Displaying Your Work

Images Like this look their best printed, matted and framed.
Copyright 2011 Andy Richards

These days, displaying digitally captured images has unfortunately become posting a cell-phone snapshot to Facebook, or similar “social networks.” While there is little doubt that the quality of the cameras which are built into today’s smart phones are awfully good (indeed, better than the early, $10,000 digital cameras that first made the scene), there is something almost regrettable in the ubiquitous sunset over the lake or on the beach that has become the staple of social network walls (is it just me, or have other photographers noticed that the vast, vast majority of ocean beaches and inland lakes appear to slant remarkably to the right?).

These days, displaying digitally captured images has unfortunately become posting a cell-phone snapshot to Facebook

I “display” my work here, and on my LightCentric Photography website, as well as on Flickr, Facebook, FineArtAmerica and Google+. I do it in hopes that others will enjoy and appreciate it, and perhaps as importantly want to have a print to hang on their wall. Because in the end, for many of us die-hard, traditionalist photographers, it is that “wall-hanger” print that is what we ultimately seek. And as photographers, we know that there is a vast difference between a “thumbnail” sized screen print on a personal computer, ipad, ipod or smartphone, and a large, photographic quality print. I have prints ranging from 5 x 7 images up to 24 x 36 images hanging in various places. It generally takes something a bit more than a smart phone snapshot to produce prints like these (although I am impressed by the quality of the images made on my iPhone 5).

Another Image that looks immeasurably better in pint
Copyright 2012 Andy Richards

As a much younger person, I had the good fortune to be a staff member of my College Newspaper and Yearbook, and was exposed to the mystery and delight of the photographic darkroom. I am not sure I’ll ever miss that acetic acid smell, or the wet chemicals and drying and spotting of prints. But the allure of bringing the photographic image into a presentation format was there, and sparked the fire. Fortunately, in my view, digital photography and high quality inkjet printing has become available to everyman at affordable prices — replacing the wet darkroom or yore. I currently have the capability to print my own images on pre-cut paper up to 13 x 19 inches and roll paper 13 inches wide by theoretically unlimited lengths. These printers are very affordable. If you want to go larger yet (up to 24 inches wide), printers are available, but cost begins to factor in pretty significantly. Today, Epson (my printer of choice), Canon and HP all offer affordable 13 inch models. Making a traditional darkroom print look the way I want it to used to be a bit of a “crapshoot,” working with the third party film processor and trying to get it “right.” With the inkjet printers of today, and some calibration software, you should be able to produce prints that match your own expectations at least as well as a commercial printer would be able to, provided that those expectations are realistic.  There significant “physical” differences between an electronic “pixel” display, and traditional paper, canvas, and other “substrate” displays.  Perhaps the most significant difference is between electrons and ink.  Trying to explain this is way outside my “wheelhouse,” so I’ll leave that to the experts.

Black, in most cases, “pulls” colors in a color image better than any other color, including colors complimentary to the image itself.

Which (finally – ) brings us to the topic of the blog. Once you have captured, and printed that special image, what do you do to display it? There are numerous methods for mounting and hanging a print. Many photographers today mount on canvas or suspend the image in a Plexiglas or framed type mount.

Logan Mat Cutting Guide

My own rather traditional preference is to display the print with in a traditional wood or metal frame, behind glass, with an “overmat.” For a modest investment, you can purchase a mat cutting jig. I have a medium sized rig, with a bevel cutting blade and track, manufactured by Logan. With a few necessary tools and a setup like mine, it is easily possible to cut and assemble your own mats for a substantial savings. After some trial and error, I have learned to keep it simple. 99% of my mats are cut from an off-white material, with a second layer of black used to create a small, 1/8^th inch border around the image. My research and reading indicates that black, in most cases, “pulls” colors in a color image better than any other color, including colors complimentary to the image itself. This keeps things simple. I purchase off white and black (black core) mat board from my local hobby shop (Hobby Lobby seems to have the best prices and sales in my community). I use a drywall hanger’s T-square and a Dexter straight cutter to make rough cuts of the board to size. Another necessary tool is double sided tape. There is a “trick” to cutting a double mat, but once you get it, it is really easy, especially with the mat cutting guide.

