Posts
Another advantage of doing projects is that we tend to get better with time. Not only was Pepper # 30 Edward Weston's thirtieth attempt at a pepper, he'd also been working with a variety of other vegetables and shells. Although his other vegetable images do get included in shows and books, it is the single wonderful image that many consider one of the greatest photographs ever. So it would appear that even though this was part of a project, it's ok to come out the other end with a single iconic image.
Given a choice between being known for 20 mediocre images vs. one great one, I think most of us would vote for the one great one, in the hope that having made one, it wasn't a fluke and we can do it again, eventually.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Depth Of Field
Wayne asks for further clarification about depth of field and comments on lenses for APS-C cameras and so on.
Right. Some basic facts.
1) depth of field is proportional to the f stop - an opening half as large doubles the f stop (2 stops) and doubles the depth of field.
2) image magnification is invesely proportional to depth of field - make a print twice as big (in linear dimension) and you have half the depth of field. Start with a smaller sensor and you have to magnify the image more, so less depth of field there too.
3) depth of field is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the focal length. Double the focal length and you get one quarter the depth of field - ouch.
And believe it or not - that's it, no other factors play a big role in measuring depth of field.
So, in Wayne's example of a 35 mm. lens on a DX sensor Nikon and comparing it to 35 mm. film camera (or a full size sensor camera), you have a sensor 1.5X smaller. The actual focal length is 35 mm., whether designed for a dx camera (APS-C size sensor) or full frame.
Wayne notices that a 35 mm. lens on his film camera seems to have more depth of field than when he has a 35 mm. lens on his Nikon APS-C sensor camera. He's right and here's why.
We have three factors, two of which didn't change - focal length stays 35 mm., and f stop remains, say f 11. All that changes is which camera the lens is on (or which 35 mm. lens you are using, but that's the same thing).
Put the 35 mm. lens on a larger format camera (bigger sensor or bigger film) and you don't have to magnify the image as much to make the same size print - so more depth of field. It has nothing to do with angle of view. It has nothing to do with some magic lens design for DX size cameras. It applies regardless of what 35 mm. lens you use.
Now, if you did want the same angle of view, you'd need to use a wider lens on the small sensor camera, so you would be changing the focal length. Here you would still have the magification issue, but you'd have the square of the change in focal length - essentially 1.5 squared and divided by 1.5 - that is, the lens you'd need for the DX sensor camera, would be (35 divided by 1.5) mm. long - approximately 21 mm. The depth of field would be approximately 1.5 times better with this lens on this camera when compared to the same view, same print size on the full frame camera.
This explains why it is so difficult to get shallow depth of field with a point and shoot camera with a sensor one quarter the diameter of 33 mm. film.
What does twice as much depth of field mean - well a simple way to look at it would be sharpness from infinity to 4 feet instead of infinity to 8 feet, or a range of sharpness of approximately a foot behind and in front of the subject instead of 6 inches.
Right. Some basic facts.
1) depth of field is proportional to the f stop - an opening half as large doubles the f stop (2 stops) and doubles the depth of field.
2) image magnification is invesely proportional to depth of field - make a print twice as big (in linear dimension) and you have half the depth of field. Start with a smaller sensor and you have to magnify the image more, so less depth of field there too.
3) depth of field is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the focal length. Double the focal length and you get one quarter the depth of field - ouch.
And believe it or not - that's it, no other factors play a big role in measuring depth of field.
So, in Wayne's example of a 35 mm. lens on a DX sensor Nikon and comparing it to 35 mm. film camera (or a full size sensor camera), you have a sensor 1.5X smaller. The actual focal length is 35 mm., whether designed for a dx camera (APS-C size sensor) or full frame.
Wayne notices that a 35 mm. lens on his film camera seems to have more depth of field than when he has a 35 mm. lens on his Nikon APS-C sensor camera. He's right and here's why.
We have three factors, two of which didn't change - focal length stays 35 mm., and f stop remains, say f 11. All that changes is which camera the lens is on (or which 35 mm. lens you are using, but that's the same thing).
Put the 35 mm. lens on a larger format camera (bigger sensor or bigger film) and you don't have to magnify the image as much to make the same size print - so more depth of field. It has nothing to do with angle of view. It has nothing to do with some magic lens design for DX size cameras. It applies regardless of what 35 mm. lens you use.
