Posts
From below Elbow Falls, near Calgary.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Bridge
I'm absolutely in love with live view on my 5D2 - the ability to check focus in the furthest corners and high magnification is terrific - no more need for mirror lock up accessed through the menu system - just press the button. Not only that, no shutter at all till the shutter closes - I do need to remember that unlike my previous workflow in which I'd flip the mirror up, let the camera steady then take the shot, now the shot is taken as soon as I press the cable release - so let things settle first!
This bridge shot was made this morning, an old abandoned CN line.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Our Audience
In the past I have written about being careful not to work to please the customer, to stick to your principles and to follow your heart, which is all very well, but few artists are so self centred that they can work in a vacuum. The other night on CBC, Milton Glaser was being interviewed. This design consultant (who came up with the I Heart N.Y. concept) was commenting on creativity and pleasing the customer and other art issues - basically all the same things we struggle with as photographers. At one point he quit his commercial studio because he and his studio had such a strong reputation that everyone wanted them to just do more of what they'd been brilliant for in the past and he wanted to move on and felt he couldn't do this in the same organization - even though he'd started it.
The other day I posted the picture of the moving leaves. I rather like the image but it's been on my office wall for three days and not a single person has commented on it - and they normally do comment on my latest pictures. Clearly they don't get it. Now, my patients are for the most part quite well educated, people with university degrees or highly responsible jobs many of them. O.K., they aren't art experts, most of them. What do we do when not a single person goes out of their way to comment on our images?
When we make some more normal images and so get positive feedback for those, it helps us then move out on a limb to do more interesting work which may be appreciated by a much smaller audience, or even no audience. When there is no history of appreciation because we have never done "normal" work, it can be a bit more challenging. In that case, it can take a very strong personality (ie. being very egotistical) to be able to work in an environment of no positive feedback.
That in the history of photography there have been a number of people who quietly worked away on their own, not sharing their work with anyone only to be discovered late in life or even after death confirms that it is possible to work without appreciation. The significant difference here though is that these people didn't put their work up for evaluation and so never had any negative feedback. For those of us who do submit to shows, contests, publications and posting to the net, it is no longer possible to think that "well, my work is great, it's just not discovered yet".
I have been scouring photo.net and photosig.com for good colour work that I might then be able to comment on and the work that rates highly on these sites is frankly pretty mundane - oversaturated colours, cute babies, naked women and overly photoshopped skies. Photo.net used to have editors picks of the week which were quirky and much more interesting and several times I have been able to point you to wonderful photography but unfortunately they don't seem to do it that way any more, picking instead themes which seem to generate a lot of cliche images.
Some people are "photographers' photographers", that is they are most appreciated by other people educated in the nuances of fine print making and photography in general. Others seem to be most appreciated by galleries because their work is different and fresh (not to say weird).
I guess the trick is to find the right audience for our work. It doesn't have to be a large audience (unless we insist on making money from our photography). Fortunately the net is huge and the varied tastes of people using it, well, it doesn't matter how odd your taste is, there's bound to be other people with similar interests. Hey, if Alberta can have a gopher hole museum, there's a place and an audience for us all.
The other day I posted the picture of the moving leaves. I rather like the image but it's been on my office wall for three days and not a single person has commented on it - and they normally do comment on my latest pictures. Clearly they don't get it. Now, my patients are for the most part quite well educated, people with university degrees or highly responsible jobs many of them. O.K., they aren't art experts, most of them. What do we do when not a single person goes out of their way to comment on our images?
When we make some more normal images and so get positive feedback for those, it helps us then move out on a limb to do more interesting work which may be appreciated by a much smaller audience, or even no audience. When there is no history of appreciation because we have never done "normal" work, it can be a bit more challenging. In that case, it can take a very strong personality (ie. being very egotistical) to be able to work in an environment of no positive feedback.
That in the history of photography there have been a number of people who quietly worked away on their own, not sharing their work with anyone only to be discovered late in life or even after death confirms that it is possible to work without appreciation. The significant difference here though is that these people didn't put their work up for evaluation and so never had any negative feedback. For those of us who do submit to shows, contests, publications and posting to the net, it is no longer possible to think that "well, my work is great, it's just not discovered yet".
I have been scouring photo.net and photosig.com for good colour work that I might then be able to comment on and the work that rates highly on these sites is frankly pretty mundane - oversaturated colours, cute babies, naked women and overly photoshopped skies. Photo.net used to have editors picks of the week which were quirky and much more interesting and several times I have been able to point you to wonderful photography but unfortunately they don't seem to do it that way any more, picking instead themes which seem to generate a lot of cliche images.
Some people are "photographers' photographers", that is they are most appreciated by other people educated in the nuances of fine print making and photography in general. Others seem to be most appreciated by galleries because their work is different and fresh (not to say weird).
I guess the trick is to find the right audience for our work. It doesn't have to be a large audience (unless we insist on making money from our photography). Fortunately the net is huge and the varied tastes of people using it, well, it doesn't matter how odd your taste is, there's bound to be other people with similar interests. Hey, if Alberta can have a gopher hole museum, there's a place and an audience for us all.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Papers
my current printer is an Epson 3800 but the issued discussed here also applied to my Canon 5000 I used until recently.
My normal gloss paper is Harman FBAL which produces wonderful images in 8.5X11. I have an order for two 17X22 prints and thought that paper this glossy behind ordinary glass might create a nightmare of reflections and wanted something with a bit more tooth. I thought I remembered Ilford Gold Silk as being like that and bravely purchased two 10 sheet boxes of 17X22 paper.
The texture isn't as much as I remembered and the gloss of the paper itself is quite low - net result is that prints show a large amount of gloss differential. Perhaps I'm unreasonable in wanting to not see this as I walk towards a wall mounted print but frankly I find the gloss differential a deal killer for me - back to the drawing boards. I went back to the store and got a refund on the unopened box and went to a second store to get some Moab Entrada Bright White, my previous standard display paper. Problem is, compared to the Gold Silk print, the image seems rather flat - the sense of the third dimension with the semi gloss Ilford paper is gone. It's odd - whatever tones I look at seem to have been reproduced similarly, yet when I look at large areas, the print just lacks that snap that has been described over the years, the parts of the image don't seem separate somehow.
Where do I go from here? I suspect the customer won't care or notice and would probably find the matte print easier to deal with but I notice and it bothers me. Prints made on Epson Semi Gloss Premium paper seem to have just the right amount of tooth for large prints, but the paper is so darn thin - if only they made a heavyweight equivalent.
I guess the paper battles continue, with no definitive answer in sight.
My normal gloss paper is Harman FBAL which produces wonderful images in 8.5X11. I have an order for two 17X22 prints and thought that paper this glossy behind ordinary glass might create a nightmare of reflections and wanted something with a bit more tooth. I thought I remembered Ilford Gold Silk as being like that and bravely purchased two 10 sheet boxes of 17X22 paper.
The texture isn't as much as I remembered and the gloss of the paper itself is quite low - net result is that prints show a large amount of gloss differential. Perhaps I'm unreasonable in wanting to not see this as I walk towards a wall mounted print but frankly I find the gloss differential a deal killer for me - back to the drawing boards. I went back to the store and got a refund on the unopened box and went to a second store to get some Moab Entrada Bright White, my previous standard display paper. Problem is, compared to the Gold Silk print, the image seems rather flat - the sense of the third dimension with the semi gloss Ilford paper is gone. It's odd - whatever tones I look at seem to have been reproduced similarly, yet when I look at large areas, the print just lacks that snap that has been described over the years, the parts of the image don't seem separate somehow.
Where do I go from here? I suspect the customer won't care or notice and would probably find the matte print easier to deal with but I notice and it bothers me. Prints made on Epson Semi Gloss Premium paper seem to have just the right amount of tooth for large prints, but the paper is so darn thin - if only they made a heavyweight equivalent.
I guess the paper battles continue, with no definitive answer in sight.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Wind
After three intense months working on the book, I finally have a break as the layout editor is doing her thing. I have actually found it hard to get back photographing but today decided to take advantage of some windy weather to photograph in the back yard.
I strapped on my 10 stop ND filter only to find it so opaque I couldn't even see the image - so I took it off to focus, then tried to replace it - but guess what - that changed the focal length of the lens - so I scrapped that idea. I'd already been thinking of getting one of those Singh Ray Vari stop ND filters so this has settled the question, I will go ahead and order one in the largest size common to my lenses, and adaptors for any others. As it happened, in cloudy weather, I was able to shoot at 1/8 second and in the gusts get significant movement. It took a lot of images to get just the right amount and direction of movement and it was important to make sure the background didn't include any bright highlights from the sky.
I think this could be the start of an interesting project - recording movement - hardly original but that doesn't matter. Remember to click on the image to see it much larger.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
I'm Still Here...
In response to Billie's query of where have I been - the last three months have been an intense series of rounds editing the second book Camera To Computer. Finally it is off to the layout editor. There's lots more work to come but a short breather is very nice thank you.
I have two requests of anyone who is still hanging around reading my blog.
1) I need some ideas for topics.
2) I have an idea for a third book "Why Phhotographs Work", which would be a series of wonderful images by other photographers along with 1 - 3 pages of description on why these images succeed. it would be a modern "Looking At Photographs" without all the talk of technique and media - and while I have a number of great black and white images, I need more great colour photography. Photographers have to be alive. Send info on how to access the particular image you are recommending.
Oh, and after not photographing for three months, I shot this spatula on the weekend.
George
Monday, June 01, 2009
The Fastest Way To Better
My entire first book was about becoming a better photographer so I'm not about to condense that into a single short essay. On the other hand, there must be some things which will improve our photography faster than others. "Study the masters" he said - well that could take a life time so, valuable as the advice is, it ain't quick. "Buy a better camera" says a small voice at the back of your head - nice try but that isn't going to do it either - though it is fast. Doubling your pixel count will simply allow you to make bigger prints, not better!
Surely photographers of different levels, interests, skills and experience will need custom advice - well maybe, but consider the following:
Try the following experiment. For the next month, for each and every image you take (or at least series of images), stop for a moment and ask yourself what it is you want the image to do, and then ask yourself if you have done everything you could to help it do that.
That's it, that's the secret to eternal bliss, just that one sentence.
Naw, it can't be that easy you're thinking, besides I already do that. DO you really, do you do it for each and every composition?
Here's a fictitious conversation that someone might have with themselves when out photographing to illustrate what I mean.
Let's say that the subject is a small meandering stream, with overhanging trees draping moss. The reason you are there int the first place is to make some nice landscape pictures - you could come up with some hokey reason that looks impressive and relates to communing with nature and forces of the earth and stuff, but that's to tell other people like curators, for yourself you cut the bull and admit it's all about taking nice pictures of a pretty scene.
Right, but that's why you are there, not why you are taking this particular photograph so the conversation should now continue:
So, I'm hanging out over the water, trying to capture that lovely S bend in the river, the overhanging trees.
Why take this image? Well, I like the reflections on the water, the shapes, but perhaps most of all, I somehow want to capture the remoteness of this spot (even though it's a city park), the coolness of the forest shade on a hot sunny day, the tranquility.
OK, I never said it couldn't be a tall order.
So, that's what I wanted in the image. Is it any surprise that the odds of achieving all these goals isn't great. Still, let's see how I do at answering the question of what am I doing to achieve these goals.
I envision a fairly dark print to reinforce the isolation and tranquility. Definitely not contrasty and harsh - does that have any bearing on the image I am about to capture.
Well, the sun is shining through the trees in spots so whether I like it or not, harsh may be exactly what I get. But, there are some clouds and every so often the sun is partially hidden. I call this "dial - a light" conditions since I can control exactly the amount of contrast I want based on my timing of the image.
I want those reflections on the water, but a check with a test exposure shows that they are off the chart and going to record in pure white - sure I MIGHT be able to rescue them with the recovery slider in Camera Raw, but I don't know - do I want to gamble - NO, I do not. I am going to have to adjust the exposure or possibly even use more than one exposure and exposure blend the result, whether HDR or not. I want softness and empty shadows do not factor into that so simply reducing the exposure to handle the reflections is not going to work - so two exposures it is. I wanted this to be as close to wilderness as possible but I see that in the distance there is a streetlamp showing - barely visible in the viewfinder but there none the less. Sure, I could Photoshop it out but what if I moved one inch to the left - Ah Hah, problem solved and I didn't even need to cheat.
