Shooting into the sun at Zahara de la Sierra. Andalusia, Spain. 2009

Several years ago I was having a bit of a moan to a camera salesman about the limited tonal range that digital cameras could capture. I complained about how the clouds were always blown out and shooting into the sun was pointless because most of the sky would go white. I also mentioned that I thought that even the high end digital SLRs still had a long way to go as they weren’t that much better that the little compact point and shoot cameras.

Luckily the guy I was talking to, unlike so many sales clerks, actually knew what he was talking about and he said that I should take a look at the Fuji Pro S3. The Fuji is basically a Nikon body with Fuji’s super CCD in it. The store where the salesman worked didn’t sell the Fuji and at $3500 AUD without a lens it was way out of my price range. Like a lot of things that I can’t have for whatever reason, I sublimated my desire for the Pro S3 and put it on the back burner of my mind.

Some more time passed and about 9 months before I went to Europe last year I bought a second hand Fuji Pro S3 body, over the internet for $650 AUD. I was pretty happy with the results I was getting with my new camera and I took it on my overseas trip where I took over 4000 photos with it.

About a month ago, I helped out a friend of mine (Mark) who owns a Nikon D200, get his beautiful landscape photos from a recent tirp to California, ready for an exhibition. Mark was a bit concerned about some of his shots because the skies were blown out and the clouds had lost their details. I asked Mark if he’d shot in RAW and he said “yes”, so I said to him, “don’t worry, you’ll be amazed at what information we will be able to pull out of a RAW file”.

I was looking forward to showing Mark how much detail we were going to pull out of his skies and clouds. I got quite a shock when I opened up Mark’s images in Photoshop and there was much less detail than what I expected. I’d become so used to the extended tonal range of my Fuji, that I thought it was “normal” and I was really disappointed for Mark. Although we got some nice results for Mark’s exhibition, I knew the Fuji would’ve provided much better results.

A while back I’d been talking to Mark about his decision to buy the camera he did, and he said he’d been influenced by Ken Rockwell’s camera reviews

To me Rockwell is one of those guys who would have people believe he knows all about cameras. From where I stand, I’d say that he still has a lot to learn. Here is an example of what he has said on his website:

“The Fuji Fujifilm S5 has highlight dynamic range clearly better than any Canon or Nikon camera I’ve ever used. This is too bad because it makes very little difference in real photography. I had to go out of my way to contrive these examples. Cameras can’t fix bad light, only photographers can.”

My response in a word:


I think what people like Rockwell are lacking, is an understanding of how important post processing of images is.

Just like in the old days with film, one couldn’t get a really good image until they’d figured out how to develop their own negatives and do their own printing. Darkroom skills used to be essential to get images to look like they did to the photographer when they saw the scene originally.

“What!” I hear you cry.

Yep, cameras don’t tell the “truth” as we know it. Cameras, film, CCDs only approximate what we see. The huge difference between an image taken with a camera and a scene seen with the human eye is that the eye has a brain behind it that makes all sorts of decisions about how the scene is going to be interpreted by the viewer. Cameras, for all their electronic wizardry are basically very, very, very dumb.

Have you ever noticed how flat and boring so many photographs are when you get them back from processing or look at them on you computer monitor in comparison to when you were looking at the original scene? The camera has no way of prioritising what is important to us; what should be emphasised and what should be ignored. To a camera, every scene is made of elements that have no meaning or aesthetic weight.

Your eye has a far wider acceptance of tonal range than any film, camera or CCD. Plus our brain automatically adjusts to what we are interested in, whereas a camera has no way of knowing what is important to us. Now I know there’s bound to be some smart arse reading this, who will pipe up and say, “oh yeh, what about exposure compensation?” The trouble with exposure compensation (particularly with digital cameras) is that if you expose to retain detail in your highlights, your shadow detail will be lost, and vise versa if you expose for the shadows.

Back in the days when film was king, the maxim of, “expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights”, was the catch cry of the masters of the darkroom arts like Ansel Adams and Edward Weston. The old photographic masters knew that most of the tonal information could be captured if you knew how to control the process.

Nowadays in this age of digital cameras, the darkroom has been just about replaced by Photoshop.

Now many people think Photoshop is for “jazzing up” images and that somehow using it is “cheating”. These same old purists would think nothing of selecting a particular film stock for it’s saturated colours, or printing papers for it’s rendition of flesh tones or “pushing or pulling” colour film to affect its colour balance, etc.

Back when one worked on an image in the darkroom, it was accepted practice to dodge and burn a print, because of the fact that film and the paper being printed on couldn’t deal with the complete tonal range. The same goes for the printing industry. The highest quality fine art books, especially those with high quality black and white images, use a process called “duotone” to get a tonal range that is close to a hand processed photographic print. A duotone is basically two images at either extreme of the tonal range that are printed on top of each other.

So in a long winded way, I’ve tried to point out that it is necessary to have as wide a tonal range as possible so that the end product image, can be as close as possible to the scene first seen by the photographer. The wider the tonal range, the wider the options are when it comes to how one wants an image to look in long run. 

The trouble with reviewers like Rockwell is that they seem to have limited knowledge about what’s really going on when one takes a photo and what’s really important. So many of the specifications that people masturbate over, are in the grand scheme of things, not that important. Unless you’re a sports or wildlife photographer, who cares if your camera shoots 5 frames a second, if your tonal range is crap and it causes highlights to be blown out, while your shadows are just black blobs?

