7.15.2023

The Limitations of sharing photographic images on the web.


Images from a workshop. Taken with an Olympus E-3 camera.


I recently got my hands on a Fuji 50Sii. It's a fun camera. The sensor is 70% bigger than the sensors in my full frame Leicas (how can that be, if the Leicas are "full frame" ??? Rhetorical, no answer needed). I took the new camera and the one lens I have for it outside to make a few photographs and see how the camera operates, and how I think I might use it in the future. 

The images I took were images of convenience but I shared them to give readers a general idea of how the photos look and to mate the illustrations with some operational observations about the camera. It was definitely a "first blush" run and while I am not a gear reviewer by trade I think my experience with cameras, translated into a series of blog posts, can be worthwhile for others who might be contemplating the same kinds of purchases. 

It's hot here in Austin. And on the day of my maiden voyage with the Fuji the heat index ended up reaching 110°. Needless to say I didn't have the energy, or even the safety margin, to spend a lot of time making nuanced and exciting images. But I did figure out how to expose with the camera, how to operate all the controls and how to effectively compose with the slightly wide lens I have to work with. 

Here's where it all gets tricky. When I get back to the office, make a ritual sacrifice to the Texas air conditioning gods, and change into less sticky clothes, I finally get around to transferring the raw images I've taken onto my computer. It's a fairly nice computer. It's a "fully loaded" Apple iMacPro and that means it can make short work of big, uncompressed files but more importantly it means I can see the files on a 27 inch Retina monitor. 

When I bring files into PhotoShop I can zoom in on the images to my heart's content. I can look at the corners of a frame at 200, 400 or even 800 % (though I have no idea why I should or even if I should). I can look at how the camera and lens, working together, have handled fine details and I can see if there is  or isn't a lot of reprehensible noise in the shadow areas ---- really. The inspection tools at my disposal are nearly endless. For example, if I want to see how an image looks printed I can output it at up to 13 x 19 inches here in the office. If I want to see it enormously large I can send a file to my local custom lab and see what it looks like at up to 4x6 feet.

But. But! At some point we have to take these high bit depth, 51 megapixel files and translate them in several ways. First, I have to resize them to 3200 pixels on the long end in order to be able to upload them to Blogger and not pay enormous storage fees to Google. I usually resize all the files that you see here to 3200 pixels and use a Jpeg setting of 92% when saving them. So, as you can see, I've already tossed away lots of information which affects both the color rendering of the images but also the definition and "nano-acuity." 

That progression of steps homogenizes the images somewhat with every other image shown on various share sites. It reduces the positive attributes that make good images from very good cameras look different --- by a lot. I get it. I see that myself. I can look at a Fuji MF file or a Leica SL2 file in a near perfect viewing situation in my studio where I also control the viewing conditions making sure that when I look at the calibrated screen its environment is consistent and I've done a good job eliminating surfaces around the monitor that might introduce color casts. 

But if I upload a beautiful image and then walk into the house, pick up an iPad and view it there I am always a bit disappointed. Something is always, inevitably lost.

If I'm sharing images with 92% of internet users I can expect them to be looking at the same images on a phone screen. If the viewer is lucky he or she is looking at them on a big, bright, Apple iPhone 14 Pro screen and at least seeing them in a color profiled version. Less so on a lesser phone. But now the images are much smaller still, and depending on the service provider are probably also crunched/compressed even further. No image seems to get out alive...

I write all this in order to explain why I go to the trouble to walk outside and point new cameras at known (to me) objects. I test the cameras because, in fact, I still make a living using them to make images for paying clients. And not all of the client's have moved exclusively to web-based advertising mediums. In fact, the more esoteric or "high end" the client the greater potential exists that they'll be using the images in very well produced, printed brochures as well as in trade show graphics that can be quite large; and most of which will be inspected from a close distance. Some very large prints also end up on the walls of corporate offices --- a demanding sub-specialty for sure!

Several commenters recently pointed out that for just walking around and shooting casual photographs that any camera would work. And they point to scenes I've shot on APS-C cameras, full frame cameras, and even m4:3 cameras. And frequently they will make the statement that they cannot see any worthwhile (or even perceptible) differences between any of the camera systems that were used to make any of the images. As though all of my intention is to produce work that will be shown solely on smaller screens. Compressed onto the web.

