Overkill – Wasted Lens Speed
A lot of money and muscle are wasted on fast macro and portrait lenses. But their depth of field at large apertures is too shallow for the intended application.
Fast Macro Lenses
In macro photography, we always struggle for depth of field. Experienced photographers use f/16 and f/22. So if we shoot macro at f/16 and f/22, why are our macro lenses f/2.0 and f/22? This unused speed adds substantial cost and weight to macro lenses.
Some photographers avoid small apertures due to concern about diffraction. But slight softness due to diffraction is insignificant compared to the blurry images resulting from shallow depth of field. Also, diffraction effects are easily remedied with sharpening in edit. I ran macro tests which showed that diffraction was not perceivable at f/16 or wider apertures. Diffraction was barely perceivable at f/22 but easily sharpened in edit.
Sony a6400 with Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8 macro lens. f/8 (left), f/22 (center), and f/22 sharpened (right).
Each of these three squares is 1200 pixels wide, which is one-fifth of the 6000-pixel wide frame. The entire image would be about 15″ wide at this scale. I had to blow it up to double that size to see slight diffraction softening in the f/22 frame. And a bit of sharpening eliminated that. Yet photography gurus are constantly warning us about diffraction.
Focus stacking is sometimes done to increase depth of field in macro work, but stacks are not comprised of f/2.8 shots. f/16 would be a typical choice for stacking.
Depth of field increases with distance squared. So I just increase the distance when I want more depth. It’s very easy and very effective. Doubling the distance increases the depth of field by 4X.
Fast Portrait Lenses
f/1.4 has become the “must-have” aperture for portrait lenses. But the depth of field at f/1.4 is too shallow for a human face. A depth of 36mm is required to sharply capture the nose and the eyes. But an 85mm f/1.4 lens shooting a head shot from one meter has a depth of only 9mm. f/5.6 is required to sharply capture the tip of the nose and the eyes. f/16 is required to sharply capture the depth from the nose to the ears.
Fujifilm recently announced a $1,500, 50mm f/1.0 lens that weighs almost two pounds. The title of their announcement clearly states that portraits are the intended use of this lens, “Heralding a new age of portrait photography”. But a head shot with this lens has a depth of field of 5mm at f/1.0. That’s about the length of an eyelash.
I’ve asked what aperture professionals use for portraits. f/4 and f/5.6 are common answers. But much smaller apertures such as f/11 will completely isolate the head when the background is distant.
This portrait was shot at f/11.
About the author: Alan Adler lives in Los Altos, California. He has been an avid photographer for 60 years. He is also a well-known inventor with about 40 patents. His best-known inventions are the Aerobie flying ring and the AeroPress coffee maker.
willie_901
Mentor
The Petapixel article - "Camera Gear 'Overkill': Why Bigger and Faster Is Not Always Better"- is about more than just the relationship between sensor area and perceived image quality. The article unintentionally describes how perceived image quality depends on the all of the modulation transfer functions (MTF) relevant to producing, rendering and viewing an image. A qualitative description for MTF could be a quantitative estimate for information transmission capacity. For example, a lens with low resolution and, or contrast casts an image that has less information content compared to a lens with higher resolution and, or contrast. Likewise, raw data from a camera with a high signal-to-nose ratio (SNR) has a higher information content than one with a lower SNR.
“Perceived image quality… is proportional to a camera’s information capacity, which is a function of MTF (sharpness), noise, and artifacts arising from demosaicing, clipping (if present), and data compression.”
“The sharpness of a photographic imaging system or of a component of the system (lens, film, image sensor, scanner, enlarging lens, etc.) is characterized by a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), also known as spatial frequency response.”
“MTF is the spatial frequency response of an imaging system or a component; it is the contrast at a given spatial frequency relative to low frequencies.”
MTF is not a measure of absolute resolution, it is an estimate of perceived resolution. MTF50 is the spatial frequency where the perceived contrast decreases by 50%.
Though I decided to use an APS-C camera system, I don’t agree using larger, surface-area sensors is overkill. Sensor area is an important factor that determines a camera’s information capacity. I some cases this is a significant advantage. Still, increased sensor area alone can not assure superior perceived image quality. Other sensor assembly characteristics such as micro-lens array optics, color-filter array and IR filter properties also affect the information capacity.
It is not the least bit surprising ad-hoc evaluation of large prints does not reveal an advantage for increased sensor area and pixel density. The printer hardware, software, and media properties together limit a print’s MTF50. The same goes for comparing image quality on computer displays. How the image is viewed can negate MTF50 SNR and resolution advantages of how the image was produced.