Some Tools for DIY Matting and Framing

For years, I have used the “archival” hinge-tape method of securing my prints to the mat board. I used a piece of foamcore as backing and tape the print to it with archival tape. Serious artists and archivists will caution you to only use acid-free, archival materials. Without meaning to deprecate their advice, here is my take on that. In days past, a 13 x 19 print from Kodak would set you back a few dollars, and often, getting it right was a matter of trial and error. So when you got a print made, it was fairly important that they be cared for in an archival manner. Today, it takes me a matter of about 5 minutes to reproduce an exact replica image with my inkjet printer. So, at least for my own purposes, I don’t worry about archival materials or methods. Besides, it seems to me that in many cases, by the time an image has faded noticeably, its probably time to hang a new and different one, anyway. If you are selling images, then it is a different story. Customers have a right to expect a certain archival quality. For the most part, my prints are sold through SmugMug and FineArtAmerica, and they provide the prints, matting and framing, so I don’t concern myself much about that. My own prints are going to last longer than most buyer’s lifetimes today (assuming they use some caution in display methods). So, archival issues are not huge to me.

For my own purposes, I don’t worry about archival materials or methods

This is a good thing, because I have recently moved away from the hinge-tape method of mounting prints. Once of my peeves has been the inability in most cases to achieve a nice, flat, print, when hung. Particularly in landscape format, the images invariable develop “waves” (due to changes in humidity and temperature, and to the overall structure of the print paper), which are visible (and just ugly) at certain viewing angles. I have tried the sticky-backed foamcore and it is very difficult to use without developing bubbles and wrinkles (even more ugly than the waves). It is very unforgiving. I have also tried the spray adhesive. It is messy and generally the results are inconsistent. I have long known that “dry mounting” would be my preferred method of affixing prints to the backing board. However, finding a shop that will do this has become almost impossible. I began to do some research about the process and ran across an old Blog Post by my good friend, Mark Graf about this very topic. About 5 years ago, he came to the same epiphany as me, and went through the same analysis. He suggested looking for a used press (they are quite expensive new – in the thousands of dollars) on eBay or Craig’s List. Following his lead, I found a reasonably inexpensive used Seal 2000 press (capable of handling my 13 x 19 images with ease) and bought it on eBay. After some “elbow grease” cleaning of the platen, I had a working dry mount press. A few more tools and supplies later, I am now in business.

Used Seal 2000 Dry Mount Presses can be found on eBay and Craig’s List

I have been fortunate to have the advice of others to follow and started out with the correct tools and the benefit of others’ experience. I mounted my first two prints this afternoon, and had great success. I wonder now, why I waited so long to take this step.

For my own purposes, I have the following “process” for displaying prints. I post-process mainly in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop (liberally using the Nik Software Plugins I have written about here). I make (usually 13 x 19) prints with my Epson R1900 Inkjet Printer. I have a Huey Pro calibration tool and software to keep my monitor and printer calibrated. I have found that with Epson, my best results are to use Epson paper (I prefer the traditional photographic look of their Premium Lustre Paper) and let the Epson printer driver manage the color process through printing.

Rotary Paper Trimmer For Trimming Dry Mount Tissue and Print

Once I have an acceptable print, I cut a mat for it and use the dry mount press to permanently mount the print and then put it in a frame. While I have tried making my own frames, most of the time, I have the best luck finding ready made, pre-cut frames on sale at places like Hobby Lobby and Michaels. I generally tape kraft paper onto the back to keep dust out and hang my images with picture wire and mirror hangers screwed to the back of the frames.

Unlikely Beauty

Alcatraz
Copyright Andy Richards 2011

I was recently reworking the images for my LightCentric Photography website, when this thought occurred to me. It is interesting how often a subject that we would not normally associate with “beauty” or “aesthetics,” lends itself to photographic imagery. The  image is of the Guard Tower on Alcatraz Island, formerly a federal high security penal institution. In a “word association game,” it is unlikely that upon hearing “Alcatraz Guard Tower,” the first thing that would come to mind would be pretty. But nice light, atmospherics creating a colorful sunset sky, and compositional elements combined to make this an image that I found compelling enough to make.

