In this section, I hope to answer some of the questions you may have regarding the technical aspects of my photography. You can find additional information on my techniques, etc., under "Notes" that accompany certain images. The images with notes are indicated by the asterisk (*) in the Index by Numbers list; at the bottom of each of these image pages, there is a link to the notes.

Viewing Images On a Computer Monitor

A computer display doesn't do justice to the rich detail of the photographic prints. The illustration below attempts to give you a better idea of the actual image quality by enlarging a small area (this is Image #9612, Spider Rock/Canyon de Chelly, Arizona); in particular, note the amount of detail and the richness of color in the background:

The reproductions in this website represent the prints as accurately as possible, but they're not the same as prints. In addition to the matter of detail (mentioned above), colors on many monitors tend to be more intense, more brilliant, and less "natural" than the prints. Prints have a different kind of luminosity, because they reflect light, whereas a computer monitors emit light. I suggest you view the images under soft ambient light and adjust your monitor, if necessary, so the images look as natural as possible.

Equipment

Following is a list of my large-format equipment; for digital photograpy, I use various Nikon equipment (D300, etc.):

Wista SP 4X5 metal-body technical field camera

Nikkor 65mm lens

Nikkor 90mm lens

Schneider Syper-Symmar 120mm lens

Schneider Apo-symmar 150mm lens

Nikkor-W 210mm lens

Nikkor-T 270mm-ED lens

Gossen Ultra-spot II or Sekonic L-558 meter

Manfrotto 055MF3 tripod with Arca-Swiss B-1 ballhead w/quick release

Schneider 4X focusing loupe

REI Eveningstar backpack custom-modified with a foam-padded insert

Film

I use medium-speed (ISO 100), color transparency film. Usually, I make no more than one or two exposures of a subject. Most often, I photograph in muted light, for two reasons: (1) I prefer the subtle modeling of forms and the absence of harsh shadows and (2) the range of values (light-to-dark) in a scene is more likely to fit within the relatively narrow "latitude" of transparency film. I generally will not expose a scene that exceeds five stops from the darkest to the lightest areas in which I want to record detail (see Metering, below).

Film vs. Digital Imaging

The world is fast moving in the direction of digital imaging, and so am I. In fact, for almost all of my commercial photography, I have been (since 2006) capturing images digitally. I am also exploring the capabilities and limitations of digital capture for my landscape photos. As I do so, large-format film remains the "gold standard." I understand the capabilities and limitations of film, and the resulting image quality is superb. I should point out, however, that when shooting with film, most of my process is now digital.  Once the film has been processed, I produce high-quality scans, which I use in a variety of ways, including the production of archival gallery prints. In the case of my landscape images, a "scan" is much more than simply a digital file; producing an excellent digital file involves hours of dodging, burning, spotting, adjusting (color, density and contrast), testing and otherwise perfecting an image before I consider it done -- much as one would do under an enlarger, only with greater precision. Each of the "natural landscape" images on this website has a corresponding fully-adjusted high-resolution digital file behind it.

Nevertheless, as digital technology has matured, I have found it an increasingly attractive medium for certain kinds of natural subjects, especially the more intimate ones, which I do not intend to enlarge beyond a certain point. The digital imaging process offers a number of advantages over film, with no compromise of image quality. For one thing, it is immediate; I do not have to wait for the film to be processed. And when shooting in RAW format (as I always do), it retains greater detail in shadows and highlights. However, because I most often work in muted light, such contrast is not usually a problem, and film works just fine. And, finally, a digitally-captured image remains "first generation" -- it remains as good as my lenses and techniques can produce. Conversely, with film, there is always a least one intermediate step: projection through an enlarger or a scan. And with each additional step there is an inevitable (albeit small) loss of sharpness and/or increase in contrast. With proper techniques and good optics, digital sensors are capable of producing remarkably good results.

Digital Manipulation

With today's sophisticated image-editing software, it is possible to make an astounding variety of adjustments to images to "perfect" them. I use two standards for image manipulation: one for my "natural landscape" images, the other for my commercial work.