Now, if you did want the same angle of view, you'd need to use a wider lens on the small sensor camera, so you would be changing the focal length. Here you would still have the magification issue, but you'd have the square of the change in focal length - essentially 1.5 squared and divided by 1.5 - that is, the lens you'd need for the DX sensor camera, would be (35 divided by 1.5) mm. long - approximately 21 mm. The depth of field would be approximately 1.5 times better with this lens on this camera when compared to the same view, same print size on the full frame camera.
This explains why it is so difficult to get shallow depth of field with a point and shoot camera with a sensor one quarter the diameter of 33 mm. film.
What does twice as much depth of field mean - well a simple way to look at it would be sharpness from infinity to 4 feet instead of infinity to 8 feet, or a range of sharpness of approximately a foot behind and in front of the subject instead of 6 inches.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Blending Focus
Pete asks why I felt the need to use blended focus, and Helicon Focus specifically, to process the recently posted image (More From Stanley Park).
Several factors come into play.
1) I'm using a full size sensor camera (5Dii) and the larger the sensor the less the depth of field. It's possible that a small point and shoot with it's tiny half inch sensor might have had enough depth of field. Certainly an APS-C size sensor would not in this situation.
2) the reason this image doesn't have enough depth of field is that it is a close up. The area photographed is about 12 inches across, 18 high, the camera two feet away from the furthest object, six inches from the nearest. There is no f stop which will encompass enough depth of field to handle this kind of range, even allowing for blurring the stump in the bottom left. Check out depth of field tables on the net - you will be horrified at how little depth of field there is with subjects a few feet from the camera.
3) my own testing shows me that f16 is the smallest practical f stop for my camera. Beyond that, the sharp bit get fuzzier and there isn't sufficient gain in depth of field to justify this loss (diffraction).
4) even f 11 is sharper than f 16, so when blending, that's the f stop I use.
Why Helicon Focus instead of Photoshop - simple, it does a better job. Helicon has been doing this kind of blending for about 7 years, Photoshop only the last two versions (ie. about two years). Helicon's whole raison d'etre is blending, Photoshop made this one of many add-ons.
Are there limitations? Yes. Two problems occur and both happened here. First, as you change focus, the image size changes. In normal simple design lenses, as you focus further away, you include more (as if you were zooming out or moving away). Oddly, with my 24-105, the exact opposite happens, as I focus further, the image gets larger, ie it crops. So, if I frame perfectly on the near focus, it crops too tight at the far focus. The second and more serious problem is that with wide angle lenses especially, the software has trouble blending the edges of the image and you start to get double or even tripple exposures along the outside of the image. As this only affects about 10% of the image, cropping takes care of it - if you have room to crop 10%. I don't see problems with my 70-200, so in general I'm talking < 70 mm. focal length.
Other than that it works well. My preference is not to do a lot of sharpening on the image before blending - amount 25 in camera raw, considerably less than I'd use on a single image. I do not use any clarity enhancement (increased local contrast) as this tends to be exaggerated in the blending process.
Several factors come into play.
1) I'm using a full size sensor camera (5Dii) and the larger the sensor the less the depth of field. It's possible that a small point and shoot with it's tiny half inch sensor might have had enough depth of field. Certainly an APS-C size sensor would not in this situation.
2) the reason this image doesn't have enough depth of field is that it is a close up. The area photographed is about 12 inches across, 18 high, the camera two feet away from the furthest object, six inches from the nearest. There is no f stop which will encompass enough depth of field to handle this kind of range, even allowing for blurring the stump in the bottom left. Check out depth of field tables on the net - you will be horrified at how little depth of field there is with subjects a few feet from the camera.
3) my own testing shows me that f16 is the smallest practical f stop for my camera. Beyond that, the sharp bit get fuzzier and there isn't sufficient gain in depth of field to justify this loss (diffraction).
4) even f 11 is sharper than f 16, so when blending, that's the f stop I use.
Why Helicon Focus instead of Photoshop - simple, it does a better job. Helicon has been doing this kind of blending for about 7 years, Photoshop only the last two versions (ie. about two years). Helicon's whole raison d'etre is blending, Photoshop made this one of many add-ons.