One doesn’t normally think of industry or agriculture as “beautiful,” though farm scenes can be “scenic,” or bucholic. But farm machinery isn’t generally in the category of “art.” I have always thought of this classic International Harvester Combine scene as an exception. What drew me to the shot was the light of the late afternoon sun backlighting the combine, filtered through the dust created by the soybean threshing reel.

International Harvester Combine
Copyright 2002 Andy Richards

Again, most of us do not normally think of military action and “beauty” in the same train of thought. But the bold, blue and yellow colors of the Navy fighter jet, with the bloom of exhaust gives the impression, of speed, grace and … yes, even beauty.

Blue Angels; Fleet Week Airshow; San Francisco, CA
Copyright 2011 Andy Richards

I might be in Love (Carl Zeiss 24mm 1.8 mini-review)

Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8 lens for Sony NEX
Image at f1.8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

We have all read and heard by word of mouth, about the so-called “legendary” glass made by lensmakers, Leitz (Leica) and Carl Zeiss. (this is a gear-review and yet another gear-head blog. So for you artists, you may want to skip on and read this guy’s blog. ).

 

For more than 35 years, I have shot various 35mm SLR/DSLR cameras and lenses. For the most part, I have found the better (“pro”) Nikon and Canon glass hard to beat, with good contrast, color, sharpness, and where applicable, bokeh. Occasionally, one of the third-party manufactures would rise to the top (I owned a Tokina ATX 300 f2.8 prime that I think goes head-to-head with its Nikon-equivalent; and a Sigma 14mm f2.8—likewise). But with the possible exception of my original Takumar 55m and 135mm lenses used with my Asihflex SLR, I have never owned (or even shot) any of the “legendary” glass.

All I can say is, “wow”!

I wasn’t born in Missouri (my younger sister was). But I lived there during my first 2 years of life (formative?). And I have always been “from Missouri” on these so-called “legendary” lenses. Could they really be that good? Could they really be that much better? The price tags certainly suggest that they “should be.” My friend and mentor, Ray Laskowitz, has been telling me how I would like the Zeiss glass and how I would probably relegate the other lenses I have already acquired for my Sony Nex-6 mirrorless camera to “paperweight” status. Since they weren’t particularly high-end (the Sigma 19 and 30 primes I reviewed recently), and not particularly expensive, I didn’t doubt that he was right—about their status.

These images are only “snapshots”

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f11
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sigma 19mm @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

But in spite of the “hype,” what I did not anticipate was my near-visceral reaction to seeing the Zeiss-rendered images on screen! All I can say is: “wow“! On most of the illustrative images here, I did nothing more than to adjust the contrast slightly in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), and in only the case of the Redbud branch, selectively take the “brightness” down just a smidgeon. I also did moderate “capture” sharpening on all except the one labeled “unsharpened.” I have always been one to do some “cleanup” work in Photoshop and some selective sharpening and contrast adjustment and (yes, Al  ), boost saturation in many instances.

With these images I am finding myself resisting any changes to color, saturation and for the most part contrast.  There was absolutely no saturation boost (other than the addition of some “local contrast” adjustment in ACR) to any of these images.  And, they are sharp! The raw, unsharpened image of the Bradford Pear branch illustrates that (remember, it is at f2.8 and was taken handheld).

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Equally impressive (and expected) is the soft, creamy bokeh of this lens. There is none of the unpleasant, circular out of focus areas I saw in the Sigma 30mm f2.8 when shot wide open. And, these images are pure snapshots. They are all handheld, taken quickly between trips to and from work during the week. I have spent but a few minutes with the lens, but cannot wait to get it out into the field and give it a real workout.

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f1.8; UNSHARPENED
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

This lens is less than a week old to me, and yet, I am pretty sure I won’t take it off the camera very often. And, this is not even a “true” Carl Zeiss lens (though it is supposed to have all Zeiss optics). It is a co-venture with Sony and is marketed and badged as a Sony-Zeiss lens. It has the Sony e-mount and focuses fast and silently on the Nex-6. In ACR, the lens correction is found, not under the Zeiss category, but under the Sony category (threw me for a loop at first, until it dawned on me to search the database for Sony lenses).