My photography yesterday had two objectives. First was to get out of the house, avoid "cabin fever" and secondly to familiarize myself with a new camera system and a different interface than the ones I've been using for the past several years. The outing was not intended to create a gallery show of amazing images. (but God knows I try....). I was basically inviting you along for the walk as I tried out the features of the new camera. 

Could I have made similar images with my iPhone? Even though it's a five year old XR? Sure. Why not? And as long as the only place I used the phone images was on Instagram or as reduced size images for the blog I'm sure the quality would have been fine. But I already know how to make photographs with my phone while I am just getting started with the big Fuji. 

Some people seem to be so busy saving me from myself. Helping me save my money. Helping me become content with the status quo of my cameras. Helping me stay the course and reject anything new. But that's more or less antithetical to everything I've written here since 2009. Right?

I really like using a variety of cameras and formats. I've shot with everything from 8x10 view cameras to 16mm Minox cameras --- and pretty much everything in between. The individual camera is part of a creative process and nearly every camera brings something new and different to the act of making photographs. I see it all over my own house and office. Formal, square, black and white images from old Hasselblads, 35mm style photographs of Ben running cross country or swimming in races taken with assortments of fast 35mm style cameras and long lenses. Travel shots with a Mamiya 6. Industrial shots with everything from 4x5 inch view cameras to the latest Leica SL cameras. Each has its own "personality" and its own strengths and I choose them depending on the look and feel I'd like to impart for a particular kind of image. Or to impart a look and feel that a clients commissions.

One thing that tipped me over into accepting my friend's kind offer regarding the highly discounted and very complete Fuji 50Sii kit was having looked around my home base and seeing just how many square, black and white images are on the walls. B. loves the format. I love the format and yet it somehow doesn't work as well for me when I just set a 24 by 36mm DSLR or mirrorless camera to a 1:1 aspect ratio. I want a bigger format, more surface area on the sensor instead of just more resolution. I'm experimenting with the Fuji because of both the 38 megapixel square file I can make in the camera but also because the bigger (size not res) of the sensor means that the 38 million pixels are bigger than the pixels on a full frame sensor cropped into a square. As I've said many times, I believe that bigger pixels are different...better. I wish someone would make a square format digital camera with a sensor as big as the 6x6 cm negatives that film cameras could make. But to add one to the mix it would have to be relatively affordable. Say $10K instead of >$60K. 

So the Fuji is, by that way of thinking, a compromise. But a very easy and affordable one to accept for me. 

I look forward to shooting many, many square images. Mostly portraits. Environmental and otherwise. But when I share them with you and you choose to look at them on a cellphone screen you won't see what I see and you won't see what my friends see when they drop by and look at the prints hanging, matted, in nice big frames, on our walls. You just won't. 

Does that mean I should stop posting images at all? Stop adding photo illustrations to what I write? I guess if enough of you think it's a waste of time I could stop. It would save me time and effort. But frankly, I think the images, even if they are variations on stuff you've already seen, add something to a package of writing here. 

But we're nothing if not flexible....

As to everyone trying to save me money...stop. I would not spend money on cameras and lenses if I did not have it. As one of my much wealthier friends remarked a few days ago when I asked her if I should buy yet another camera:

"will you enjoy it? Can you make art with it? If you buy it will your family have to start shopping at the Dollar Store?"

to which I responded: "What's a 'Dollar Store'?"

To sum up: I like working with a variety of cameras and enjoy the challenge of mastering new cameras. I'm sharing images because it seems like a good enough way to share my photo walks across thousands of miles and many different cultures. There are limitations in sharing and viewing work on the web. Everything, everything! gets compressed and changed. In that regard I'm doing the best I can to make sure stuff looks as good as I can make it under the circumstances. 

If you'd like me to stop sharing images please indicate so in the comments below. We'll see. 

Finally, fourteen years of writing and sharing about my relationship with photography should convince you that I'm incorrigible when it comes to buying, using and enjoying new cameras. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the "pure activity and results of taking photographs" in the least. I love making images that resonate with me. You might not like them and that's okay. But don't equate what I buy with how passionate I am with the actual process. You should know better.

And if you slag me for spending some money on a cool lens and then I find out you have shitty camera gear but are driving a shiny, new Maserati --- we really need to talk.... you might have your priorities all screwed up. I might be able to help you...


 

31 comments:

Edward Richards said...