So this is an example of the kind of conversation you might have. First determine why you want this particular image, then ask yourself what you are doing to make it achieve those goals and more to the point, is there anything further I can do to achieve those goals.
It took a while to write it and even some time for you to read it, but my suggestion is that you have this conversation with yourself with every shot for a month, and see if it has an impact on your images.
Let me know how it goes.
Surely photographers of different levels, interests, skills and experience will need custom advice - well maybe, but consider the following:
Try the following experiment. For the next month, for each and every image you take (or at least series of images), stop for a moment and ask yourself what it is you want the image to do, and then ask yourself if you have done everything you could to help it do that.
That's it, that's the secret to eternal bliss, just that one sentence.
Naw, it can't be that easy you're thinking, besides I already do that. DO you really, do you do it for each and every composition?
Here's a fictitious conversation that someone might have with themselves when out photographing to illustrate what I mean.
Let's say that the subject is a small meandering stream, with overhanging trees draping moss. The reason you are there int the first place is to make some nice landscape pictures - you could come up with some hokey reason that looks impressive and relates to communing with nature and forces of the earth and stuff, but that's to tell other people like curators, for yourself you cut the bull and admit it's all about taking nice pictures of a pretty scene.
Right, but that's why you are there, not why you are taking this particular photograph so the conversation should now continue:
So, I'm hanging out over the water, trying to capture that lovely S bend in the river, the overhanging trees.
Why take this image? Well, I like the reflections on the water, the shapes, but perhaps most of all, I somehow want to capture the remoteness of this spot (even though it's a city park), the coolness of the forest shade on a hot sunny day, the tranquility.
OK, I never said it couldn't be a tall order.
So, that's what I wanted in the image. Is it any surprise that the odds of achieving all these goals isn't great. Still, let's see how I do at answering the question of what am I doing to achieve these goals.
I envision a fairly dark print to reinforce the isolation and tranquility. Definitely not contrasty and harsh - does that have any bearing on the image I am about to capture.
Well, the sun is shining through the trees in spots so whether I like it or not, harsh may be exactly what I get. But, there are some clouds and every so often the sun is partially hidden. I call this "dial - a light" conditions since I can control exactly the amount of contrast I want based on my timing of the image.
I want those reflections on the water, but a check with a test exposure shows that they are off the chart and going to record in pure white - sure I MIGHT be able to rescue them with the recovery slider in Camera Raw, but I don't know - do I want to gamble - NO, I do not. I am going to have to adjust the exposure or possibly even use more than one exposure and exposure blend the result, whether HDR or not. I want softness and empty shadows do not factor into that so simply reducing the exposure to handle the reflections is not going to work - so two exposures it is. I wanted this to be as close to wilderness as possible but I see that in the distance there is a streetlamp showing - barely visible in the viewfinder but there none the less. Sure, I could Photoshop it out but what if I moved one inch to the left - Ah Hah, problem solved and I didn't even need to cheat.
So this is an example of the kind of conversation you might have. First determine why you want this particular image, then ask yourself what you are doing to make it achieve those goals and more to the point, is there anything further I can do to achieve those goals.
It took a while to write it and even some time for you to read it, but my suggestion is that you have this conversation with yourself with every shot for a month, and see if it has an impact on your images.
Let me know how it goes.
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Viewer Doesn't Care
As photographers we constantly have to evaluate how good our images are. We do so when we decide which ones are worth printing, which to put in a portfolio, or to post to the web. We do so when submitting for contests or publications. Even if we didn't have to, we do it anyway - having favourite images that we think is our best work, even if we don't show it to friends and family. We evaluate our work when deciding which images are worth a $150 frame or are worth pinning to the notice board at the office.
But,
The viewer doesn't use the same criteria t judge images.
The viewer doesn't care how far we had to hike, or how early we had to get up in the morning, or how bad the rain storm - for all they know, we stepped off the air conditioned bus, aimed our camera and fired off a "snap" which produced the print in front of them without any effort at all.
The viewer doesn't care how hard you had to work the scene or how clever you were in finding the one viewpoint which caused everything to line up properly - most of them assume we found it that way and are willing only to grant that we at least knew a good "snap" when we saw one.
The viewer doesn't care how many hours, how many attempts or to what trouble we went to edit and then make this one print.
The viewer doesn't care about subtleties of paper surface and ink type and depths of the blacks. They don't care that we went through a dozen different papers looking for the one that most perfectly presents our images.
Most of the viewers are looking at the print behind glass and can't even tell whether you printed it on matte or glossy paper.
Only a small fraction of viewers can even tell about careful highlight and shadow control.
All the viewers care about whether the picture works for them, or it doesn't - everything else ranks way down there, if at all.
Perhaps it would be better if prints were presented unmatted and thumb tacked on the wall, complete with blood stains and tear marks so the viewer could appreciate our suffering, but that won't be happening any time soon.
O.K., so the viewers don't appreciate my efforts, so what?
Well, the problem is, we as photographers do appreciate all of the above qualities, especially in our own work.
If we had to get up at 3 am and drive through the dark, hike for miles before sunrise to be in place, on 27 occasions before getting that perfect shot - our appreciation is way out of proportion to how good the image actually is. It is really hard for us not to ascribe to the print a lot more value than is seen by the viewer.
So, the next time we are evaluating our images, we need to try to remove from the equation how hard it was to make the image and concentrate only on the image itself. We may not even be capable of seeeing past our biases and here assistance can be sought from others - wives, friends, other viewers.
Next time your favourite image doesn't get any appreciation from an editor or gallery owner or even your brother in law, remember that the medals are being handed out for the strength of the image, not the sweat equity that went into it.
Perhaps we do need prizes for the best "it's a shitty image but damn it I worked hard to get it". We'd never tell the public but fellow photographers could commiserate with the winners - " you worked so long, you deserved better..." but I suspect that none of use would want to step forth to claim the prize.
Some images come easily, others with great difficulty. Fortunately we can probably honestly say that those who are prepared for luck are the ones most likely to be able to take advantage of it when it comes along. The hard work may not be appreciated by the viewer of a single image, but more than likely our efforts will be rewarded by having more good images to present to the public.
But,
The viewer doesn't use the same criteria t judge images.
The viewer doesn't care how far we had to hike, or how early we had to get up in the morning, or how bad the rain storm - for all they know, we stepped off the air conditioned bus, aimed our camera and fired off a "snap" which produced the print in front of them without any effort at all.
The viewer doesn't care how hard you had to work the scene or how clever you were in finding the one viewpoint which caused everything to line up properly - most of them assume we found it that way and are willing only to grant that we at least knew a good "snap" when we saw one.
The viewer doesn't care how many hours, how many attempts or to what trouble we went to edit and then make this one print.
The viewer doesn't care about subtleties of paper surface and ink type and depths of the blacks. They don't care that we went through a dozen different papers looking for the one that most perfectly presents our images.
Most of the viewers are looking at the print behind glass and can't even tell whether you printed it on matte or glossy paper.
Only a small fraction of viewers can even tell about careful highlight and shadow control.
All the viewers care about whether the picture works for them, or it doesn't - everything else ranks way down there, if at all.
Perhaps it would be better if prints were presented unmatted and thumb tacked on the wall, complete with blood stains and tear marks so the viewer could appreciate our suffering, but that won't be happening any time soon.
O.K., so the viewers don't appreciate my efforts, so what?
Well, the problem is, we as photographers do appreciate all of the above qualities, especially in our own work.
If we had to get up at 3 am and drive through the dark, hike for miles before sunrise to be in place, on 27 occasions before getting that perfect shot - our appreciation is way out of proportion to how good the image actually is. It is really hard for us not to ascribe to the print a lot more value than is seen by the viewer.
So, the next time we are evaluating our images, we need to try to remove from the equation how hard it was to make the image and concentrate only on the image itself. We may not even be capable of seeeing past our biases and here assistance can be sought from others - wives, friends, other viewers.
Next time your favourite image doesn't get any appreciation from an editor or gallery owner or even your brother in law, remember that the medals are being handed out for the strength of the image, not the sweat equity that went into it.
Perhaps we do need prizes for the best "it's a shitty image but damn it I worked hard to get it". We'd never tell the public but fellow photographers could commiserate with the winners - " you worked so long, you deserved better..." but I suspect that none of use would want to step forth to claim the prize.
Some images come easily, others with great difficulty. Fortunately we can probably honestly say that those who are prepared for luck are the ones most likely to be able to take advantage of it when it comes along. The hard work may not be appreciated by the viewer of a single image, but more than likely our efforts will be rewarded by having more good images to present to the public.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Keld Helmer-Petersen
Sandy sent me a recommendation of a photographer who made the following comments:
Keld Helmer-Petersen has been overlooked in the history of photography book's, but he has recently been re-discovered by the English Magnum photographer Martin Parr. His contribution to colour abstract photography started in the 1940's but all the credit for colour photographs was given to the American photographer William Eggleston in the 1970's. In 2005 I went to see an exhibition of Keld Helmer-Petersen's work at the Rocket Gallery in London, I was flabbergasted by the subject matter displayed on the gallery walls both in colour and black and white. His modernistic style and perceptive vision for photographing the over looked mundane subject matter, and making it look ligh abstract paintings is nothing short of amazing. In the fifties he studied with the late great Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind at the Chicago School of Art Institute formerly the New Bauhaus. He was definitely ahead of his time and I felt humbled in the presence of his imaages.
I tried to get his book but at $317 it seemed a bit steep. Sandy also gave me a reference to a gallery site at which you could view a fair number of images, all be it pretty tiny.
Blogspot seems to be on strike but the web address is:
http://www.rocketgallery.com/ex_khp_ex.html
you will need to type this in your browser till blogspot gets working again.
and click on previous exhibitions, then 2005-2006 and then Keld Helmer-Petersen, you can then select "Danish Beauty", "Black and White" or "122 Images" to view his photographs.
Helmer-Petersen first published his colour work in 1948, clearly making him one of the pioneers of modern colour photography.
There are more of his images in 2007-2008. I have sent an email to the gallery to see if any of his books are still available.
Petersen has a wonderful sense of colour and design and I for one am going to have another go at finding his book.
Keld Helmer-Petersen has been overlooked in the history of photography book's, but he has recently been re-discovered by the English Magnum photographer Martin Parr. His contribution to colour abstract photography started in the 1940's but all the credit for colour photographs was given to the American photographer William Eggleston in the 1970's. In 2005 I went to see an exhibition of Keld Helmer-Petersen's work at the Rocket Gallery in London, I was flabbergasted by the subject matter displayed on the gallery walls both in colour and black and white. His modernistic style and perceptive vision for photographing the over looked mundane subject matter, and making it look ligh abstract paintings is nothing short of amazing. In the fifties he studied with the late great Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind at the Chicago School of Art Institute formerly the New Bauhaus. He was definitely ahead of his time and I felt humbled in the presence of his imaages.
I tried to get his book but at $317 it seemed a bit steep. Sandy also gave me a reference to a gallery site at which you could view a fair number of images, all be it pretty tiny.
Blogspot seems to be on strike but the web address is:
http://www.rocketgallery.com/ex_khp_ex.html
you will need to type this in your browser till blogspot gets working again.
and click on previous exhibitions, then 2005-2006 and then Keld Helmer-Petersen, you can then select "Danish Beauty", "Black and White" or "122 Images" to view his photographs.
Helmer-Petersen first published his colour work in 1948, clearly making him one of the pioneers of modern colour photography.
There are more of his images in 2007-2008. I have sent an email to the gallery to see if any of his books are still available.
Petersen has a wonderful sense of colour and design and I for one am going to have another go at finding his book.
Monday, May 18, 2009
My Second Book
My absence from this blog for much of the last several months will have been pretty obvious. I have been working very hard on my second book, called "Camera To Print". The deadline for the text of the book is the end of this month and there will be a lot of further editing and image organization and more editing and index production and more editing but the last few weekends have really broken the back of the work, not to say mine from sitting in front of the computer 12 hours a day - time out to eat and walk the dog.
I think it's going to be a good book, a useful book. The book complements the first book which was all about the art of photography. This one is about the practical aspects of making fine images. Much of the book is dedicated to image editing and showing what is possible with editing while several chapters discuss working the scene. There are lots of bad images compared with good, discussions explaining the differences follow.