I did not anticipate my near-visceral reaction to the Zeiss-rendered images

I have yet to do any “apples to apples” comparisons (if that is even possible). The images here are as close as I can get but are at least a week (maybe 2) apart and so the subjects have “moved on.” But it is enough to be convincing, in my judgment. In fairness, the Sigma image of the Bradford Pear is at f3.2 and the Zeiss, at f11 (I was out “snapshooting” and didn’t have the presence of mind to take an image at f11 with the Sigma. Maybe I will find the time later on to try some of those comparisons. But I don’t really think it’s necessary).

For anyone who, like me, thinks this is a first class lens worth splurging for, there is even better news. Zeiss announced this month that it will offer a series of lenses aimed squarely at the APS sized sensor, mirrorless, market (currently only for Fuji and Sony). These lenses will not be badged or co-ventured. They are pure Zeiss, but will be designed to mount on these cameras and be fully functional with the bodies, including AF. I am in, Zeiss!

The “Sigma Pair”; Sigma 19 and 30mm f2.8 for Sony NEX

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @ f8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Recently, I have been happily blogging here about my newest “toy.” I don’t want anybody to get the wrong idea; I am totally committed to my (so-called) “full frame,” FX, 36mp Nikon D800 and my “pro” f2.8 Nikkor lenses. I am not abandoning them by any means.  I do, however, see their use becoming more “focused” (yes, pun intended ). The “big gun” will still be carried into the field for serious landscape work and of course any of my limited wildlife and sports shooting. I will pack and carry it on my upcoming trip to the Mediterranean, but I see its use there more limited than originally thought.

There is more to the equation than sharpness

The NEX is just so beguiling. It is small and light, which is really nice, after carrying the DSLR around for so long (I can remember a time not so long ago when I actually favored the size and heft of the DSLR body). I spend a lot more time traveling these days. For just carrying around to many of the new places we visit, I can see the NEX being used much more conveniently–and more consistently.

But the proof is still in the image quality results. And for me, the jury is still out. I am “experimenting” with different lens combinations, and shooting scenarios. Nothing “scientific”; just kind of empirical experimenting. And, as such, after reading the reviews in a number of different places, and learning of the B&H deal to purchase the pair for $199, shortly after receiving my NEX,  I ordered up the Sigma f2.8 19 and 30mm e-mount lenses. For anyone who has ever purchased camera lenses, you know that is in “junk bond” range. But the reviews were mostly positive, so it seemed like it was worth taking a “flier.”

Why? There is, in my view, little not to like about the Sony 15-50 f3.5-5.6 lens I bought with the camera. The 35mm equivalent of this lens matches pretty much to my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, but at 1/10 of its size and nearly weightless, it is very compact and easy to carry. It is reasonably sharp, renders good color and contrast. However, at its modest wide open aperture, there is little room for creativity. It should be a fine working lens for “reportage” style shooting (capturing the daytime cities, buildings, and activities). It appears to be at its sharpest right around the f8 range (though my non-scientific testing seems to tell me this isn’t a critical issue) and this will work for daytime shooting in most instances. But here was a reasonably inexpensive opportunity to try two fixed aperture f2.8, fixed lenses.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @ f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The “pixel peepers” will immediately note that the Bradford Pear in bloom image; shot at a fairly wide avenue, suffers from many variations in sharpness at different depths of field.  I don’t find the result “bad,” but it is certainly not the kind of image quality I would expect from a higher end lens–at least not at a very close viewing distance.  The isolation shot of a shoot of blossoms is a perhaps less difficult test and shows the estimable capability of this inexpensive optic to create reasonably nice bokeh with decently sharp areas of an image even with relatively shallow depth of field.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The low light capability of “fast” lenses is less of a factor today

Still, it’s hard to go wrong with these lenses for their modest cost. They are both about the same size and weight. Both are larger (nearly 2x as long as the 16-50) and therefore slightly less convenient, but not by much. They are still much smaller and lighter than their 35mm DSLR equivalents. They are not going to win any awards for build quality or beauty of construction. Externally, they are all-plastic, and I would guess they are plastic wherever metal or glass are not required. This makes them lightweight, but I would guess, not particularly durable. I hear stories about photojournalists and traveling photographers who beat up their equipment. If you are in this business, you probably won’t be using these lenses anyway. I have known others like me, who seem almost proud of the fact that they beat their equipment up. I am not in that camp. My father and grandfather were engineers and master craftsmen, and both taught me from an early age to appreciate and care for your tools. I “baby” my photographic equipment, and durability will probably not be an issue, unless it is just mechanical build quality (when I first moved to AF camera’s I owned a Ritz Camera Brand Quantaray zoom lens. I think it was one of the sharpest and nicest lenses I ever owned. But I took two of them back because the focusing motor/gear gave out within a year. Then I gave up).