Within the constraints of image compression on the WWWW, in my view, the best work you have posted over the years was shot with 2 1/4 cameras and black and white film. Are you ever tempted to shoot some film again? It is back in fashion - Oppenheminer was shot on film and is being projected from 70mm FILM in select Imax houses.

Gordon R. Brown said...

Please continue including photographs with your blog posts.

Anonymous said...

I look forward to your comments on your new gear!

karmagroovy said...

I can hardly wait to see some square portraits shot with the new Fuji! As long as you don't hurt anyone else, you should never have to apologize for following your bliss.

Steve B said...

I, for one, would seriously miss your photos if you quit posting them on your site. I read/view it on my 14" MacBook Pro M1 Max with its Liquid Retina XDR display, which is also what I use for my own photo editing. So even though the photos are not going to look as great as they are in your studio on your iMac, they are as good as they are going to look on anything I have available to view them on.
When traveling I view your site and photos on my 12.9" M1 iPad Pro with a Liquid Retina XDR display which is also pretty nice. I rarely look at websites on my iPhone.
You probably didn't need to know how I view your photography, but I do enjoy viewing your work, and reading your blog.
Please don't stop (until you want to).

Eric Rose said...

Keep doing what you've doing and quit getting triggered by people who wear their nickers to tight.

Eric

Ann said...

I like it when you get a bit cranky. And still happy to check in most days to see what you are up to. Your photos look great on my Mac and on my phone. Looking forward to the Fuji colours. Cheers, Ann

Biro said...

Kirk, has anyone suggested that you stop including images in your posts? Perish that thought! And anyone who is trying to talk you out of trying more cameras and lenses clearly doesn’t understand what VSL is about. If they’re not here to take enjoyment from your pursuits - and maybe learn something here and there - then why are they here at all? To paraphrase Dean Martin, VSL is your world, Kirk. We’re just living in it!

crsantin said...

Doesn't matter to me what you buy or shoot with. I enjoy your photography and writing. I get a bit of a chuckle from your buying habits and subsequent justifications but nothing beyond that. However, blogger absolutely obliterates images. What I see on my end looks the same regardless of camera or format. Seriously, Kirk, I have not seen any appreciable improvement in image quality in quite a while, if ever. I'm sure you do on your editing end but on blogger it's basically all the same.

EdPledger said...

First, good opportunity to do the square format you prefer, with a very interesting camera. BTW, some very affordable lenses from the 645 systems of days gone by might be worth trying, with el cheapo adapters. I get surprisingly good results using Mam645 teles on m4/3 bodies, so the resolution etc. is there. And they work just fine on FF, but surely the Fuji would love ‘em. Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, Contax….Second, I am a confirmed thrift store shopper. I look for manager specials at the grocery, which isn’t Whole Foods by any stretch. No, I don’t buy junk from Dollar stores, but might roam garage sales if I weren’t in chemo for a while yet and I felt safer around people. BUT…if I were in your shoes I would be doing the same thing, trying this and that, always with an eye towards the best image quality; after all, yours are WORKING cameras, not snapshot sufficient hobby gadgets. The cost will be absorbed in paying assignments no doubt, where, as you say, the tastes and expectations of clients can be very discriminating. Third, I am interested in viewing the forthcoming portraits from the Fuji. Like others here, I enjoy using different systems. I still use my Olympus E-1 and E-3 at times. Knowing that my images are going to viewed at BEST on someone’s computer screen while looking at something I post on DPR, but more likely simply on their cell phone, shots from the E-1 are adequate. I understand that I cannot fully appreciate what your equipment is generating when looking at your posts on my iPad, but I have a pretty good idea…and I can tell when the camera is fun to use, the shots are more whimsical, and creative. Carry on.

JC said...

I enjoy reading about your camera/lens experiments just because I like cameras. But as long as the files are good enough, camera size trumps ultimate quality for me. I hate carrying something that might be mistaken for a lunch box, sndI don't really need those huge files for anything I do. But, it's interesting reading about them. I would like to see some B&W portraits with the big gun.

Craig said...

Please continue posting photos with your blog posts. One of the things I enjoy the most is the inspiration you provide me to just get out and shoot - regardless of the subjects.

You manage to practice your passions daily (swimming and photography) and stay in better shape than most 35 year olds.

If you would grant your followers a single wish, please more portrait work. You have an incredible gift in bringing out the best in your subjects, and your B&W work is so beautiful.