When it came to the misrepresentation or misinterpretation of facts, my grandmother used to parody an unscrupulous cloth merchant, saying, “never mind the quality, feel the width”. Just to emphasise how ridiculous, whatever illogical or misleading thing was being said.

Much of what is in reviews isn’t all that relevant to the photographic cognoscenti. Knowledge is power, and it pays to be an educated consumer. The trick, and this goes for just about everything in life, is to pick the right people to listen to and learn from.

For me, the best on-line camera reviews are at 

Yes their reviews are very in depth and require a fair bit of technical knowledge to interpret, but I’d say just take a deep breath and look up the terms that you don’t understand as you go. Eventually you will build up enough knowledge to make informed decisions on you own instead of being misled by people with big holes in their knowledge like Rockwell. 


One more thing, if you are shooting to save your files as JPEGs, do yourselves a favour and stop it. Start using RAW because you will get far better results because the RAW file format is much more versatile as it contains way more information.

Here’s a video tutorial on how to adjust RAW files as they are opened in Photoshop.

[youtube tK0uqKJSFMY]

This next tutorial is on another important Photoshop technique, “masking”, by the god of Photoshop, Russell Brown.

[youtube pJp260NVqEY]

4 thoughts on “Shooting into the sun at Zahara de la Sierra. Andalusia, Spain. 2009”

  1. I can attest to the mask tutorial! Using my favorite subject, too! Big groan from down under, I know. Your camera can only use Nikon lenses, right? Not canon? If I didn’t have a ton into my lenses, I’d be tempted to get the Fuji for a back-up. That photo range on this blog post is spectacular. I’ve gotten very good at multiple exposures as a way to compensate but to my eye there’s still something lost. Thanks for the other RAW files tutorial. I haven’t looked at it yet, but I will. I love that all of this learning is just a few keystrokes away! So, would you mind giving me your opinion of the Mark 1V Canon? I cannot get through those dp reviews and yes, I know I know…I should force myself. I looked up the tech terms, I think I know what they mean and then when I go back to read, it all jumbles up!

  2. Outstanding post. I too have been very disappointed with digital results. But then again, I use a Nikon D40, thanks to Mr. Rockwell, and have only recently started shooting in raw. I have Photoshop but have not yet mastered the raw usage after shooting yet. I’ll look at those videos. Thanks!

  3. Hear, hear! Blown out highlights and detail-less shadows are a drag — unless that’s what you really want, of course. Nice tutorials… it’s always good to see how somebody else does it.

  4. Pat

    I’m not into flower photos, much in the same way as I think taking photos of sunsets has no honour (even though I still do it).

    As for the camera review translation, I have mixed feeling about this. First off, as I said to you in an E-mail, I’m not interested in Canons (I’ve been this way since the 1970s). I don’t hate them, I’m just not interested in them. I will say that the camera you’re looking at is very expensive. So much for worries about the financial crisis (I know, I know, I’m such a bitch!).

    Secondly, I think you need to get your own head around all the terms and then you’ll be able to “sort the wheat from the chaff” yourself. I think that being passive about these sorts of things opens the door to people like Rockwell. By asking my advice, you’re putting yourself in my hands with all my prejudices and foibles (I’m not perfect. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe). Think of it as a way of exercising your mind to fend off Alzheimer’s.

    Time to take the training wheels off your bike!

    I think the important thing to think about, is why are you interested in a new camera? Aren’t you happy with what you’ve got? If so, what’s the matter with it? Identify your needs and then see if the other camera fulfils your needs and addresses your problems. Or have you been enthralled by the advertising industry into thinking that you must have the “latest” and greatest because it’s “new and improved”?

    I think this issue is at the heart of the photography because it’s such a technology based medium. I used to have over $60,000 worth of photo gear about 20 years ago. Broncolour studio flashes, Sinar 4×5 with 3 lenes, Rollei 6008 and 6006 with a few lenses, a couple of Nikons and about 6 lenses. I also had a darkroom to die for. I was so into the gear, so into having the best, so into consuming. Now years later, I realise what a fool’s paradise I was in and how much money I wasted.

    As for the money for a Canon mark IV, you do realise that you could go anywhere in the world (even Australia where you’d have a place to stay and someone to drive you around) for that kind of money. I personally think the travel would be more rewarding.

    I know this doesn’t really help, but you know what “they” say? “You have to be cruel to be kind”.

    By the way, Engogirl says get a G11.


    Thanks for dropping by and the compliment. It’s a pity that Rockwell has such influence. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

    Hang in there with the RAW as it will pay off. Photoshop is the sort of program that will reward any time and effort put into understanding it, 10 fold.


    Not only is it nice to see how people do things but it’s also good to see people doing other things, and that’s why I enjoy your images.

    I think you touched on a very important point when you said, “unless that’s what you really want”. It’s all about controlling the medium though knowledge.

    What the camera captures is only a starting point and it bugs the hell out of me that many people think (and this is reinforced by marketers and the ad industry) they will get perfect photos if they spend enough money. I think that we as a species need to get used to the idea that, “quick fixes” are bad fixes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.