I wish someone had written this book for me when I was getting going. Discussions about f stops are minimal but it does discuss stitching, focus blending, HDR, Photoshop techniques and tricks, and has lots of suggestions to improve images.
I think it will be an interesting read for anyone, though I suppose that if you don't like my images, then don't buy the book.
Someone wrote about my first book that I'd made a mistake in the introduction telling people to not buy the book if they didn't like the photographs. He thought the writing terrific and hated the photographs. The ideas in the book may have sounded good to him but surely if the images don't work, then the advice has to be considered questionable.
An old axiom is that "those who can't, teach" but the truth is that people teach because they like teaching, they don't become or stay professional photographers because they hate sucking up to clients or don't have the personality to sell themselves or hate the fact that being a commercial photographer is 90% business and 10% photography.
Many photography teachers could and often do make some very fine images that few ever get to see. My point is that following the photographic advice of someone who "can't hang em' on the wall" is risky at best.
I had a lot less time to make the images for the second book, almost entirely images made in the last 18 months but they nicely illustrate points I want to make. I even found a few gems as I redid a number of images for the book and had to search my files for companion images.
Well, you'll have to take my word for all of this because the book won't be out until late in the year, hopefully well before Christmas unlike last time.
Once editing is complete, I think I'll sneak an example chapter onto my website and let everyone know through the blog that it's there.
I think it's going to be a good book, a useful book. The book complements the first book which was all about the art of photography. This one is about the practical aspects of making fine images. Much of the book is dedicated to image editing and showing what is possible with editing while several chapters discuss working the scene. There are lots of bad images compared with good, discussions explaining the differences follow.
I wish someone had written this book for me when I was getting going. Discussions about f stops are minimal but it does discuss stitching, focus blending, HDR, Photoshop techniques and tricks, and has lots of suggestions to improve images.
I think it will be an interesting read for anyone, though I suppose that if you don't like my images, then don't buy the book.
Someone wrote about my first book that I'd made a mistake in the introduction telling people to not buy the book if they didn't like the photographs. He thought the writing terrific and hated the photographs. The ideas in the book may have sounded good to him but surely if the images don't work, then the advice has to be considered questionable.
An old axiom is that "those who can't, teach" but the truth is that people teach because they like teaching, they don't become or stay professional photographers because they hate sucking up to clients or don't have the personality to sell themselves or hate the fact that being a commercial photographer is 90% business and 10% photography.
Many photography teachers could and often do make some very fine images that few ever get to see. My point is that following the photographic advice of someone who "can't hang em' on the wall" is risky at best.
I had a lot less time to make the images for the second book, almost entirely images made in the last 18 months but they nicely illustrate points I want to make. I even found a few gems as I redid a number of images for the book and had to search my files for companion images.
Well, you'll have to take my word for all of this because the book won't be out until late in the year, hopefully well before Christmas unlike last time.
Once editing is complete, I think I'll sneak an example chapter onto my website and let everyone know through the blog that it's there.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Composition 2 - Shapes
Last time I wrote about the different things that make up the elements of an image - things like shadows and reflections, shapes left by the space between one object and another, or between one object and the edge or corner of an image (unless you print in circles - it's been done).
The shape of an ojbect is probably its most obvious characteristic. What may be less obvious is that the shape of the shape affects the quality of the image. The most stable shapes are rectangles aligned with the edges of the image, horizontal ones being more stable than vertical (they can't fall over).Objects that are just a little off rectangular (trapezoidal or parallelograms) can be ever so much more interesting. The other night I was looking at a Matisse print and it consisted of a series of rectangles within each other and it was the slight "misalignment" of one rectangle on another that made things interesting. The lines weren't perfectly straight either and the rectangles really had a sense of life. Parallelograms suggest action while trapezoids suggest perspective - ie. one part is closer than another part of the shape.
It may be true that circles roll better than ovals, but they sure look a lot more stable.
Imperfect circles breathe life into an image and suggest change over time. At least one edge of a triangle is going to be a diagonal line which has energy and movement.
Triangles with a wide base and pointed top also suggest a receding perspective.
You may have different meanings for the usual variety of shapes, based on your experiences and that's ok, just so long as you take the shapes into consideration. Remember too that a change in camera position can radically affect the shapes in an image - narrowing them or rounding them, making them lean or not.
Next time - relationships between the shapes.
The shape of an ojbect is probably its most obvious characteristic. What may be less obvious is that the shape of the shape affects the quality of the image. The most stable shapes are rectangles aligned with the edges of the image, horizontal ones being more stable than vertical (they can't fall over).Objects that are just a little off rectangular (trapezoidal or parallelograms) can be ever so much more interesting. The other night I was looking at a Matisse print and it consisted of a series of rectangles within each other and it was the slight "misalignment" of one rectangle on another that made things interesting. The lines weren't perfectly straight either and the rectangles really had a sense of life. Parallelograms suggest action while trapezoids suggest perspective - ie. one part is closer than another part of the shape.
It may be true that circles roll better than ovals, but they sure look a lot more stable.
Imperfect circles breathe life into an image and suggest change over time. At least one edge of a triangle is going to be a diagonal line which has energy and movement.
Triangles with a wide base and pointed top also suggest a receding perspective.
You may have different meanings for the usual variety of shapes, based on your experiences and that's ok, just so long as you take the shapes into consideration. Remember too that a change in camera position can radically affect the shapes in an image - narrowing them or rounding them, making them lean or not.
Next time - relationships between the shapes.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Composition 1 - Compositional Elements
Over the next several weeks, perhaps months, I'm going to write about composition, "the strongest way of seeing" according to Edward Weston.
A good place to start is to think of a possible image as a series of compositional elements. While these may be things that exist in the real world, just as easily and importantly they can be elements that only apply to a photograph.
For example, in a top half portrait, the space between the arms and the edge of the image is a shape, likely part of the out of focus background, but none the less for the purposes of the image it is a real element, with a shape and defined edges.
A strong shadow is a compositional element, even if you can't bottle it. A reflection on water can be a compositional element - or perhaps just the waves caused by a puff of wind on part of a pond which changes the tone of that part of the pond significantly.
You might find it helpful in looking at an image in terms of compositional elements to squint, or take your glasses off (if near sighted)or press the depth of preview lever to darken the view through the viewfinder.
Simply being aware of the elements that make up a composition already puts you ahead when it comes to positioning your camera and framing to make a more interesting image. There's a whole lot more to these elements and I'll discuss the relationship of the elements next time.
A good place to start is to think of a possible image as a series of compositional elements. While these may be things that exist in the real world, just as easily and importantly they can be elements that only apply to a photograph.
For example, in a top half portrait, the space between the arms and the edge of the image is a shape, likely part of the out of focus background, but none the less for the purposes of the image it is a real element, with a shape and defined edges.
A strong shadow is a compositional element, even if you can't bottle it. A reflection on water can be a compositional element - or perhaps just the waves caused by a puff of wind on part of a pond which changes the tone of that part of the pond significantly.
You might find it helpful in looking at an image in terms of compositional elements to squint, or take your glasses off (if near sighted)or press the depth of preview lever to darken the view through the viewfinder.
Simply being aware of the elements that make up a composition already puts you ahead when it comes to positioning your camera and framing to make a more interesting image. There's a whole lot more to these elements and I'll discuss the relationship of the elements next time.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Times Are Good For Photographers
The economy may be going to hell, but photographers have never had it better. Virtually any current DSLR will take fabulous images and will outperform most photographers. Colour management, if not exactly simple, is getting more straight forward (the Luminous Landscape video Camera To Print really helps). Inkjet prints on some of the new baryta papers are producing wonderful prints. No, they still don't look like silver prints but different isn't the same as worse - they are beautiful in their own right. Not only that, we can share our work with others via the web and it's easier to become known that at any previous time in history - despite a huge amount of competition.
Control over images has never been as good, with Photoshop and Lightroom and all. Sure backup is a pain, but no worse really than sorting your negatives and being consistent about your contact sheets and negative filing system.
Now, if we could just figure out where to point the camera.
Control over images has never been as good, with Photoshop and Lightroom and all. Sure backup is a pain, but no worse really than sorting your negatives and being consistent about your contact sheets and negative filing system.
Now, if we could just figure out where to point the camera.
Monday, April 27, 2009
How Important Is The Subject Matter
It is common for photographers to agonize over their next project. We want something original, fresh, interesting, challenging, publishable, yet accessible. There's no point in dreaming of a project on Hawaiian rain forests if you are in Pittsburgh and your travel budget can only get you to Ohio.
It might be worth considering just how important subject matter really is to our photography. If it's really important, then perhaps there are ways of approaching the choice of subject which are better or faster or more reliable or whatever, and if it turns out it isn't all that important, then why are we agonizing over it.
Let's start of with some basic facts.
1) there are no new subjects
2) there are no new approaches
3) there are no new techniques
Yes, I know, these are pretty bold statements but let me explain. With millions of serious photographers in the world the odds of you or I coming up with something new in any of the above categories is slim. Often we come across writings from more than 100 years ago agonizing over the same issues we struggle with today - and no matter how original someone is on subject matter, someone else is likely to have done it first.
You might be inclined to ask (quite reasonably), 'well, if that's the case, what's the point of even trying to photograph?"
There are a limited number of subjects or at least categories that we can photograph - people, landscape, machinery, buildings, nudes, still life, etc. On the other hand, there are an infinite number of ways of seeing something. When you look at an object, you don't see the same object that I do. You see it through eyes and with a brain which has completely different experiences, attitudes, feelings and values and each of these subtly and sometimes vastly affects how we photograph the subject.
If the only photographer you admire and collect is Ansel Adams, then it's natural to emulate him but even there, Adams isn't you and your images will be different. This can be a problem since you can easily get frustrated when your images don't turn out like Adam's. Sure, sometimes that's for technical reasons and just plain skill, but not always.
I have a number of images from my youth which even today are strong and hold up and yet I didn't give myself credit for them at the time.
As we learn about the work of many photographers, we can't help being influenced by all this other work. There could never be another Ansel Adams because the times have changed, there are too many newer photographers who influence us.
So, picking a subject because it's new isn't going to work and fortunately we will bring ourselves into our images of these "old" subjects.
On the other hand, surely some subjects work better than others? Sure, for the individual photographer. I like photographing old industrial sites, someone else might find it nigh impossible to come up with a decent image at the sites where I revel in it.
Clearly some subjects and more particularly, locations, provide more opportunity to make images than others. They have more parts that are interesting, a better selection of viewpoints that are good, better and clearer line of sight, greater textures, more interesting shapes, shadows, lines and whatnot.
Some setups have one fatal flaw, which cannot be changed or outwaited and you simply have to move on.
Of course, the amount of available material is pretty much independent of choice of subject category and a lot to do with the specific subject or location. When photographing architecture it's a lot easier to work with a building with interesting shapes, surfaces that reflect light in interesting ways, and which is accessible - ie. not jambed up tight to parking garages on either side and immediately across the road.
You might decide to photograph glassware.It's going to be a lot easier if the glassware is interesting - in shape, tone, reflections, colour etc. Location will be important - whether it's in your kitchen cupboard or against a mirror or next to a window.
The trick then isn't in selecting glassware, it's in finding the right glassware in the best location.
This would suggest that just about any subject would do, if you have at least a passing interest in it. Where you have to spend the time and use your initiative is in selecting the right example of that subject in the correct location and under the best circumstances.
This may seem pretty obvious, but I suspect that many photographers spend an inordinate amount of time agonizing over the first part and paying little attention to the next two - to the detriment of their images.
It might be worth considering just how important subject matter really is to our photography. If it's really important, then perhaps there are ways of approaching the choice of subject which are better or faster or more reliable or whatever, and if it turns out it isn't all that important, then why are we agonizing over it.
Let's start of with some basic facts.
1) there are no new subjects
2) there are no new approaches
3) there are no new techniques
Yes, I know, these are pretty bold statements but let me explain. With millions of serious photographers in the world the odds of you or I coming up with something new in any of the above categories is slim. Often we come across writings from more than 100 years ago agonizing over the same issues we struggle with today - and no matter how original someone is on subject matter, someone else is likely to have done it first.
You might be inclined to ask (quite reasonably), 'well, if that's the case, what's the point of even trying to photograph?"