My take on the Petapixel article is we should use cameras we enjoy using. Lenses are important too – use cameras that work well with lenses we enjoy. Use cameras whose information transmission capacity is well-suited to the task at hand. Sports, event, product, portrait and landscape photography benefit from prioritizing different kinds of information content (increased DOF despite increased diffraction, resolution, high dynamic range at the expense of sensitivity and vice-versa - to name just a few examples). Take care to maximize exposure (use the longest practical shutter times and apertures). Exposure is one of the most important components of information capacity. Needless underexposure by one stop of exposure halves information content.
“Perceived image quality… is proportional to a camera’s information capacity, which is a function of MTF (sharpness), noise, and artifacts arising from demosaicing, clipping (if present), and data compression.”
“The sharpness of a photographic imaging system or of a component of the system (lens, film, image sensor, scanner, enlarging lens, etc.) is characterized by a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), also known as spatial frequency response.”
“MTF is the spatial frequency response of an imaging system or a component; it is the contrast at a given spatial frequency relative to low frequencies.”
MTF is not a measure of absolute resolution, it is an estimate of perceived resolution. MTF50 is the spatial frequency where the perceived contrast decreases by 50%.
Though I decided to use an APS-C camera system, I don’t agree using larger, surface-area sensors is overkill. Sensor area is an important factor that determines a camera’s information capacity. I some cases this is a significant advantage. Still, increased sensor area alone can not assure superior perceived image quality. Other sensor assembly characteristics such as micro-lens array optics, color-filter array and IR filter properties also affect the information capacity.
It is not the least bit surprising ad-hoc evaluation of large prints does not reveal an advantage for increased sensor area and pixel density. The printer hardware, software, and media properties together limit a print’s MTF50. The same goes for comparing image quality on computer displays. How the image is viewed can negate MTF50 SNR and resolution advantages of how the image was produced.
My take on the Petapixel article is we should use cameras we enjoy using. Lenses are important too – use cameras that work well with lenses we enjoy. Use cameras whose information transmission capacity is well-suited to the task at hand. Sports, event, product, portrait and landscape photography benefit from prioritizing different kinds of information content (increased DOF despite increased diffraction, resolution, high dynamic range at the expense of sensitivity and vice-versa - to name just a few examples). Take care to maximize exposure (use the longest practical shutter times and apertures). Exposure is one of the most important components of information capacity. Needless underexposure by one stop of exposure halves information content.
willie_901
Mentor
Ed Ruscha’s Sunset Strip Documentary Photography
Ed Ruscha’s Sunset Strip Documentary Photography
12 Sunsets, Getty Institute
https://12sunsets.getty.edu/
Ed Ruscha’s Sunset Strip Documentary Photography
12 Sunsets, Getty Institute
https://12sunsets.getty.edu/
robert blu
quiet photographer
Ed Ruscha enthusiast here! Thanks Willie, I appreciate your links very much.
Here a short video commissioned by The Getty Museum where the two inspirations for Ed are put together: Kerouac's text and the city of Los Angeles.
https://vimeo.com/378662791
and here an interview in his studio in L.A.in 2016
https://vimeo.com/207123171
Here a short video commissioned by The Getty Museum where the two inspirations for Ed are put together: Kerouac's text and the city of Los Angeles.
https://vimeo.com/378662791
and here an interview in his studio in L.A.in 2016
https://vimeo.com/207123171
willie_901
Mentor
Thanks for the links Robert.
I was amazed at the scope of the Sunset Strip Project.
I was amazed at the scope of the Sunset Strip Project.
PKR
Mentor
Burk Uzzle
Southbound
https://southboundproject.org/photographer/burk-uzzle/
There are lots of other Artists involved, be sure to have a look.
https://southboundproject.org/artists/
https://apnews.com/article/9e8ade10e01a410fa0faa20994c3caf8
Southbound
https://southboundproject.org/photographer/burk-uzzle/
There are lots of other Artists involved, be sure to have a look.
https://southboundproject.org/artists/
https://apnews.com/article/9e8ade10e01a410fa0faa20994c3caf8
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Perhaps I am in a mistake, but I thought that if one had a 12 mp APS-C sensor and a 12 mp FF sensor, the photo-sites on the full frame were not “farther apart” or “coarser” but rather the individual sites were larger each. That is how NPS has explained to me. Or perhaps it is the “losing in translation” happening?
A presto,
Mme. O
A presto,
Mme. O
PKR
Mentor
I'm no longer a working photographer. So, with time on my hands I'm sorting through a few images. I'm going to post some here specifically for my CW friends Robert, John (emraphoto), John (jsrockit) and Willie.