All photographic gear is a compromise – no exceptions

I have read reviews (particularly on Amazon) about there being a “rattle” in the lens. If you rotate it lengthwise, you will feel a part that moves back and forth. I am told that this is part of the AF mechanism in the particular lens design. It doesn’t seem to affect the lens working or the images; so I am not bothered by it (particularly at a $99 price point). My friend, Kerry Liebowitz once said to me that “all photographic gear is a compromise—no exceptions.” Wise words. And for the rather modest cost of these lenses, I expect some compromise. I was not surprised at what I received (at this time, Sigma has completely re-designed both of these lenses, as well as bringing out some new offerings. I have not seen them. They are priced a twice the price of these 2 lenses, and I suspect the deal from B&H was tied to their knowledge that they were going to be older/discontinued models soon.  I expect that they will continue to be widely available on eBay and Amazon).

Over the nearly 40 years I have been photographing, the technology of lens manufacture has become so much better that the difference between a “cheap” lens and a very “expensive” lens is much less apparent. Indeed, there are those who assert that the $99 Sigma 30 is every bit as sharp as the $1100 Carl Zeiss e-mount lens. Maybe (though I have my doubts). But there is certainly more to this “equation” than sharpness. In my view the Sony 16-50 is sharp enough for everyday use and if that were the only factor, I wouldn’t ever take it off the camera. The low light capability of “faster” (wider aperture) lenses was once a much more important factor than it is today, in my view. With the NEX capability of acceptably low noise images at very high ISO settings, it becomes less important.

Sigma 30mm f2.8 @f9
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The 19mm (roughly 28 mm at the 35mm-equivalent on the NEX’s “APS” sensor) produces about what you might expect from a $99 lens from Sigma. The image of the church does not seem to me to be any improvement in terms of sharpness, color or contrast than equivalent shots with the Sony 16-50 lens has produced. So I will need other factors to cause me to use it over the Sony.

It’s hard to go wrong with these lenses at their modest cost

Now, the elusive concept, bokeh, becomes a serious consideration. “Faster” lenses should afford the ability to use selective focus (by intentionally creating or leaving out of focus areas in the image) to make creative images. Indeed, it may well be the difference between “making” and “taking” photographs. The bokeh of both these lenses is “better” than the Sony 16-50 (which is to be expected, both from the fact of the wider aperture, and the fixed focal length). Is it good enough? I think a lot will depend on the image and the lighting. I think the bokeh on the 30mm (45 at 35mm equivalent) is marginally better than on the 19mm. I do see some (almost unpleasant) circular out of focus areas, though, on the daffodil images shot at large apertures. Still, the sampling is small, and I will continue to carry them and play with them.

Sigma 30mm f2.8 @f2.8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Would I recommend them? That’s a harder call; but probably. If your budget is tight, they are your “gateway” to e-mount, AF, relatively fast 2.8 fixed lenses for the NEX. If your budget isn’t tight, they are a pretty low-cost way of seeing what the NEX sensor will do with such lenses (unless, of course you have already budgeted for and will be able to immediately get the Zeiss lens). I suspect that I will eventually “replace” these lenses with something of higher quality, but time and experimentation will tell. I have the Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8 e-mount lens for the NEX on the way.  This lens is actually badged as a “Sony” lens but is marketed as a co-designed Carl Zeiss Sonnar T lens.  I believe that what this means is that it is Zeiss glass (Sonnar optical design is patented Zeiss technology) and a Sony focusing motor and e-mount.  I’ll know more, of course, when I have it “in hand.”  I am looking forward to mounting it on the camera and seeing what the extra aperture will do and if that “legendary” Zeiss glass will really outshine the cheaper glass. I am also watching for reviews of the announced Sony 35mm, f1.8 e-mount later this year. Those could easily be replacements for these two lenses. I will surely be reporting back in over the next months on this subject.