There are a limited number of subjects or at least categories that we can photograph - people, landscape, machinery, buildings, nudes, still life, etc. On the other hand, there are an infinite number of ways of seeing something. When you look at an object, you don't see the same object that I do. You see it through eyes and with a brain which has completely different experiences, attitudes, feelings and values and each of these subtly and sometimes vastly affects how we photograph the subject.
If the only photographer you admire and collect is Ansel Adams, then it's natural to emulate him but even there, Adams isn't you and your images will be different. This can be a problem since you can easily get frustrated when your images don't turn out like Adam's. Sure, sometimes that's for technical reasons and just plain skill, but not always.
I have a number of images from my youth which even today are strong and hold up and yet I didn't give myself credit for them at the time.
As we learn about the work of many photographers, we can't help being influenced by all this other work. There could never be another Ansel Adams because the times have changed, there are too many newer photographers who influence us.
So, picking a subject because it's new isn't going to work and fortunately we will bring ourselves into our images of these "old" subjects.
On the other hand, surely some subjects work better than others? Sure, for the individual photographer. I like photographing old industrial sites, someone else might find it nigh impossible to come up with a decent image at the sites where I revel in it.
Clearly some subjects and more particularly, locations, provide more opportunity to make images than others. They have more parts that are interesting, a better selection of viewpoints that are good, better and clearer line of sight, greater textures, more interesting shapes, shadows, lines and whatnot.
Some setups have one fatal flaw, which cannot be changed or outwaited and you simply have to move on.
Of course, the amount of available material is pretty much independent of choice of subject category and a lot to do with the specific subject or location. When photographing architecture it's a lot easier to work with a building with interesting shapes, surfaces that reflect light in interesting ways, and which is accessible - ie. not jambed up tight to parking garages on either side and immediately across the road.
You might decide to photograph glassware.It's going to be a lot easier if the glassware is interesting - in shape, tone, reflections, colour etc. Location will be important - whether it's in your kitchen cupboard or against a mirror or next to a window.
The trick then isn't in selecting glassware, it's in finding the right glassware in the best location.
This would suggest that just about any subject would do, if you have at least a passing interest in it. Where you have to spend the time and use your initiative is in selecting the right example of that subject in the correct location and under the best circumstances.
This may seem pretty obvious, but I suspect that many photographers spend an inordinate amount of time agonizing over the first part and paying little attention to the next two - to the detriment of their images.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Future Of My Cameras
I was reading Luminous Landscape on medium format cameras and the new Leica S2. That got me to thinking about what I need in a camera,
Photographing landscapes, industrial, or if you shoot nudes, still life, architectural and I dare say even portraits do you really need a view finder at all? Live view with a good sized screen (esp. a tilting one) would be all that's needed.
I'm amused to read of photographers discovering Live View and starting to use a dark cloth to better see the LCD in sunlight - shades of view cameras - but without the hassle of loading film, with far better ability to focus, no need for magnifying glasses and a lot of the time not even the dark cloth.
Without the viewfinder you don't need a mirror so lenses are easier to design so really great lenses should be the norm. Shutter - not really needed - after all in live view, the start of the exposure is electronic, and the closing of the shutter after is just tidying things up - not really needed.
Of course hand holding would be difficult, but we're talking serious photographers here who could easily have a regular slr for sports and such - and even this future camera without shutter and mirror and viewfinder could work nicely on a monopod, or in a pinch, hand held.
There would be no need for fancy electronic connections between camera and back- the camera wouldn't do much - oh, I suppose you might want auto f stop control - but that's about it - and I could certainly live without that - hell, a cable release could easily be made to stop the lens down before the exposure is made.
I don't suppose it would be cheap - though when you think about it, it's a lot simpler to build than a dSLR.
It is amazing that medium format backs have small poor LCD screens - a tilting, rotating large screen is such an obvious advantage. I guess that's what happens when there isn't a lot of competition.
Photographing landscapes, industrial, or if you shoot nudes, still life, architectural and I dare say even portraits do you really need a view finder at all? Live view with a good sized screen (esp. a tilting one) would be all that's needed.
I'm amused to read of photographers discovering Live View and starting to use a dark cloth to better see the LCD in sunlight - shades of view cameras - but without the hassle of loading film, with far better ability to focus, no need for magnifying glasses and a lot of the time not even the dark cloth.
Without the viewfinder you don't need a mirror so lenses are easier to design so really great lenses should be the norm. Shutter - not really needed - after all in live view, the start of the exposure is electronic, and the closing of the shutter after is just tidying things up - not really needed.
Of course hand holding would be difficult, but we're talking serious photographers here who could easily have a regular slr for sports and such - and even this future camera without shutter and mirror and viewfinder could work nicely on a monopod, or in a pinch, hand held.
There would be no need for fancy electronic connections between camera and back- the camera wouldn't do much - oh, I suppose you might want auto f stop control - but that's about it - and I could certainly live without that - hell, a cable release could easily be made to stop the lens down before the exposure is made.
I don't suppose it would be cheap - though when you think about it, it's a lot simpler to build than a dSLR.
It is amazing that medium format backs have small poor LCD screens - a tilting, rotating large screen is such an obvious advantage. I guess that's what happens when there isn't a lot of competition.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Second Attempt at Knuckle
This is a print I have on the wall of my office. It's been rather fun to see if anyone can guess what the image is. I prefer this to the previously posted image with borders around the coupler, more abstract, fewer clues. One of the best I have done in a while, which considering how little shooting I have been doing lately is quite reassuring.
From The Archives II
Shot in about 1982 in Kentucky - Laurel Lake Spillway, shot on 4X5, scanned on Epson 4870.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Scrap Abstract
When we arrived at the shop to photograph the steam locomotive, the workmen started tidying up a bit behind the loco and my last efforts were to photograph the piles of scap they' built up - I'm quite sure they thought I was mad!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Steel Beam
Sitting behind the tender were scraps of metal, including this single long beam, which end seemed interesting to me.
Back Photographing Locos
This is what it looks like when you peer into the smokebox (front) of a steam locomotive - only it's a hell of a lot darker - 20 second exposure.
This is a close up of the knuckle of a coupler on an FP7 diesel locomotive - looking more like a piece of pottery than a several hundred pound chunk of cast iron.
Cow catcher on locomotive CP 2816 Hudson (4-6-4) locomotive, weighing 232 pounds, using 10 gallons of fuel per mile, along with 100 gallons of water. You don't take this to the grocery store for bagels.
Here you have an angled view of the front coupler on 2816. It's actually painted black but lit by sodium vapour lamps - and this is after I corrected the colour!
Shots of loco drivers are common - I used a couple in my last book and I was one of a long line of photographers caught by the power, heft, and strength of these magnificent beasts. This time I found the drivers and connecting rods in a particularly interesting pattern, with the lubricator sitting above.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Camera Settings
On the off chance you might be curious, here's a list of camera settings I use:
1) manual focus - but rely on focus confirmation in viewfinder
2) manual exposure - placing the exposure mark above and below the centre as I think the image needs - I don't take advantage of the spot metering capability
3) mirror lock - always when on tripod and
4) tripod is used 98% of my images
5) EI 100 - why would you use anything else unless you need it
6) exposure blending - occasional - 1% of shots, I tend to shoot in fairly soft light
7) stitching - even with the 1Ds2, I still stitch about 1/3 of the time, especially if the image is going to differ from 2:3 - so for square images and panoramic images especially.
8) focus blending - using Helicon Focus - about 1/4 of my images
9) my most frequently used lens is the 70-200 f4L, why would a landscape photographer want to carry the extra weight of the 2.8?
10) flash - what's that?
1) manual focus - but rely on focus confirmation in viewfinder
2) manual exposure - placing the exposure mark above and below the centre as I think the image needs - I don't take advantage of the spot metering capability
3) mirror lock - always when on tripod and
4) tripod is used 98% of my images
5) EI 100 - why would you use anything else unless you need it
6) exposure blending - occasional - 1% of shots, I tend to shoot in fairly soft light
7) stitching - even with the 1Ds2, I still stitch about 1/3 of the time, especially if the image is going to differ from 2:3 - so for square images and panoramic images especially.
8) focus blending - using Helicon Focus - about 1/4 of my images
9) my most frequently used lens is the 70-200 f4L, why would a landscape photographer want to carry the extra weight of the 2.8?
10) flash - what's that?
Thoughts About Tripods
With IS lenses and high ISO getting better quality results, you may question the need for a tripod. There are many situations in which depth of field is not important and you may well be able to make the image successfully without compromise and without tripod.
That said, there are lots of situations in which there are two or more important parts to the image, not in the same plane of focus and for which added depth of field is the only remedy.
In the old days there were depth of field scales on lenses, though anyone who did serious work and made even moderately large prints knew that they needed a smaller stop than the scale suggested. With zooms we have largely given up on the tiny depth of field scales even if they are there.
With the increasing use of full frame sensor cameras, shallow depth of field is a major consideration and often it's necessary to stop down as much as possible - basically just shy of the point where diffraction really starts to become an issue. For me, with a full frame camera, this is f16.
Suddenly the shot that was 1/125 at f5.6 is looking like 1/15 at f16 - which even with IS, may not work on a long lens.
Every single time I have been out shooting without tripod, I have regretted not bringing it along.
On Tripod Quality
No tripod is perfectly steady. The less steady ones are more likely to be compromized in a breeze and require longer after touching the camera or lens to dampen the vibrations and require more care with the cable release. Lighter tripods run the risk that the camera will overwhelm the tripod and the whole rig will tip over. In my experience the tripod should weigh as much as the camera/lens combination. Mind you, that doesn't mean you can't use a light tripod - you just have to be a lot more careful. If you are using a light tripod, I highly recommend you go with an L bracket for the camera so that when photographing vertical images you don't have to flop the camera over on its side.
For a given size of tripod, carbon fibre is of course significantly lighter - but perhaps you could get away with the next size down in legs and not have to fork out up to $1000 for carbon fibre (Gitzo).
Manfrotto's newer tripods allow the centre post to swing horizontal. My feeling is that they aren't heavy enough or sturdy enough to hang my 1Ds2 from but they might work well with a smaller lighter camera and there are certainly times when getting out over a railing would have been really useful.
If you do studio work, carbon offers no advantages and might in fact be a disadvantage as here weight is all to the good.
Four and five section legs require good quality and fit, but at least they fit in your suitcase. Don't forget that you can travel with the centre column removed and even the ball head off to make the overall length less.
I used to insist on spike feet for landscape work but my current gitzo tripod just has rubber ends and frankly, I don't think it makes a difference. My tripod legs after two years of a lot of use are just as stiffly connected to the top of the tripod as on day one and can stand on slippery ice at almost any angle without requiring the spread locks to be set - a measure of quality.
Quick release plates are great and I'd not want to go back to screwing in the camera each time I use the tripod, and having the camera rotate on the tripod, just after everything is aligned perfectly.
In theory there is more risk with the arca type clamp which is open at either end but in several years of use I have never had a camera come loose, with arca, RRS or acratech devices. I find the ability to slide the camera left or right great with tilt/shift lenses.
I don't know any serious photographers who continue to use pan/tilt heads for their still photography. Ball heads are almost universal. I have a very small Manfrotto ball head with quick release plate on my 925 tripod for the 40D, making a light portable and packable combination.
For a lightweight traveling tripod I'm willing to compromise on height and will accept the use of up to 6 inches of centre column to get to eye hight.
Don't forget that on a slope, the downhill leg can never be long enough and the fact that my 1349 tripod will go well above six feet is sometimes helpful.
Although my f4 70-200 can be used without tripod collar, it's a lot steadier with it and the whole rig is better balanced.
There are times that tripod PLUS hands on camera is steadier than tripod alone - in high winds or really long lenses (300 mm.+) in which even with mirror lock, I'm concerned about shutter vibration. Mind you, this only works for reasonable shutter speeds. Sometimes I leave off the lens hood if there is a cross wind.
Since you are going to be standing there with the cable release in hand, it makes sense to stand upwind of the camera if possible.
Remember that the whole point of mirror lock was to get the vibration out of the way and firing the shutter right after locking the mirror is somewhat defeating the point - wait a couple of seconds. I confess I have to remind myself of this now and again as I get caught up in the moment.
Tripods, of course; don't defeat subject movement and sometimes an higher ISO may still be necessary to defeat wind.
