Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Close And Personal
Close-Up Sharpness • Water, Sky And Time • Blue Sky Blues • Fine-Art PrintsBlue Sky Blues
Q I recently purchased a Canon EOS D40 digital SLR camera with a 28-135mm IS lens. On a September trip to Yellowstone and Jackson Hole, I took approximately 525 photos, both handheld and tripod-mounted, with the image stabilization turned on. When I downloaded the images to my computer, all of the photos that had a solid blue or shaded blue sky showed a curved banding effect (kind of a rainbow shape). What happened?
A A solid blue sky really isn’t. There are subtle tonal differences in almost any solid color, but especially the sky. This can be caused by the increasing angle of the sun or atmospheric conditions (pollution or moisture). Most lenses have light fall-off at the outer edges that darken the farthest reaches of your image, and this is more evident in wide-angles. All of these factors result in subtle color transitions in a seemingly broad blue expanse. The color transitions look seamless to the human eye, but the camera needs to have a lot of information to render all these minute color differences smoothly. If you can see transitional bands in your image on the monitor or print, it means the camera wasn’t able to gather enough data. The larger the display, the more pronounced the banding will be.
Your new camera is capable of excellent capture, and there’s no mechanical reason why you would experience this banding phenomenon. My best guess is that your camera was capturing at a small file size. To prevent banding, set your camera’s capture mode to its finest and largest JPEG, or better yet, shoot in RAW, which captures the most data. Check to make sure that you maintain the native resolution of the image files as you convert them and bring them into your image-processing software. You also want to be very careful when you optimize your image because excessive modification of the pixels, especially in saturation, can compress the colors and exaggerate banding.
Q I’m trying to decide between selling my photographic prints as limited-edition fine art, open-edition fine-art, or a combination of the two. Looking at some of the best photographers out there, I see that some sell only limited edition and some sell both. What are the pros and cons for each method?
Via the Internet
A Frankly, very few photographers achieve the kind of reputation that merits printing their work in limited, controlled editions. But many photographers do number their prints (as in 3/300) as some kind of symbol of investment value that may or may not be realized.
Beyond appearances, there are some definite drawbacks to issuing limited editions of your work. First, if you say you’re going to limit them, you really must, or you’re committing fraud. You’ll need to issue a certificate of authenticity for each print and keep track of what has been sold. That means you have to spend some time managing your prints so that you can honor the commitments you’ve made to previous purchasers and not mislead current ones.
Assuming that a photographer is creating work that’s in demand, the advantage to printing open editions is that they typically can be priced lower and more people can buy and enjoy them. This is one basis of photography as art: it’s an easily reproduced medium. Open-edition prints aren’t as exclusive, and thus not as collectible, as limited editions, but the fact of the photographer’s signature can make them nearly as valuable as limited-edition prints if the photographer is well known.
I’ll sign only those prints that I’ve made myself, and this limits the availability of my work. If you see an unsigned George Lepp image, I didn’t print it. With the exception of some portfolios I sold earlier in my career, I don’t anticipate limiting availability by attaching a number to any of my current or future images. For an image that’s in great demand, price and signature can be a sufficient guarantee of exclusivity!
Photographers who market some images as limited-edition prints and others as open-edition prints are typically making a decision about each discrete image. It might depend on where the photographer is in his or her career. Early on, you want to get your work out there as much as possible in order to create a reputation; later, you might want to limit production to accelerate demand. Or it may be a smart marketing decision to limit availability of a truly unique capture that may become one of the photographer’s signature images. It’s up to you to assess the quality of your work and the demand for it and your aspirations for prominence in the field when marketing and pricing your prints.
For information about upcoming seminars and digital-imaging workshops, visit www.geolepp.com. If you have any tips or questions, address them to: OUTDOOR PHOTOGRAPHER, Dept. TT, George Lepp, 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90025-1176 or online at www.geolepp.com.
Page 2 of 2
Get 11 Issues of Outdoor Photographer for only $14.97!
That's 77% off the cover price!