Theory vs Reality in Photography

Several topics in this BLOG have provoked impassioned debate. We really appreciate that. Steven is a Software Engineer by training. Eric is a Molecular Biologist, and Harold is a jack of all trades. In addition to being an author and professional photographer, Harold’s background includes being an Attorney at Law and a Software Engineer. We do “geek” like nobody’s business!

I, Steven am raising the geek card just to let you know that we do care about precision – but we care MORE about great photography and applying real-world principles to real-world problems.

Streaking Or Not?

The biggest debate has been about what factors lead to streaking (trailing) in Night Photography shots of the stars. Shots of the night sky may produce noticeable streaks if the exposure length exceeds certain bounds with specific camera factors (focal length, sensor size and sensor geometry). But there are a huge set of assumptions behind the visibility of those streaks that are often overlooked. One assumption is that the finished image sizes are proportional to the size of the sensor used to create them – when does that happen in real life? Another assumption is that the viewing distance is proportionally related to the finished image size. These sound like they are reasonable, but in the real world, a print from a crop camera and a full-frame camera are extremely likely to  be made in the same finished sized and viewed from whatever distance the viewer chooses!

In the desire to get the math exactly right, many people trip over one or more of those assumptions. Our article about why the 600 Rule is a misguided way to determine the proper exposure length has had many proponents and opponents espousing the “inerrancy of the mathematics” and all the missing factors we may not have included. I love math, but: my assertion is that Reality beats theory when producing an image.  And that’s why the conclusion of the article is that the proper exposure length is an aesthetic decision more than a mathematical one.  The mathematics guide, but do not govern what the best choice(s) may be.

All Photography Involves Tradeoffs

I really enjoyed my Physics classes, especially mechanics. But I also remember all those exercises that included clauses like “neglecting friction”… In the real world friction with the the air and from tire contact on the ground is why a car on a flat road comes to a stop even though no brakes are applied.  Air friction (drag) is why it takes eight times as much power for a plane to fly twice as fast.

The reality of physic is why a lens, or sensor is always a tradeoff of something for something else. Perfect optics or a perfect sensor behavior is not possible at any cost. In the same way, a photographic exposure is always a tradeoff of one thing for another. If you need a faster exposure with a given amount of light you can: increase the exposure time, increase the sensitivity, or admit more light by opening the aperture. Of course you can also change more than one thing at a time. Indeed you MUST change more than one thing. Any change to one of the three factors requires a corresponding change to one or more of the other factors.

What Exposure Settings Should I Use?

If you ask me this question, I apologize in advance for rolling my eyes (it has been known to happen). I can give you a STARTING point, but remember that a starting point involves tradeoffs and conditions that can not be entirely foreseen. How warm is it? How much moisture, dust or particulates are in the air? How much turbulence in the atmosphere? How much artificial (or natural light)? What are the predominate colors of the light (white balance)? How efficient is your sensor? How sharp are your optics? How far away is your foreground from your background? What is that largest aperture available? How sharp is your lens at that aperture and at that zoom? What is important to you in the scene you’re trying to capture? And what are you trying to accomplish?

My best advice: try an exposure and see what you get. When all there was was film, precision was a lot more important than it is now in the digital world where you can immediately see the result with a histogram and a myriad of other data to help you decide what to try next.

In fact, here is your assignment.  Go out when it is dark and shoot a photo of the moon.  How dark is entirely up to you. Your photo MUST show the same kind of detail that you can see with your eye – the craters and the gradations from light to dark areas.  Use a telephoto lens – notice I am not telling you how telephoto, that’s also your choice. If the moon is “blown out” – and it probably will be, decrease the exposure. Keep taking photos until you get as much detail as you can.  You will almost certainly need to use manual mode to set your exposures.

What settings did you come up with?  In our “Catching the Moon” webinars we provide starting settings and also advice about how those settings may need to be changed.

For an extra challenge… see if you can get the moon AND stars in the same shot. What settings did that require?**

4 Moons 4 U [B_049969] Composite

**In retrospect, it was evil of me to suggest this. In only the most extraordinary circumstances is it possible with current technology to get a featured moon AND stars.  The example above required 3 separate exposures.


4 thoughts on “Theory vs Reality in Photography

What do you think about this?