Remember that you can sometimes make use of a tripod when the legs are together, simply leaning the rig against a fence or wall or over a railing to get the image you want. You can even hold the whole rig out over a canyon should the need arise.
Once on location, I quite happily carry my camera and tripod over my shoulder. I take into consideration what it might bump up against - concrete walls not being famous for their cushioning effects on camera bodies. I do look over my shoulder to see that the lens is more or less aiming down so if I do catch a branch or debris should fall, it isn't going to land on the lens.
Uwe Steinmuller carries a small plastic 2 step ladder with him in the car for those times when you have to see over a fence. Ansel mounted a huge aluminium plate to the top of his vehicle so he could stand up there, with tripod, for the best view. I have been known to carefully climb on the top of a Chevy Suburban roof but sure wouldn't do that with my car - but don't forget you can use live view with the latest cameras to position the camera above eye height and using the centre column and not even look through the view finder.
That said, there are lots of situations in which there are two or more important parts to the image, not in the same plane of focus and for which added depth of field is the only remedy.
In the old days there were depth of field scales on lenses, though anyone who did serious work and made even moderately large prints knew that they needed a smaller stop than the scale suggested. With zooms we have largely given up on the tiny depth of field scales even if they are there.
With the increasing use of full frame sensor cameras, shallow depth of field is a major consideration and often it's necessary to stop down as much as possible - basically just shy of the point where diffraction really starts to become an issue. For me, with a full frame camera, this is f16.
Suddenly the shot that was 1/125 at f5.6 is looking like 1/15 at f16 - which even with IS, may not work on a long lens.
Every single time I have been out shooting without tripod, I have regretted not bringing it along.
On Tripod Quality
No tripod is perfectly steady. The less steady ones are more likely to be compromized in a breeze and require longer after touching the camera or lens to dampen the vibrations and require more care with the cable release. Lighter tripods run the risk that the camera will overwhelm the tripod and the whole rig will tip over. In my experience the tripod should weigh as much as the camera/lens combination. Mind you, that doesn't mean you can't use a light tripod - you just have to be a lot more careful. If you are using a light tripod, I highly recommend you go with an L bracket for the camera so that when photographing vertical images you don't have to flop the camera over on its side.
For a given size of tripod, carbon fibre is of course significantly lighter - but perhaps you could get away with the next size down in legs and not have to fork out up to $1000 for carbon fibre (Gitzo).
Manfrotto's newer tripods allow the centre post to swing horizontal. My feeling is that they aren't heavy enough or sturdy enough to hang my 1Ds2 from but they might work well with a smaller lighter camera and there are certainly times when getting out over a railing would have been really useful.
If you do studio work, carbon offers no advantages and might in fact be a disadvantage as here weight is all to the good.
Four and five section legs require good quality and fit, but at least they fit in your suitcase. Don't forget that you can travel with the centre column removed and even the ball head off to make the overall length less.
I used to insist on spike feet for landscape work but my current gitzo tripod just has rubber ends and frankly, I don't think it makes a difference. My tripod legs after two years of a lot of use are just as stiffly connected to the top of the tripod as on day one and can stand on slippery ice at almost any angle without requiring the spread locks to be set - a measure of quality.
Quick release plates are great and I'd not want to go back to screwing in the camera each time I use the tripod, and having the camera rotate on the tripod, just after everything is aligned perfectly.
In theory there is more risk with the arca type clamp which is open at either end but in several years of use I have never had a camera come loose, with arca, RRS or acratech devices. I find the ability to slide the camera left or right great with tilt/shift lenses.
I don't know any serious photographers who continue to use pan/tilt heads for their still photography. Ball heads are almost universal. I have a very small Manfrotto ball head with quick release plate on my 925 tripod for the 40D, making a light portable and packable combination.
For a lightweight traveling tripod I'm willing to compromise on height and will accept the use of up to 6 inches of centre column to get to eye hight.
Don't forget that on a slope, the downhill leg can never be long enough and the fact that my 1349 tripod will go well above six feet is sometimes helpful.
Although my f4 70-200 can be used without tripod collar, it's a lot steadier with it and the whole rig is better balanced.
There are times that tripod PLUS hands on camera is steadier than tripod alone - in high winds or really long lenses (300 mm.+) in which even with mirror lock, I'm concerned about shutter vibration. Mind you, this only works for reasonable shutter speeds. Sometimes I leave off the lens hood if there is a cross wind.
Since you are going to be standing there with the cable release in hand, it makes sense to stand upwind of the camera if possible.
Remember that the whole point of mirror lock was to get the vibration out of the way and firing the shutter right after locking the mirror is somewhat defeating the point - wait a couple of seconds. I confess I have to remind myself of this now and again as I get caught up in the moment.
Tripods, of course; don't defeat subject movement and sometimes an higher ISO may still be necessary to defeat wind.
Remember that you can sometimes make use of a tripod when the legs are together, simply leaning the rig against a fence or wall or over a railing to get the image you want. You can even hold the whole rig out over a canyon should the need arise.
Once on location, I quite happily carry my camera and tripod over my shoulder. I take into consideration what it might bump up against - concrete walls not being famous for their cushioning effects on camera bodies. I do look over my shoulder to see that the lens is more or less aiming down so if I do catch a branch or debris should fall, it isn't going to land on the lens.
Uwe Steinmuller carries a small plastic 2 step ladder with him in the car for those times when you have to see over a fence. Ansel mounted a huge aluminium plate to the top of his vehicle so he could stand up there, with tripod, for the best view. I have been known to carefully climb on the top of a Chevy Suburban roof but sure wouldn't do that with my car - but don't forget you can use live view with the latest cameras to position the camera above eye height and using the centre column and not even look through the view finder.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Changing An Image To Make It Better
A long time ago, I wrote about the characteristics that really great images tend to have in common, the idea being that knowing what works, you could make images using those characteristics.
As a refresher and based on some recent talks I gave, below are some of those characteristics
1) simple structure to the image
2) limited colour palette (ie. not too many colours)
3) bold graphic design
4) repetition - in shapes, angles, lines, shadows etc.
5) easy to relate to
6) good use of dark and light areas
7) uncluttered background
8) trigger a reaction in the viewer - it could be nostalgia, shock, empathy, even disgust
9) provide more than the experience of being there
10) tell a story
this is an incomplete list, but is enough to be going on with.
So, given the list above, what does it actually mean when photographing?
1) was simple design - this might mean cropping your image or even better moving in closer in the first place, or possibly using a longer lens to eliminate extraneous elements. That said, keep in mind #4 which is repitition. It is common to have to crop to eliminate bad elements but in so doing we sacrifice some of the repetitive elements that make the image good. At this point you have to see if there is a way other than cropping/framing to downplay the distracting elements while keeping the repetitive elements that strengthen the image. This could happen through darkening the distracting element - or reducing the contrast in that area of the image, perhaps desaturating colour in that area or even altering colour to blend better. Sometimes elements are distracting because of strong light and with a softer light source, the distraction melts - if it can do so without spoiling the repetitive elements, then changing the lighting or coming back under different conditions or even simply waiting for a cloud or sunset may be all that's needed. Remember that there's nothing wrong with simply planning to revisit this on the way back when you anticipate the lighting will be better.
2) limited colours. If you find a composition that is wonderful in every way exc. the colour palette, you can always go to black and white, but sometimes I will use the "selective colour" adjustment layer in Photoshop to change particular colours to better balance with the rest of the image.
3) bold graphic design - obviously this is largely a matter of choosing what to photograph, but keep in mind that you can sometimes dramatically increase contrast - especially in black and white. Also though, you can do some selective lightening and darkening and even dodging in Photoshop to emphasize that bold design. This takes practice to not look fake but you can take a perfectly flat gray subject and through image editing, create highlights and shadows that were never there in the first place, with a result that looks totally natural. An orange amongst some pinky reds looks quite odd. subtracting a bit of yellow from the orange will nicely help it blend in.
4) repitition - you can make repitition more obvious via careful editing, bringing out the repetitive shapes through lightening and increasing contrast, suppressing all else with darkening and reducing contrast.
5) easy to relate to - not much you can do in the editing to help here, but certainly a lot can be done in selecting what you photograph and from which position. You have to ask yourself what is it about the subject which you yourself relate to. Then ask yourself if you have done a good job in selecting the camera position to show that in the photograph. If you're photographing a tractor because it reminds you of times on the farm as a kid, then you need to photograph it in a way that best evokes that memory.
6) good use of light and dark areas. The late Fred Picker used to say that instead of struggling to rescue highlights and shadows from oblivion, you ought to be pushing the light and dark areas the way they want to go. of course this requires careful exposure and suitable lighting but his point is that if you take something that is dark gray and "burn" it down, you can create luminous rich shadows reaching into true black but with lots of slightly lighter tones. Likewise highlights.
7) many are the photographs you can't take because the backdround is just too cluttered. Amongst the worst is bright sky coming through dark trees. We tend to discount these bright areas as we look at the scene, yet when seen in a print, they are horribly distracting. If really small, you could consider cloning out the bright spots coming through the trees (or equivalent). I often find with forest, it's necessary to find high ground so I don't look up and through the trees. In other situations the distracting background can be played down through image editing but you do yourself a huge favour by offering yourself the cleanest simplest background possible in the first place, through careful camera positioning and sometimes simply walking way from an "almost good enough" situation.
8) triggering a reaction in the viewer - this one is tricky and comes back to why did you feel this image should be taken. If you want a mood to be transmitted, then you need to use appropriate image editing to communicate that mood - if you want peaceful, then harsh lighting and high contrast editing are not likely to help you. If you want sadness, then bright won't cut it. It necessary for your image to have a message, but if there is one, then you need to do everything possible to reinforce it. Remember though that the message you get from a scene isn't necessarily the message a viewer will take away from the image and that's just fine. There are examples of famous photographers interpreting one of their images in print, only to reinterpret it many years later in an entirely different way, and for neither to have anything to do with how you the viewer interpret their images, because you aren't them, you don't have the same life experiences, crises, crashes, triumphs and tragedies.
9) provide more than the experience of being there. This is a fundamental problem for a lot of hobby photographers who think only to reproduce the experience as capably as possible. Real photographic art is so much more than a competent "wish you were here" type image. You need to honestly ask yourself whether in fact the image you propose to take is simply the best imitation possible of being there, or in fact does something that being there doesn't do.
The extra can come from how the image is framed, from the arrangement of the various parts of the subject because of careful search of the scene to find the best viewpoint, it can come from detailing a small perhaps normally overlooked part of the scene or it might be that after careful analysis of the situation, you are able to produce an image which focuses exclusively on what made the scene great, eliminating everything surplus to getting that message across. Photographs can show connections which might not be obvious standing at the scene, something that might require the use of a wide angle lens to show that connection (say from near to far). Through the use of long lenses or moving in close, you can provide a different viewpoint than the usual or expected.
10) tell a story - the story might be "this is how it's made" or that's where it goes" or "here's what Fred is like" or "A goes to B goes to C..." or here's small town life, or on the farm, or raising a child.
We often discount our own lives as being so prosaic that why would anyone want to photograph it. We go out of our way to photograph small town America but don't take pictures of our town, our street. Interestingly the few photographers who do photograph what is normal to them are often "discovered" years later because they now have an important body of work telling a story about life. It is not easy to see worthwhile images in the scenes we take in every day but it can be challenging and rewarding and just plain useful. We happily photograph a garage from the 40's but won't take a photograph of the new gas bar down the street. We might not make beautiful images of the gas bar, but it could be challenging to make the best possible image of it, at the ideal time of day and with the best possible lighting and carefully composed. I've been thinking for a while that it might be a worthwhile project to photograph my neighbours doing what they like to do - whether it's work with clay, potter with cars, play with model trains. I actually got a call from a fellow physician the other day who wants to do a project on doctors and their extracurricular activities, the idea being to produce a show of these images to be mounted at the local hospital. Can you think of something equivalent in your line of work?
As a refresher and based on some recent talks I gave, below are some of those characteristics
1) simple structure to the image
2) limited colour palette (ie. not too many colours)
3) bold graphic design
4) repetition - in shapes, angles, lines, shadows etc.
5) easy to relate to
6) good use of dark and light areas
7) uncluttered background
8) trigger a reaction in the viewer - it could be nostalgia, shock, empathy, even disgust
9) provide more than the experience of being there
10) tell a story
this is an incomplete list, but is enough to be going on with.