With my natural landscapes, I believe a certain trust must be established with the viewer, based on the traditional values of fine-art photography. What that implies is that certain kinds of manipulation are to be expected, such as dodging; burning; adjustment of color, contrast and density; spotting (to remove tiny imperfections); and cropping (to fine-tune the relationships among visual elements and the edges of the image). While I digitally manipulate all of my images, within the range of adjustments that are considered appropriate to fine-art photography, and I do so in a way that is much more precise than was possible before digital tools became available, it is most important to point out that the content of each image and the relationships among visual elements remain true to what was actually in front of the camera at that moment.

With my photo assignments, which I consider an applied art, I believe a broader set of standards applies, which is based on the purpose of, and expectations surrounding, architectural photography. It is certainly acceptable to perform all of the manipulations mentioned in the previous paragraph. In addition, it is also considered appropriate to alter the content of an image, within certain limits. The standard I use for my assignment photos is that I will freely eliminate visual distractions such as power lines, trash, bare spots in lawns, etc., and I will often put in more interesting skies. The one thing I will not do, however, is misrepresent my clients' capabilities, because I feel to do so would be unethical. With such images, which I call "photo illustrations," there is no pretension of fine art; nor is there the same expectation that the image accurately represents my experience at a particular moment. There is, however, an expectation that an image accurately (if somewhat idealistically) represents my client's capabilities. While I always attempt to employ the highest level of art and craft in portraying my clients' capabilities to best advantage -- to tell stories about the goodness of their work and how their work reflects a deep understanding of human needs and wants -- I will not misrepresent their capabilities.

Camera Settings

For my view-camera photos, I usually use apertures between f16.5 and f32.5 (keep in mind that lenses are sharpest around the middle of their aperture range), and shutter speeds between 1/8 second and 15 seconds. For my digital photos (with a DSLR), I typically use apertures between f11 and f16. This difference is due to the fact that a smaller aperture (or larger "f" number) is required for view cameras than for smaller cameras, to produce a given depth of field. The shutter speed, aperture and focal length of the lens that I used are shown at the bottom of each image page.

Tilts, Swings & Shifts

The 4X5 technical field camera (or any form of view camera, for that matter) is different in many ways from smaller formats, in that it employs various swings, tilts and shifts of the lens and film plane, which provide tremendous control over perspective and the placement of the plane of focus. For example, one can actually tilt the lens and/or the film plane in such a way as to lay the plane of focus down onto the surface of a pond and thereby capture every detail, sharply, at maximum aperture, from one side of the pond to the other.  Stopping down is then only required to increase the depth of field to sharpen elements in front of or behind the plane of focus.  When photographing an architectural subject, one can shift the lens to lessen or eliminate the convergence of vertical or horizontal lines. For field use, the need for these adjustments is usually less than for architectural or studio subjects, but it is there, nonetheless. I almost always use a tilt, swing or shift (or a combination of them), even if just a tiny bit; you can see the difference, particularly in large prints. If you would like to know more about the use of view cameras, I recommend Using the View Camera by Steve Simmons or (if Simmons' book is unavailable) Large-Format Photography (Kodak Publication #O-18E).

Metering

This is a simplified version of my metering technique: The first thing I do is measure the luminance of the brightest and darkest image areas in which I wish to render detail; if they are more than five stops apart, I simply won't attempt to make the image, since I will lose detail in the shadows or highlights. If the range of values is acceptable, I will either pick an average between the two extremes (which I will calculate by taking an average of several areas I judge to be of neutral density), or I will place the brightest area no more than 2 1/2 stops above neutral, so as not to burn out the highlights (exactly where I place the highlights depends on the characteristics of the subject and the total luminance range). If the subject has a narrow luminance range (say, less than four stops), I will occasionally place mid-value 1/3-to-2/3 stop above neutral, to open up the shadows a little.

Filters

I do not use filters or special techniques to alter natural effects. On rare occasion, I will use a graduated neutral density filter to reduce the intensity of a sky, so that it and the ground fit within the (approximately) five-stop latitude of the film. I may also use a weak warming filter to compensate for the cool tones within shadows, although I find that this can be handled more accurately through subsequent digital editing. In any event, I believe filter effects should never be apparent.