optical zoom vs digital zoom

Are you unsure about the differences between Optical Zoom and Digital Zoom?
Which is better: 8X Optical with 3X Digital, or 8X Digital with 3X Optical?

Let me go off on a tangent and fill you in on some technical aspects on resolution and how we see.
The amount of pixels in a picture is the resolution. Simply put, it is how many triangles of information are crammed into a given area. Yes, pixels are actually triangles :)
A 10 megapixel camera has more information that an 8 megapixel camera. Now, the difference of 2 megapixels is not that much. It's simply a selling feature. (don't even start me on the instant gratification thing :)

However, the human eye sees at least 324 megapixels! So a 10 megapixel image is only 3% of the capability of the human eye. To understand more of this see my post.

When we see something, our vision fills in the blanks, fills in the bits of missing information. When we look at a digital image we think it's good, because our eyes are playing tricks on us by filling in the bits of missing information. But put a 4x6" print under 8X magnification and you can see the pixels.

Ok, now onto a real example. In 2006 I was photographing an eagle at the far end of a pier. I was shooting at 1200mm. The image of the eagle filled the viewfinder. When I was done, I looked over at some people who were photographing the same eagle with digital cameras. All they were getting was a black smudge. When they magnified it, it was just a larger black smudge.

I was using optical magnification to obtain a better image, ergo more information. The digital cameras were trying to use digital magnification to get an image. Digital magnification cannot compare to optical magnification.
The more information you can obtain optically is better than trying to digitally magnify information which isn't there.

the secret

So what is the secret to creating an awesome photograph? Well, really, it is quite simple. There are two parts to this simple secret:

i) the primary key to photography is knowing how to see. Sounds simple, right? "I have two eyes, I see everything" you say. Well, yes, but knowing how to look. "The more I look, the more I see."

ii) the other part is knowing the technical aspects of photography. This goes back to knowing how to see.

Both of these points go hand in hand. This is the yin and yang of photography.

When I see an image I am already calculating in my head: composition, angles, light, shutter speed, depth of field, focus. I don't just see the current image, I see the final image. Oh, yes, there are fluke shots that happen. I've done it. But to make consistently good photos it requires knowing how to see. This is the secret.

latest aquisition

I now have a 135mm prime (Takumar/Pentax) lens @ f/2.5 to go with my Pentax ME Super. This is the perfect focal length for doing portraits. "why?" you may ask? Well, first, setting the lens @ f/2.5 means there is no depth of field, and second, at 135mm there is no distortion. Ahhh, you didn't know this did you?

Depending on what focal length you are using, when you photograph someone their face will distort (eg. more thin or more fat). At 135mm there is no distortion, while still giving you some sort of zoom lens.

The reason why 50mm has always been the default lens, is because it is a 1:1 ratio of the human vision. However, you would have to get awfully damn close to shoot portaits. And forget about enlarging a tiny image; the bigger the initial image, the better detailed the final image. (Why don't people understand this?...)

What Makes a Photographic Image Controversial?

There are many issues around that topic. Actually, the question should be: "why does the photographer choose to make a photo which he/she knows will be controversial?" Why do they choose to make an image which will "push buttons"; an image which will evoke a reaction (whether "good" or "bad"); an image which pushes the envelope. Was the photo deliberate? Did the photographer want a reaction? Well, of course. Isn't that what photographs are for?

However, the photo is just an image. The image is just a moment. How the photo, the moment, is interpreted is the real issue.

Photographs are art, and all art is subjective to the filters each of us have. Filters can be based on: environmental, social, religious, moral and personal beliefs or values.

A photo may be controversial in one culture; while on the other hand, the same image will have no effect whatsoever in another culture. (As we know from the daily news.)

This applies on a personal, individual level as well. Two people can look at the same photo and you will get two different reactions. (The reactions may be similar on some points, but not 100% the same.)

I can look at a photo and choose to think, "hey, it's just a photo". Someone else will look at the same photo and be outraged by what they see.

So why is that? Am I missing something? Or is the other person putting more into the image than it represents. Why do we get all up in arms over just a photo?

We all like photographs of beautiful flowers. They evoke pleasant images, right? Well, what if I was to photograph dead, decaying flowers. Then what, or how, would you feel?

Remember: the image is just an image. It doesn't know what to be. The image doesn't know to be "good" or "bad".

It is us who reacts to the image.
It is us who makes the image controversial.
And it is controversy which sells.