I won't note any tech stuff unless asked. All color is Kodachrome, with rare exceptions, Black & White is Plus-X, Tri-X for the old stuff, any new stuff is HP-5 or Acros. I'll note any digital stuff. Film cameras are Nikon's or Leica's. Digital's are Nikon, Kodak or Fuji.
I'm getting old and, my aiming eye needs some medical work that won't happen until the Covid thing goes away. So, I'm not making a lot of pictures these days. I want to share a few past ones with my friends. I wish Neary was here, he's missed.
All these were work related. STS-1 at Edwards AFB, Lumber Barge, Milled Steel slabs cooling.
I won't note any tech stuff unless asked. All color is Kodachrome, with rare exceptions, Black & White is Plus-X, Tri-X for the old stuff, any new stuff is HP-5 or Acros. I'll note any digital stuff. Film cameras are Nikon's or Leica's. Digital's are Nikon, Kodak or Fuji.
I'm getting old and, my aiming eye needs some medical work that won't happen until the Covid thing goes away. So, I'm not making a lot of pictures these days. I want to share a few past ones with my friends. I wish Neary was here, he's missed.
All these were work related. STS-1 at Edwards AFB, Lumber Barge, Milled Steel slabs cooling.
Attachments
willie_901
Mentor
willie_901
Mentor
Photo-site size and spacing are important. The center-to-center spacing between adjacent - the pixel pitch - is important. The total surface area available for photo-sites may be different between cameras with APS-C and 24 X 36 mm sensors. The total signal for an image's signal-to-noise ratio is limited by pixel pitch. For two sensors when the surface area is wasted by pixel pitch is the identical, the total image signal levels will be identical. (1)
"• Larger sensor systems have less noise density for the same exposure and sensor efficiency • Larger sensor systems usually allow for the option of a more shallow DOF
• Larger sensor systems often resolve more detail
This, of course, invites the question as to when smaller sensor systems will have "higher IQ". This can happen when:
• The lenses designed for the smaller sensor system are sharp enough to resolve more detail than the larger sensor system
• The lenses designed for the smaller sensor system are superior optics in terms of bokeh, flare, distortion, etc"
So, lenses optical resolution is also relevant.
With similar generation photo-site technology there is no signal-to-noise benefit.(1)
From the same source (emphasis mine).
"The reason so many feel that smaller pixels result in more noise density is that smaller sensor systems usually have smaller pixels than larger sensor systems. While smaller pixels, individually, will be more noisy (for a given exposure and sensor efficiency) because they record less light, there are more pixels. That is, the noise in a photo is not determined by a single pixel, but the combined effect of all the pixels. So, a greater number of smaller pixels will capture the same total amount of light as a fewer number of larger pixels, and there is no correlation between pixel size and pixel efficiency (for CMOS sensors -- there may be a correlation for CCD sensors)."
"...there are many who believe that there is a "sweet spot" for the number of megapixels, and exceeding that number actually reduces IQ. This belief arises primarily from the notion that more pixels increase noise density and decrease DR (dynamic range) since, for a given sensor size, more pixels means smaller pixels, and thus less light per pixel for a given exposure. This thinking completely ignores that it is not the behavior of a pixel by itself, but rather how the pixels perform in aggregate, that determines the IQ of a photo. The critical connection that is missed is that a greater number of smaller pixels result in greater IQ than fewer number of larger pixels for a given lens and sensor size, assuming equally efficient sensors (and often even when the higher pixel density sensor isn't as efficient)."
At 12 megapixels anti-aliasing optical filters and aliasing artifacts need to be considered.
"...for a given sensor size, the AA filter on sensors with smaller pixels will degrade the image less than the AA filter on a sensor with larger pixels, for a properly matched AA filter. Thus, smaller pixels will resolve more detail not only by the virtue of their being more pixels, but because they require less blur to ameliorate aliasing. In fact, having a sensor with pixels smaller than the lens can resolve is ideal (in terms of IQ), as no AA filter would be necessary -- the blur of the lens would act as the AA filter."
1. This assumes the exposures for both cameras are identical. That is - the same amount of light falls on the sensor when the shutter is open.
willie_901
Mentor
Thanks for these. I like the impressionistic look of the shuttle photo the best. I always have a tough time rendering glowing light well and your barge photo does that well.
PKR
Mentor
Attachments
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Time to wake up this thread sleeping for too long !
Brigitte Grignet, a documentary photographer with her own style : http://www.brigittegrignet.com/
Brigitte Grignet, a documentary photographer with her own style : http://www.brigittegrignet.com/