I'm sure the new Fuji will serve you well in taking more square portraits - indulge yourself with a portrait lens for the Fuji. You can't take that money to the afterlife with you.

Best,

Craig

Malcolm said...

I have many sides to my photographic hobby: digital cameras big and small; film cameras and film developing; making photo books for my family and friends. But I also enjoy living my photographic dreams vicariously through blogs like yours. I am highly unlikely to ever get a medium format digital camera. I could afford one (£2,500 body only in the UK), but I'd never make use of its potential. Instead I enjoy reading about how much you get out of expensive and highly-specified cameras, so please keep going. And a photography blog without pictures? I don't think so! Keep posting!

I also vote for more square format portraits, with lighting and posing notes for us amateurs. That would be great.

Paul Kelly said...

Thanks for reminding us of what we should already have realised about the degradation in image quality from source to viewer.

Do you have any feel for the proportion of your commercial work that is used in a way that benefits from your great efforts on technical quality? I would guess product images more so, but portraiture less so. If the proportion is low, do you find this frustrating?

You make the case that including images in your blog posts to allow viewers to judge technical image quality is pointless, but I gain other benefits from them. I find it interesting to see what you choose to photograph, and how you go about it. In addition, someone of my age (same as you) would probably find it jarring to return to the text-only style of old newspapers.

Jeff said...

I mostly view photos on the 4 Mpx screen of a MacBook Air and rarely make a print. I have no idea how much of the image is lost seeing it on the screen versus seeing a print, but I can imagine it's a lot. This is one of the main things that keeps me from buying cameras with more Mpx and bigger sensors. It's not clear that they would offer any practical benefit.
Thanks for doing the blog. Jeff

Luke Miller said...

As an avowed gearhead your camera/lens purchases seem perfectly normal. I do enjoy your walk photos as they keep me up with the changes since I was a student there in the early 60s. Since almost everything I shoot ends up in a web gallery I could photograph with almost anything including my film cameras. But viewing one of my D850, SL2, or Leica Monochrom images on my calibrated 4K monitor gives me a lot of satisfaction the web viewers miss. While I appreciate the occasional compliment I receive they are not critical to my enjoyment.

James Weekes said...

Finally, finally you have gotten a camera that I don’t want. Between you and M.Johnston, I now have a pair of LUMIX G9s, and lenses, a Sigma fp and 45mm lens. (That one is on both of you) A Lumix S5 and S5II, an SR1 and numerous L compatible lenses. Unlike you I still have all of them and use them daily. I love them all because they return great files. I shoot square, always have, and they all do a great job. I avoided your Fuji period only because I don’t like the look of the cameras, silly I know. Also, I had them covered.

With your new Fuji you have left me behind. Too big, too heavy and too Fuji. Thank you. To celebrate I have ordered a Ricoh GRIIIx at the other end of the spectrum. Can’t wait.

Keep posting your photos. Get going on those square portraits, hopefully black and white, er, monotone. Consider a print sale.

Jim said...

I determined a long time ago that you are a 'gearhead' but I mean that in the affectionate sense. Like you, I have shot over the years with everything from an 8x10 view camera to half-frame Olympus Pen cameras. Also like you, I wish someone would make an affordable 6x6 digital camera so I get it. Unlike you, I can't afford to swap gear with the frequency you do. Consequently, my choices hinge on features (things like weather resistance and lightweight) that are not as closely tied to 'image quality' because I hike a lot and most of my photos will be on the web where the resolution, etc. end up getting lost anyway. At the same time, I try to squeeze as much as possible out of the files anyway, for me, for my own "joy of photography". And I think, perhaps naively, that some of that does come through in the dumbed-down web files.

By all means, continue to please yourself first. When you stop pleasing yourself with your work, it's time to stop and do something else. We're just spectators to your joy although hopefully some of your joy rubs off on us.

Robert Roaldi said...

It seems to me what you're saying is that medium format digital is a bit of a specialized tool that not everyone might need. It is certainly overkill for me, and it might be for you too in your sort-of post retirement days. Nothing wrong with playing with it though. Go nuts, it's fun.

JoeB said...

Don't stop writing about swimming, gym or photography! I enjoy your Austin photos and walks. Thank you for writing about the cameras you bring home, kinda like a little kid bringing home kittens, so I don't have to spend the bucks. I get to enjoy your cameras as you write about them. I will be waiting for the results from your continued use of the GFX Fuji. Keep on keepin' on.

