A or B?
Here's a pair of Blue Tit pix I shot in my back garden...
Both these shots were well received when I put them up on the social-medias; everybody loves a little tit... and not just for the childish innuendo, but because they are such sweet critters...
...thing is though, these shots are the complete antithesis of each other.
They were shot just one day apart. The left-hand image (let's call it A) was shot around noon in the full glare of an autumnal day, the other (Image B!) at 5pm - an hour or so shy of sunset as storm Amy was drawing in.
The first was an exercise in precision (as most of my bird photos tend to be); the second an exercise in story.
I almost didn't bother posting Image B on account of just how horrible it is on a technical front - poor focus, blown-out highlights, an utter lack of detail; really nought but a vague impression of a Eurasian Blue-Tit. I really only made it as an idle, something to please me as time passed by (as awful as it is, I spent a good couple of hours on it!). But actually, I liked it. Perhaps that's the power of story? What could be more evocative than a tiny, fragile, gorgeous little garden bird battling against a storm? I was nevertheless surprised that others liked it too.
Image A was shot with a slightly faster shutter speed, at one-stop smaller in the aperture, with a 2x longer focal length (200mm) under much more light than Image B (ISO and distance were about the same). The body of the bird is frozen in space with some cracking detail apparent, with still a sense of movement given by the softness in the wings and the tail feathers. It is probably my most successful small garden bird on-the-wing shot to date. I'm super pleased with it.
But that said, I can see how Image A could be further 'improved'. Looking online at hundreds of Blue Tit photos makes it very clear there's much room for improvement yet. To get to peak clarity in the detail I think I need another 2 or 3EV of exposure. These shots were taken at 1/1000th of a second, which definitely doesn't freeze the wings, but probably leaves some blur in the body as well. I probably don't want to freeze all motion in the bird so targetting a shutter speed of 1/2000th of a second is perhaps the sweet spot. I also had to shoot wide-open (at f/5.6) for this shot, which is never going to deliver the greatest clarity from the optics. Plus, that depth-of-field is a little shallow for the subject; f/8.0 would be a much better choice.
Of course we're well into autumn now, where the days are getting darker, even when it's cloudless. Due to the lower angle of the sun in winter, the days can get to be 2 to 3EV darker than earlier in the year; and that alone will bridge the difference between what I am currently shooting and what I need for maximum clarity. In the interim I will trial some under-exposure, higher ISO settings - which might give me more detail, or I might lose detail to noise...
I want to get images with the finest possible detail, it's my 'thing'. But ultimately I know, I will never get to match the very finest examples that can be found because I don't have high-powered flashlights, electronic triggers, nor the finest glass available. Which leaves one thinking, why bother at all? Why try to take the best picture you can when you already know it'll never be 'good enough'.
Especially when crappy Image B was really quite pleasing, and kind of popular to boot.
In this day and age 'good' photography is taken to mean hyper-real, pin sharp vibrant detail. And such images are fun to make, rewarding. But I just can't help but kick back against the status-quo, which is also, my 'thing'. I can't help but think we have been / are being conditioned to consider such images as 'good' - through the advent of HD then 4k TV's in every home; the kind of images we see are successful in competition; and the ethos of (probably not) independant specialist magazines (who all have to have advertisers). Achieving such high-res images requires kit. Expensive kit. It's no good for the capitalist market place for us still to be using the good ol' box brownie. No, if you want to take good pictures you have spend the money. Then you have to spend twice as much because 'progress' (why exactly are mirrorless cameras so damn expensive?). I know for a fact I could elevate my bird photography tomorrow by spending a thousand pounds on better glass. But it doesn't stop there. How about ten grand for a complete refresh? Mirrorless system with the latest finest optics at a conservative budget? My skills are up to it even if my wallet is not.
And for why? To produce images as good as the best we see, as good as the next guy who was dumb enough to mortgage his future for possessions? And then, only until something betterer comes along, for those with even deeper pockets.
Perhaps not. Perhaps its okay to produce sub-standard images, if they are super-standard for the conditions? Perhaps the artefact, the end result, isn't the thing at all - and what matters is just the application, the journey taken. Although many (most) of us can't hope to afford the raw Image Quality and Opportunity spent on 'capturing' the most striking shots, we can create the most evocative works in our own back gardens (well, those of us that have back gardens).
I admire many of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year images, every year. But always less so when I see that the camera, and lens, and the safari, and the time off work adds up to 6-months of anyone's salary. I think it's okay if one only gets a decent shot, with the opportunity presented and the kit on hand.
But better than that. Story costs us nothing. Because story relies not on resolution, but on resonance.
When you spend a small fortune on kit, you become a slave to it. You have to get the best possible results, lest you become a fool to the dollar.
But when the kit becomes, just what you have. When neither you nor it have to earn its value, well then, you're free to think beyond the settings. To be a storyteller first, and an operator second.
Which is why, having asked the question, I chose Image B. Even though I will continue to strive to make Image A 'better', that's really only so I feel I can defend the really awful (technical) nature of the better image!