So, given the list above, what does it actually mean when photographing?
1) was simple design - this might mean cropping your image or even better moving in closer in the first place, or possibly using a longer lens to eliminate extraneous elements. That said, keep in mind #4 which is repitition. It is common to have to crop to eliminate bad elements but in so doing we sacrifice some of the repetitive elements that make the image good. At this point you have to see if there is a way other than cropping/framing to downplay the distracting elements while keeping the repetitive elements that strengthen the image. This could happen through darkening the distracting element - or reducing the contrast in that area of the image, perhaps desaturating colour in that area or even altering colour to blend better. Sometimes elements are distracting because of strong light and with a softer light source, the distraction melts - if it can do so without spoiling the repetitive elements, then changing the lighting or coming back under different conditions or even simply waiting for a cloud or sunset may be all that's needed. Remember that there's nothing wrong with simply planning to revisit this on the way back when you anticipate the lighting will be better.
2) limited colours. If you find a composition that is wonderful in every way exc. the colour palette, you can always go to black and white, but sometimes I will use the "selective colour" adjustment layer in Photoshop to change particular colours to better balance with the rest of the image.
3) bold graphic design - obviously this is largely a matter of choosing what to photograph, but keep in mind that you can sometimes dramatically increase contrast - especially in black and white. Also though, you can do some selective lightening and darkening and even dodging in Photoshop to emphasize that bold design. This takes practice to not look fake but you can take a perfectly flat gray subject and through image editing, create highlights and shadows that were never there in the first place, with a result that looks totally natural. An orange amongst some pinky reds looks quite odd. subtracting a bit of yellow from the orange will nicely help it blend in.
4) repitition - you can make repitition more obvious via careful editing, bringing out the repetitive shapes through lightening and increasing contrast, suppressing all else with darkening and reducing contrast.
5) easy to relate to - not much you can do in the editing to help here, but certainly a lot can be done in selecting what you photograph and from which position. You have to ask yourself what is it about the subject which you yourself relate to. Then ask yourself if you have done a good job in selecting the camera position to show that in the photograph. If you're photographing a tractor because it reminds you of times on the farm as a kid, then you need to photograph it in a way that best evokes that memory.
6) good use of light and dark areas. The late Fred Picker used to say that instead of struggling to rescue highlights and shadows from oblivion, you ought to be pushing the light and dark areas the way they want to go. of course this requires careful exposure and suitable lighting but his point is that if you take something that is dark gray and "burn" it down, you can create luminous rich shadows reaching into true black but with lots of slightly lighter tones. Likewise highlights.
7) many are the photographs you can't take because the backdround is just too cluttered. Amongst the worst is bright sky coming through dark trees. We tend to discount these bright areas as we look at the scene, yet when seen in a print, they are horribly distracting. If really small, you could consider cloning out the bright spots coming through the trees (or equivalent). I often find with forest, it's necessary to find high ground so I don't look up and through the trees. In other situations the distracting background can be played down through image editing but you do yourself a huge favour by offering yourself the cleanest simplest background possible in the first place, through careful camera positioning and sometimes simply walking way from an "almost good enough" situation.
8) triggering a reaction in the viewer - this one is tricky and comes back to why did you feel this image should be taken. If you want a mood to be transmitted, then you need to use appropriate image editing to communicate that mood - if you want peaceful, then harsh lighting and high contrast editing are not likely to help you. If you want sadness, then bright won't cut it. It necessary for your image to have a message, but if there is one, then you need to do everything possible to reinforce it. Remember though that the message you get from a scene isn't necessarily the message a viewer will take away from the image and that's just fine. There are examples of famous photographers interpreting one of their images in print, only to reinterpret it many years later in an entirely different way, and for neither to have anything to do with how you the viewer interpret their images, because you aren't them, you don't have the same life experiences, crises, crashes, triumphs and tragedies.
9) provide more than the experience of being there. This is a fundamental problem for a lot of hobby photographers who think only to reproduce the experience as capably as possible. Real photographic art is so much more than a competent "wish you were here" type image. You need to honestly ask yourself whether in fact the image you propose to take is simply the best imitation possible of being there, or in fact does something that being there doesn't do.
The extra can come from how the image is framed, from the arrangement of the various parts of the subject because of careful search of the scene to find the best viewpoint, it can come from detailing a small perhaps normally overlooked part of the scene or it might be that after careful analysis of the situation, you are able to produce an image which focuses exclusively on what made the scene great, eliminating everything surplus to getting that message across. Photographs can show connections which might not be obvious standing at the scene, something that might require the use of a wide angle lens to show that connection (say from near to far). Through the use of long lenses or moving in close, you can provide a different viewpoint than the usual or expected.
10) tell a story - the story might be "this is how it's made" or that's where it goes" or "here's what Fred is like" or "A goes to B goes to C..." or here's small town life, or on the farm, or raising a child.
We often discount our own lives as being so prosaic that why would anyone want to photograph it. We go out of our way to photograph small town America but don't take pictures of our town, our street. Interestingly the few photographers who do photograph what is normal to them are often "discovered" years later because they now have an important body of work telling a story about life. It is not easy to see worthwhile images in the scenes we take in every day but it can be challenging and rewarding and just plain useful. We happily photograph a garage from the 40's but won't take a photograph of the new gas bar down the street. We might not make beautiful images of the gas bar, but it could be challenging to make the best possible image of it, at the ideal time of day and with the best possible lighting and carefully composed. I've been thinking for a while that it might be a worthwhile project to photograph my neighbours doing what they like to do - whether it's work with clay, potter with cars, play with model trains. I actually got a call from a fellow physician the other day who wants to do a project on doctors and their extracurricular activities, the idea being to produce a show of these images to be mounted at the local hospital. Can you think of something equivalent in your line of work?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Perhaps A Better View...
A bit more subtle than the first and with a nice leading line taking you into the picture.
Monday, February 16, 2009
River's Edge
A break in the recent cold spell and off we went to see what we could do with ice along the Highwood River.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Paul Strand Image
After my post of my own image in my last blog entry, I thought about this image. It too is quite simple. It also doesn't show a lot for the effort of blowing it up to a really large print.
I do think there are differences however.
In this case there is almost no texture to the various shapes and even in a 9 foot high print, they are simply going to be that - shapes. It's almost as if you either need a lot to offer or nothing distracting from the shape as subject.
As an image this has several things going for it. I count a total of 12 curved lines, from wheel to headlight to axle, shadow and object. This repetition pulls the image together. Had there only been three similar lines or shapes, it might well have been weaker.
You can see where I learned to move in and crop tightly - this image is so different from an image of the whole cycle would have been and is almost an abstract.
The curve in the upper left corner nicely meets the headlight at the edge of the print.
I do wonder at the worth of that little square in the upper right hand cornet - it would have been so easy to crop - but Strand may well have been contact printing and perhaps didn't believe in cropping (like a fair number of others). On the other hand he may well have felt that the square within the frame of white broke up the unrelieved dark area and been happy to keep it.
If you are unfamiliar with the work of Paul Strand, I do heartily recommend it to you. Some of his portrait work is wonderful.
Micro Detail
There are lots of ways to make a poor image but if you know most of the ways, you can avoid them if possible. The image above looks quite nice when viewed from a distance, in a small print, or very small on screen. The problem is that when seen close or with more detail (click on image to bring up the 1000 pixel version), while the shapes and shadows are still good, now you see the dirt and the patterns of rust aren't all that interesting and there's nothing more to see than you saw looking at the small image. This can happen to any image if you enlarge it enough and there are certainly images which are lovely as a 5X7 in hand, yet poor in a 13X19. What I'm talking about here is images which look good on a 3 inch LCD screen or not much more than thumbnail size on screen.
The problem is that thumbnails are what we select images from to work on - so you need to stop at some point and ask yourself if the image has enough going for it to hold up at 5X7 or 8X10. I think in this case the answer is no.
What would it have taken to work in a larger size?
- less dirt
- interesting swirls in the rust
- a small pool of water
- something worth seeing at a larger size - who knows what it could have been - it wasn't and that's the end of the story.
Or is it? What if I increased contrast in some of the rust - bringing out more colour and texture?
Better, but probably still not enough - though by this point I have been playing with the image long enough I don't trust my own judgment - time to pin it to the wall and think about it for a while - or force you to look at it and give me some feedback - sorry!
Friday, January 30, 2009
From The Archives
Searching for old raw files so I could do a "Pairs" chapter I noticed this sequence of images never ever stitched together and thought I'd give it a try.
Do click on the image to see it much larger in its own window.
For the new book I am taking a series of good images which were part of a shoot and then comparing them to another image from the same shoot that didn't quite work and discussing the differences.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fame Vs. Fortune
How many hobby photographers have wanted to turn their hobby into a paying proposition?
Lots? Most?, Many certainly.
There's valid reasons for doing so.
1) being paid for your work puts a value on it and says to you that your work is worth something.
2) People can say nice things but buying your work means they really did like it.
3) Many of us stretch the budget when it comes to buying equipment and making enough to pay for some if not all of our equipment (or the equipment we'd like to purchase but can't justify for a hobby) would certainly smooth things over on the home front.
4) some just like the idea of a second career - as a backup or possibly even something to move into. There are people who retire early yet want something meaningful to do after retirement.
5) it would at least help pay for supplies - those damn ink cartridges sure add up and how come inkjet paper is more expensive than silver photographic paper - and Kodak tried to tell us it was the price of silver...
I would argue though that while the money would be nice, many of us given the choice between money and recognition would choose the latter if we couldn't have both. I think that they are quite separate and that the efforts to help one don't necessarily translate to helping the other.
If that is the case, then it would pay to decide now which of the two is more important to us and to then put our efforts into working towards that goal which is important to us.
If it turns out that recognition if not downright fame is what we seek, then getting our work up on walls is vital - whether or not it sells prints. Thus we should be offering framed images to restaurants and movie theaters, to public buildings, hospitals and so on.
We should be seeking publication, whether via contests or readers pages. You might do as I did and try your hand at writing and see if you can get an article published. The web has been a wonderful resource for people getting their work "out there". Of course the vast majority of viewers are other photographers which can be a mixed blessing (a topic for another day).
You can even self publish with things like Blurb, though the books tend to be a bit expensive to purchase so I'm not sure you will get a lot of recognition that way. You can do as I did for two years and sell your images at the local crafts/farmers market or attend craft fairs.
None of the above suggestions is going to make you much money but that wasn't the point, was it?
If on the other hand you want money, then you are going to have to sell yourself. The analogy to prostitution is not entirely coincidental and it takes a certain kind of confidence to sell yourself and to persuade others to spend thousands on your work. I don't propose to tell you how to make money from your photography because I have never made much from it and don't feel I should be advising you on things I haven't done. there are books out there on selling your photography.
Do however keep in mind that selling your work means doing more work, more print making, more matting and framing, packaging and shipping, more time spent selling yourself than doing photography. Many professional photographers have indicated that the selling is 90% of their work, photography only 10%. Is that what you really want?
Many of us are extremely insecure about the value of our work and bounce from over confidence to fearing waking up and finding out we are complete frauds - this seems to be pretty normal in the arts in general. A bit of positive feedback, especially when we didn't go out of our way to "sell" ourselves, helps alleviate doubts about our work and encourages us to push on.
Lots? Most?, Many certainly.
There's valid reasons for doing so.
1) being paid for your work puts a value on it and says to you that your work is worth something.
2) People can say nice things but buying your work means they really did like it.
3) Many of us stretch the budget when it comes to buying equipment and making enough to pay for some if not all of our equipment (or the equipment we'd like to purchase but can't justify for a hobby) would certainly smooth things over on the home front.
4) some just like the idea of a second career - as a backup or possibly even something to move into. There are people who retire early yet want something meaningful to do after retirement.
5) it would at least help pay for supplies - those damn ink cartridges sure add up and how come inkjet paper is more expensive than silver photographic paper - and Kodak tried to tell us it was the price of silver...
I would argue though that while the money would be nice, many of us given the choice between money and recognition would choose the latter if we couldn't have both. I think that they are quite separate and that the efforts to help one don't necessarily translate to helping the other.
If that is the case, then it would pay to decide now which of the two is more important to us and to then put our efforts into working towards that goal which is important to us.
If it turns out that recognition if not downright fame is what we seek, then getting our work up on walls is vital - whether or not it sells prints. Thus we should be offering framed images to restaurants and movie theaters, to public buildings, hospitals and so on.