Anonymous said...

I have noticed over the years that digital is a lot like film was, in that a good image will look like a good image regardless of how far the presentation medium dumbs it down. I used to see this with images in magazines and I see it on my phone; though Blogger does seem to take the dumbing process to an extreme.

My advice? Keep up the good work! We are all, well myself at the least, living (photographically) vicariously through your blog.

Also, a photography blog without photos? That would be like going to a restaurant and only getting to read the menu.

PaulB

rgonet said...

Kirk, you're preaching to the choir. We all visit here because we like what you're doing, so we certainly don't want you to change anything.

Anonymous said...

Everybody

If you want a apples to apples comparison, go to the old Imagining resource site. The camera test are still up. Click on the samples page for that camera, pick a iso and noise reduction. Click on the picture. A full size image will come up. Mouse around. You'll see the 5.0 to 5.5 micron pitch looks much better. You can go to far on pitch. The sony A7S is to far at 8+ microns. Kirk is right about pitch.

Jay

MikeR said...

Maybe I'm fooling myself, but on my 27" color-calibrated monitor, I believe I do see differences. Regardless of whether I do or not, I believe what you say.

It's a little bit ironic, that not so very long ago I had been collecting (well, accumulating) old film cameras, and now I'm doing the same with "vintage" digital cameras from the glory days between about 2005 and 2012. By that time, the pixel count had become sufficient, but the "horsepower" race had not yet gotten ridiculous.

I vote for keeping the photos. Love seeing those blue skies.

Greg Heins said...

I'm going to be doing a couple of portraits soon, square format, Fuji 50S with the 100-200mm zoom. I'm going to be making nice big 20x20 inch prints. Every single part of this will be a joy. Will anyone else notice the quality? Who cares?
For still lifes in my so-called studio (living room with the furniture pushed out of the way), I use my 50 and 100mm Pentax macros on the Fuji, and run an HDMI cable to a 24-inch monitor. Almost the entire Fuji frame is usable.
As for cars, we just replaced our 20-year old Hyundai with a new base model Corolla. By the end of the year, I hope to have the 'multi-media center' mastered. That's if I can't find someone to tear it out and put in an FM radio with a CD player.

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Greg. Exactly. On all counts. Including the Corolla. Ben has a 2003 that was handed down to him and he refuses to give it up. It's the most reliable car I have ever experienced in fifty years of car awareness. Bound to be my next car since I no longer need to haul so much photo crap around....

G Gudmundsson said...

Please, keep up the good work, writing and photos, both brilliant!

G Gudmundsson said...

On cameras, I absolutely love my Fuji X-H2, coming from Vogitlander, Olympus, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic.

David said...

Excellent, I knew you would want to try a Fujifilm Gfx camera. I have the first version 50S and love the files. Please show us some files with the 58mm.
I ended up buying the Minolta 58mm f1.4 and Minolta 58mm f1.2 lenses to adapt to the 50S. Both are nice, but I think I actually prefer the 58mm f1.4 lens. I also have the Minolta 55mm f1.7 and Minolta 45mm f2 lenses. All fully cover the Gfx sensor without hard vignetteing. There is some vignetting, but software correctable,

For telephoto lens many like the Sigma 105mm f1.4 in Ef-mount ort the Sigma 135mm f1.8 lens in Ef-mount adapted using a Fringer pro adapter. I have a Sigma 105mm F2.8 macro lens that suits me. I also use a Canon 100-400mm ii lens for telephoto.

I haven't used the Fujifilm 100-200mm. The only Fujifilm gfx lens I own is the 35-70mm lens. It small and excellent at f8.

Jon Maxim said...

No, Kirk - let's see if I can help YOU.

As you have probably noticed by now I sheepishly follow on behind you and buy everything you do. You are my GAS fuel. Well, I beat you to the Fuji MF, but that's just the exception that proves the rule.

So, since you are probably lost as to what to buy next, and you seem to have repented on MF, I have a suggestion. I really would like to try the Hasselblad X2D, but I can't. You have to get one first. Hint, hint...

Wolfgang Lonien said...

+1 on the Corolla... although by now we've switched ours to a Yaris Hybrid, the Corolla was still wonderful.