We should be seeking publication, whether via contests or readers pages. You might do as I did and try your hand at writing and see if you can get an article published. The web has been a wonderful resource for people getting their work "out there". Of course the vast majority of viewers are other photographers which can be a mixed blessing (a topic for another day).
You can even self publish with things like Blurb, though the books tend to be a bit expensive to purchase so I'm not sure you will get a lot of recognition that way. You can do as I did for two years and sell your images at the local crafts/farmers market or attend craft fairs.
None of the above suggestions is going to make you much money but that wasn't the point, was it?
If on the other hand you want money, then you are going to have to sell yourself. The analogy to prostitution is not entirely coincidental and it takes a certain kind of confidence to sell yourself and to persuade others to spend thousands on your work. I don't propose to tell you how to make money from your photography because I have never made much from it and don't feel I should be advising you on things I haven't done. there are books out there on selling your photography.
Do however keep in mind that selling your work means doing more work, more print making, more matting and framing, packaging and shipping, more time spent selling yourself than doing photography. Many professional photographers have indicated that the selling is 90% of their work, photography only 10%. Is that what you really want?
Many of us are extremely insecure about the value of our work and bounce from over confidence to fearing waking up and finding out we are complete frauds - this seems to be pretty normal in the arts in general. A bit of positive feedback, especially when we didn't go out of our way to "sell" ourselves, helps alleviate doubts about our work and encourages us to push on.
Our Biggest Problems
I want to make my next book as useful as possible and I have been thinking about what are the biggest non technical problems that face photographers.
So far I have come up with the following which I have struggled with over the years and for which I would have been glad of some help.
1) what to photograph
2) how to go about looking for something suitable
3) working the scene
4) what to do to images in the way of editing to go beyond simply fixing them
I intend this book to be the practical companion to the first book through the use of examples, contact sheets, problem solving and specific examples of editing beyond fixing.
What do you think are your biggest issues either that you currently have or that you struggled with to get where you are and could have used some help.
You have a chance to guide the design and value of this upcoming book.
Thanks,
George
So far I have come up with the following which I have struggled with over the years and for which I would have been glad of some help.
1) what to photograph
2) how to go about looking for something suitable
3) working the scene
4) what to do to images in the way of editing to go beyond simply fixing them
I intend this book to be the practical companion to the first book through the use of examples, contact sheets, problem solving and specific examples of editing beyond fixing.
What do you think are your biggest issues either that you currently have or that you struggled with to get where you are and could have used some help.
You have a chance to guide the design and value of this upcoming book.
Thanks,
George
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Black And White On The 3800
Talking to a friend this week who told me that he always uses colour mode for his black and white prints on the 3800. He felt that metamerism was no longer a problem. Mind you he's mostly a colour photographer.
I decided to check for myself. Here's my observations.
In 16 bit Photoshop I made an image 2X8 inche, 300 dpi and used a white to light gray gradient. I then printed it two ways, first in colour, and then I printed it again, in advanced black and white mode. I used the appropriate profile for the Harman gloss paper in colour, and no profile in black and white.
The gradients didn't match in darkness which didn't surprise me but what I was looking for was overall colour to this completely gray print and also to look under magnification at how much colour was included in the printing of the two gradients.
1) both prints looked neutral gray to my eye
2) the advanced black and white printing was slightly warmer than the other - I'd say neutral was somewhere inbetween and we are talking subtleties here. You would not notice exc. for side by side comparisons.
3) under magnification, both used quite a lot of blue, perhaps a bit more in the colour print. The colour print included a little magenta and perhaps a tiny amount of yellow (I wasn't really sure - under 8X magnification I couldn't be sure).
4) I then took my prints around the house on a sunny day, checking out sun, north shade with blue sky, incandescent and fluorescent. In comparison with prints made on the 4000 (my old standard printer) colour prints showed minimal metamerism - a really tiny amount which would not be an issue in my opinion.
Now, Paul Roark makes a big thing of how much colour ink is used in advanced black and white mode, making the point that the dedicated inks for black and white printing are so much better, but here's the thing.
Carbon isn't black - it's brown - ie. warmer than neutral. The only way to make neutral prints with carbon is to add something bluish to cancel out the warmth.
Sure you can mix the ink in the bottle and the dots printed will be neutral gray - but they still contain blue ink. With colour printers, the gray dots are mixed in with the blue dots (and a smidge of magenta) to get neutral so each dot is it's own colour, not a mix (that's the nature of combining dots instead of blending inks). Since these colour dots are not visible to the naked eye, the end result is the same.
So: unless you plan to use pure carbon inks and live with very warm tone prints, you are going to be using blue/cyan somewhere along the process and frankly I'm not convinced that in the end it makes any difference whether you use dedicated inks or not.
The next enquiry I need to make is to further assess just how much more colour ink is in the colour print vs. the abw print because this has longeivity issues - carbon being more stable than colour inks (whether blended in the bottle or not).
The last concern is whether the abw mode actually handles highlights and shadows any better than colour mode - that's a test for another day.
I decided to check for myself. Here's my observations.
In 16 bit Photoshop I made an image 2X8 inche, 300 dpi and used a white to light gray gradient. I then printed it two ways, first in colour, and then I printed it again, in advanced black and white mode. I used the appropriate profile for the Harman gloss paper in colour, and no profile in black and white.
The gradients didn't match in darkness which didn't surprise me but what I was looking for was overall colour to this completely gray print and also to look under magnification at how much colour was included in the printing of the two gradients.
1) both prints looked neutral gray to my eye
2) the advanced black and white printing was slightly warmer than the other - I'd say neutral was somewhere inbetween and we are talking subtleties here. You would not notice exc. for side by side comparisons.
3) under magnification, both used quite a lot of blue, perhaps a bit more in the colour print. The colour print included a little magenta and perhaps a tiny amount of yellow (I wasn't really sure - under 8X magnification I couldn't be sure).
4) I then took my prints around the house on a sunny day, checking out sun, north shade with blue sky, incandescent and fluorescent. In comparison with prints made on the 4000 (my old standard printer) colour prints showed minimal metamerism - a really tiny amount which would not be an issue in my opinion.
Now, Paul Roark makes a big thing of how much colour ink is used in advanced black and white mode, making the point that the dedicated inks for black and white printing are so much better, but here's the thing.
Carbon isn't black - it's brown - ie. warmer than neutral. The only way to make neutral prints with carbon is to add something bluish to cancel out the warmth.
Sure you can mix the ink in the bottle and the dots printed will be neutral gray - but they still contain blue ink. With colour printers, the gray dots are mixed in with the blue dots (and a smidge of magenta) to get neutral so each dot is it's own colour, not a mix (that's the nature of combining dots instead of blending inks). Since these colour dots are not visible to the naked eye, the end result is the same.
So: unless you plan to use pure carbon inks and live with very warm tone prints, you are going to be using blue/cyan somewhere along the process and frankly I'm not convinced that in the end it makes any difference whether you use dedicated inks or not.
The next enquiry I need to make is to further assess just how much more colour ink is in the colour print vs. the abw print because this has longeivity issues - carbon being more stable than colour inks (whether blended in the bottle or not).
The last concern is whether the abw mode actually handles highlights and shadows any better than colour mode - that's a test for another day.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
More On The 3800
Further experimentation with the 3800 and getting hold of Harmans profile for its FBAL gloss paper for said printer and I observe that the Harman paper soft proof shows very little difference - a very slight dulling of highlights - in comparision to the unproofed screen image and on printing is a very close match for the print. I did have to widen the platen distance - as I'd been warned (and also had to do on the 5000. With the Pixel Genius profile for Epson Exhibition on the 3800, there is a bit more dulling of the highlights when soft proofed and again this accurately reflects the print and probably is explained but the reduced gloss of the Exhibition paper.
It would be convenient to print on the paper that most closely matches the screen without soft proofing (and with) - I just have to decide if I can live with the extra gloss. I went through my Lenswork folios again, both black and white and colour and decided that I could live with the gloss for now. I have two boxes of Exhibition and will quite happily use it up.
It would be convenient to print on the paper that most closely matches the screen without soft proofing (and with) - I just have to decide if I can live with the extra gloss. I went through my Lenswork folios again, both black and white and colour and decided that I could live with the gloss for now. I have two boxes of Exhibition and will quite happily use it up.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Profiles and Proofing
I recently picked up an Epson 3800 - I'd been less than happy with the gloss differential on my Canon 5000 (which of course had been replaced on the market by the 5100 within a year of coming out expressly because of this problem). I couldn't afford to update to the 5100 and wouldn't because of the downright awkward interface, so the 3800 seemed to make sense. Yes, I knew that it is near the end of it's cycle, yes, it still has to clean and switch to handle matte paper and yes, almost certainly a new model will be announced soon. I did think though that the time from announcement to availability is often several months and I wanted to improve my printing now.
In addition, I had admired framed prints on Epson Exhibition (or Traditional as it's known in Europe) and thought to combine the paper and printer for the best possible quality, particularly in black and white.
Anyway, I was somewhat disappointed with the quality of the colour prints I was making on the 3800 so I double checked by using the Photoshop proofing capability and behold, the proofing showed exactly what I was getting in print - that's a good thing. Bad though is how far from the screen is the final result - so far it is a completely non scientific impression that the 5000 produced prints much closer to what I see on screen - certainly with the epson enhanced matte paper. I will find a profile for the 3800 for the Harman gloss paper and check that for fit.
I can correct the image to compensate for the profile to some degree which I find odd - surely that was the job of the profile.
I'm going to have to do some proper testing to see how this plays out and will report back. In the mean time, the Epson does make some very fine black and white prints which was after all why I bought it. I find that the Epson Exhibition doesn't look anything like the paper I saw at Photokina - less shiny, courser texture. It's nice, just not what I expected. I had been fairly happy with the Harman gloss, the paper that Lenswork has adopted as the standard for their new folios. My only concern was that on the 5000 the gloss (which is further enhanced by the ink) is so much that it's hard to hold any images in any direction without getting some reflection in the shadows.
I have written before that I have a theory that it is the subtle variance in these shadow reflections which actually give prints their three dimensional appearance when in hand, which is somewhat lost when the print is dry mounted and entirely gone when behind glass (ie. not moving), but the Harman and the 5000 inks seemed to me to be just a bit too much.
I have Mitch Dobrowner's folio on this paper and I don't know what printer Lenswork is using but again it's just a little bit glossier than I like. On the other hand, I think the Epson Exhibition I'm purchasing here is not quite glossy enough, as well as being a bit too much textured.
Am I being fussy? You're darn right I am. Too fussy? Probably.
Question: does anyone actually know if Epson Traditional and Epson Exhibition are in fact the same paper - I'm beginning to doubt that they are. If that is the case, how does one get hold of Epson Traditional in North America?
In addition, I had admired framed prints on Epson Exhibition (or Traditional as it's known in Europe) and thought to combine the paper and printer for the best possible quality, particularly in black and white.
Anyway, I was somewhat disappointed with the quality of the colour prints I was making on the 3800 so I double checked by using the Photoshop proofing capability and behold, the proofing showed exactly what I was getting in print - that's a good thing. Bad though is how far from the screen is the final result - so far it is a completely non scientific impression that the 5000 produced prints much closer to what I see on screen - certainly with the epson enhanced matte paper. I will find a profile for the 3800 for the Harman gloss paper and check that for fit.
I can correct the image to compensate for the profile to some degree which I find odd - surely that was the job of the profile.
I'm going to have to do some proper testing to see how this plays out and will report back. In the mean time, the Epson does make some very fine black and white prints which was after all why I bought it. I find that the Epson Exhibition doesn't look anything like the paper I saw at Photokina - less shiny, courser texture. It's nice, just not what I expected. I had been fairly happy with the Harman gloss, the paper that Lenswork has adopted as the standard for their new folios. My only concern was that on the 5000 the gloss (which is further enhanced by the ink) is so much that it's hard to hold any images in any direction without getting some reflection in the shadows.
I have written before that I have a theory that it is the subtle variance in these shadow reflections which actually give prints their three dimensional appearance when in hand, which is somewhat lost when the print is dry mounted and entirely gone when behind glass (ie. not moving), but the Harman and the 5000 inks seemed to me to be just a bit too much.
I have Mitch Dobrowner's folio on this paper and I don't know what printer Lenswork is using but again it's just a little bit glossier than I like. On the other hand, I think the Epson Exhibition I'm purchasing here is not quite glossy enough, as well as being a bit too much textured.
Am I being fussy? You're darn right I am. Too fussy? Probably.
Question: does anyone actually know if Epson Traditional and Epson Exhibition are in fact the same paper - I'm beginning to doubt that they are. If that is the case, how does one get hold of Epson Traditional in North America?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Issues And More Issues
I photographed this sculpture downtown Calgary this afternoon. It raises the whole issue of whether one can take any artistic credit for photographing something someone else made as a piece of art - whether sculpture as in this case, or architecture, graffiti or even an ornamental garden.
I can tell myself that the creator of this sculpture did not in fact envision their work being viewed from this particular angle, with today's lighting and the surrounding buildings looking this way - but I don't really know that - for all I know, this is exactly the spot they stood, looking up and envisioning their future work. Granted I framed it as well as positioning myself.
I find photographing sculpture quite challenging and so it appeals to me.
This image is simply a closeup of the work done by the sculptor - I contributed almost nothing to the image. Every curve, bump, surface and reflection was the work of the sculptor.
If someone photographs graffiti and frames it the same way the painter did thus reproducing it almost exactly as it was created, is the photograph a valid piece of art?
Difficult questions . What if there had been no art in the first image, just the buildings - does that make a difference?
While shooting a series of images working towards the image I showed you at the top, along came three other photographers who also photographed the sculpture. I watched as they photographed the same scene. They all took pictures but did not "work the scene". It might be that they were really "hot" photographers, instantly understanding the scene and able to quickly find the best spot to photograph from. I know I certainly was unable to do that. I tried a number of positions, refining each, yet there are so many parts to the scene, so many corners and lines and diagonals that I never did feel that I had the "best" result. I like what I got here but Still wonder if I did the best possible job.
For example, the large grid overlaps the tall building on the left - perhaps I could have found a position from which it didn't and that might have resulted in a better picture. I was using my 40D and 18-55IS at 18 mm. What would have been my choice had that not been the widest angle I could shoot at?
Still, at some point you have to say, I did my best, come and behold it - lumps and all.
In this repeat of the first image - I used the cream colour of the sculpture to white balance the image. Certainly this looks a lot more like what I saw - although if one were to colour balance for the sunlit buildings, the top image is in fact the more accurate, this city canyon being lit only by bright blue sky. So which is the more "natural", or the more correct (which isn't necessarily the same thing)?
I prefer the top image - I like the unifying blue theme - I like the image - I accept that it is not all mine - that the sculptor bears much of the responsibility for the image - but I'd like to think they would be pleased with what I have captured of their work - yes, I will display the image in the future, for whatever it's worth.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Friday, January 09, 2009
Seeing Past The Label
When we look at a chair, we see a chair - we do so because we have been doing it all our lives and it didn't take us long to learn the various shapes which immediately identified an object as being a chair. The only problem with this efficiency is that we don't see the object itself, don't appreciate it's shape, texture, shadows, the spaces between the parts and how it relates to what is around it.
If you doubt that you do this, close your eyes and try and give an accurate description of someone you know really well. Unless you have consciously made the effort to look at that person in terms of shapes and planes and features and light and shadow - it's darn hard. No wonder when we lose a loved one we rapidly lose memory of what they looked like and can't recall details about them. Of course we are reminded if we have pictures.
It makes sense in every day life to use the fastest way possible to identify a person or object - but it makes for poor seeing because we jump right from the minimum information to identify the object to the label and don't look at it again. Now, if your spouse suggests you buy a new chair - this chair - for $600, all of a sudden you start paying attention but even then, you are more concerned with overall appearance, how it "sits" and is it a good rocker.
To photograph a chair, it is necessary to notice where the shadow of the spokes of the chair back fall, how the light reflects off the polished seat and what interesting shapes are made as you tour around the chair looking at it from a variety of angles. What's behind the chair is every bit as important to an image as the chair itself (in the sense that it can make or ruin the image).
Try the following exercise. Spend 20 minutes looking at things. This could be done on a walk or simply sitting in a room. Pick an object and see how many things you can see about that object - shapes shadows, light, surface, tone, colour, texture, and so on - anything that could show up in a print. Having done so move onto the next object.
Try and find some "objects" to notice that actually don't exist by themselves - two lines crossing - one made by a wall corner, the other by something completely different, but in your view, they interact because of your position - a shadow - a spot of light on the floor from the window - a reflection as an object, and so on. Each will take a minute or so so in 20 minutes you will have studied around 20 real and imaginary objects.
Now, do the same every day for a month. You could perform the exercise in your car at a red light. Instead of seeing a building - look at the triangle made by the shadow of one roof against another and such like.
At the end of a month, you will have regained some of your childhood recognition of things as they are instead of what they represent, you will be relying less on labels and more on what you see. Odds are if you try this with faces that you will be much more aware of how things look instead of what they are.
If you doubt that you do this, close your eyes and try and give an accurate description of someone you know really well. Unless you have consciously made the effort to look at that person in terms of shapes and planes and features and light and shadow - it's darn hard. No wonder when we lose a loved one we rapidly lose memory of what they looked like and can't recall details about them. Of course we are reminded if we have pictures.
It makes sense in every day life to use the fastest way possible to identify a person or object - but it makes for poor seeing because we jump right from the minimum information to identify the object to the label and don't look at it again. Now, if your spouse suggests you buy a new chair - this chair - for $600, all of a sudden you start paying attention but even then, you are more concerned with overall appearance, how it "sits" and is it a good rocker.
To photograph a chair, it is necessary to notice where the shadow of the spokes of the chair back fall, how the light reflects off the polished seat and what interesting shapes are made as you tour around the chair looking at it from a variety of angles. What's behind the chair is every bit as important to an image as the chair itself (in the sense that it can make or ruin the image).
Try the following exercise. Spend 20 minutes looking at things. This could be done on a walk or simply sitting in a room. Pick an object and see how many things you can see about that object - shapes shadows, light, surface, tone, colour, texture, and so on - anything that could show up in a print. Having done so move onto the next object.
Try and find some "objects" to notice that actually don't exist by themselves - two lines crossing - one made by a wall corner, the other by something completely different, but in your view, they interact because of your position - a shadow - a spot of light on the floor from the window - a reflection as an object, and so on. Each will take a minute or so so in 20 minutes you will have studied around 20 real and imaginary objects.
Now, do the same every day for a month. You could perform the exercise in your car at a red light. Instead of seeing a building - look at the triangle made by the shadow of one roof against another and such like.
At the end of a month, you will have regained some of your childhood recognition of things as they are instead of what they represent, you will be relying less on labels and more on what you see. Odds are if you try this with faces that you will be much more aware of how things look instead of what they are.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Lenswork Folios
I am now the proud owner of three Lenswork Folios so I thought it time to comment on them. First off, I find the whole concept of a folio wonderful. They nicely sit on my lap and the print size is ideal for viewing - large enough to appreciate detail, small enough to not fold up as you hold them, nor so big you can't find an even light to view them under.
I take a folio, admire the inlaid cover image, then flip the folio over. I open the four leaves and can either take out the colophon (Table of contents/bio) to read, or I can go straight to the images, leaning them against the lower opened leave against my chest so that I can view each image with a minimum of contact. The Harman paper is a little shinier than I like for my own work but does a superb job on presenting the images. At this size you want a minimum of surface texture so you can fully appreciate the images and I feel that Brooks has made the perfect choice for displaying the images.
Each image does have the folio title and image title at the bottom but they are discreet and do not interfere with the enjoyment of the folio. The whole folio exudes quality - definitely value for money. The folios close easily.
One aspect of a folio is that you of course don't get to choose which particular images are enclosed and no photographer is so good that you are going to stare in wonder at every single image and so it is with the three folios I have - Brooks Jensen's "Silva lacrimosa", Mitch Dobrowner's "The Still Earth" and Michael Reichmann's "Landscapes From Around The World"
In each folio all images are of excellent quality, it's just that some resonate with you and others don't - it's the same with looking at a book of images. For all the superb printing quality in Lenswork itself, the folio images are another step and are of course larger too - double the size of images in the magazine.
I figure that if there are four images that I really like out of each folio, that puts the cost of each at around $25 which coincidentally is what I have been charging for images from my book (4 prints for $100) so I can hardly argue with the pricing - I think Brooks got it exactly right. This was a brave move because many will see it as setting a value of each image at around $10, creating a fundamental change in the marketplace for fine art images. And it does - and I think it was high time. As Brooks has said, you can purchase a CD of the finest music by the greatest orchestras/musicians for around $20 and the music industry is worth billions.
If you doubt the soundness of this argument, I ask the following question of you - how many prints do you own of great photographers? Few own more than a dozen and I suspect the vast majority of "serious" photographers own none at all. A sad state of affairs and Lenswork is in a position to change that entirely.
I am very excited by the whole concept of the folio. It will be interesting over time to hear from photographers included in Lenswork Folio proramme, how they feel about it after a year and what it has meant economically, especially in comparison to sales of prints in the previous year.
Yes, it is scary to value prints at $10 but only because it's so different from what we are used to - the vast majority of photographers working with galleries and direct print sales would say that the previous paradigm was not working - so what do we have to lose.
I take a folio, admire the inlaid cover image, then flip the folio over. I open the four leaves and can either take out the colophon (Table of contents/bio) to read, or I can go straight to the images, leaning them against the lower opened leave against my chest so that I can view each image with a minimum of contact. The Harman paper is a little shinier than I like for my own work but does a superb job on presenting the images. At this size you want a minimum of surface texture so you can fully appreciate the images and I feel that Brooks has made the perfect choice for displaying the images.
Each image does have the folio title and image title at the bottom but they are discreet and do not interfere with the enjoyment of the folio. The whole folio exudes quality - definitely value for money. The folios close easily.
One aspect of a folio is that you of course don't get to choose which particular images are enclosed and no photographer is so good that you are going to stare in wonder at every single image and so it is with the three folios I have - Brooks Jensen's "Silva lacrimosa", Mitch Dobrowner's "The Still Earth" and Michael Reichmann's "Landscapes From Around The World"
In each folio all images are of excellent quality, it's just that some resonate with you and others don't - it's the same with looking at a book of images. For all the superb printing quality in Lenswork itself, the folio images are another step and are of course larger too - double the size of images in the magazine.
I figure that if there are four images that I really like out of each folio, that puts the cost of each at around $25 which coincidentally is what I have been charging for images from my book (4 prints for $100) so I can hardly argue with the pricing - I think Brooks got it exactly right. This was a brave move because many will see it as setting a value of each image at around $10, creating a fundamental change in the marketplace for fine art images. And it does - and I think it was high time. As Brooks has said, you can purchase a CD of the finest music by the greatest orchestras/musicians for around $20 and the music industry is worth billions.
If you doubt the soundness of this argument, I ask the following question of you - how many prints do you own of great photographers? Few own more than a dozen and I suspect the vast majority of "serious" photographers own none at all. A sad state of affairs and Lenswork is in a position to change that entirely.
I am very excited by the whole concept of the folio. It will be interesting over time to hear from photographers included in Lenswork Folio proramme, how they feel about it after a year and what it has meant economically, especially in comparison to sales of prints in the previous year.
Yes, it is scary to value prints at $10 but only because it's so different from what we are used to - the vast majority of photographers working with galleries and direct print sales would say that the previous paradigm was not working - so what do we have to lose.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
More Lensbaby Effort
Still not sure what to do with the Lensbaby, if anything - but I do think continued experimentation is worth while. This image is another in my glass block/shower series started a few years ago, only this time with the limited area of sharpness of the Lensbaby. I do like the subtlety of this image, made possible with this lens. I do wish though that I could more reliably get the focus right - unfortunately the focus confirmation doesn't work - not sure why - the central part of the image is plenty sharp and contrasty enough, and the lens fast enough that it should be possible. I suspect though that even though in theory focus confirmation shouldn't need information from the lens, it shuts down with the lack of same. If there's a way round this - do let me know.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Lizzie
The Lensbaby Composer, wide open (f2), the two element glass lens. Depth of field is zero - the lower lid is sharp, the iris is not and you'd best plan on a series of shots since getting focus right is extremely challenging.
I'm having fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)