Are there limitations? Yes. Two problems occur and both happened here. First, as you change focus, the image size changes. In normal simple design lenses, as you focus further away, you include more (as if you were zooming out or moving away). Oddly, with my 24-105, the exact opposite happens, as I focus further, the image gets larger, ie it crops. So, if I frame perfectly on the near focus, it crops too tight at the far focus. The second and more serious problem is that with wide angle lenses especially, the software has trouble blending the edges of the image and you start to get double or even tripple exposures along the outside of the image. As this only affects about 10% of the image, cropping takes care of it - if you have room to crop 10%. I don't see problems with my 70-200, so in general I'm talking < 70 mm. focal length.
Other than that it works well. My preference is not to do a lot of sharpening on the image before blending - amount 25 in camera raw, considerably less than I'd use on a single image. I do not use any clarity enhancement (increased local contrast) as this tends to be exaggerated in the blending process.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Stanley Park
just back from a visit to Vancouver, to see our daughter and take a break. Found this partly burned stump on the beach at Stanley Park. Blended focus with Helicon Focus, a little bit of Akvis Enhancer to the centre only and otherwise pretty straight. Canon 5DII.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Travel Tripod
When I was in Victoria last fall, I couldn't find the ideal tripod for travel purposes, and ended up picking up an inexpensive Slik travel tripod, complete with built in ball head and mini-quick release plates. It was adequate and I got some lovely shots thanks to that tripod. The head though was the problem, especially for vertical shots. I normally use an L bracket from Really Right Stuff for my 5D2, so what I've done is order the smallest lever release head from the same company and will place that on this super light tripod. It's aluminum but reasonably sturdy and tall enough for travel purposes.
The big thing with a travel pod is it's nice if it can go on your backpack, which theoretically huge tripods can do, but in practice don't very well. Also, it needs to fit inside luggage when flying, and there are times a tripod that doesn't tie up both hands to carry is very nice.
Some might wonder 'why even bother with a tripod', especially with modern cameras great high ISO Imaging. For me the reasons are:
1) to be able to stop down for max. depth of field
2) shoot under marginal light - often more interesting light
3) to make blended images for incredible depth of field using Helicon Focus
4) blended exposures for HDR without the worry of misalignment of images.
These justify lugging a tripod, and if it can be a small light one without too much compromise, well all the better.
Let you know how the new combo works when I return.
George
The big thing with a travel pod is it's nice if it can go on your backpack, which theoretically huge tripods can do, but in practice don't very well. Also, it needs to fit inside luggage when flying, and there are times a tripod that doesn't tie up both hands to carry is very nice.
Some might wonder 'why even bother with a tripod', especially with modern cameras great high ISO Imaging. For me the reasons are:
1) to be able to stop down for max. depth of field
2) shoot under marginal light - often more interesting light
3) to make blended images for incredible depth of field using Helicon Focus
4) blended exposures for HDR without the worry of misalignment of images.
These justify lugging a tripod, and if it can be a small light one without too much compromise, well all the better.
Let you know how the new combo works when I return.
George
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Weathered Plywood
An old billboard, long since devoid of advertizing material. I've been thinking it would be worth photographing for some time, and on the weekend finally stopped in time to do so. Stitched of course. Images processed in Camera Raw and output as TIFF's, then stitched in PTGui Pro, output as a psb file (it's 22,000X5,200 pixels after cropping). Very little in the way of edting (for me - which means only about 30 minutes and two dozen changes - mostly to do with lightening the centre, darkening the left end a bit to balance the right).
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturated Colours
There's a world of difference between taking subtle colours and enhancing them to modest saturation, and taking modestly saturated colours and driving them to full saturation; the difference between sketching and cartooning; between drawing attention and screaming; between Satie and Sousa.
Both have their place, but they're hardly interchangeable. Photoshop gives us powerful tools. Skill is in knowing when not to use them, or even more, how to use them subtly.
In the days of the wet darkroom, novice and even experienced printers would struggle with how dark is too dark, how contrasty is too contrasty. Even Ansel struggled with this, though at a higher plane than most everyone else.
One problem with sneaking up on just the right contrast or saturation or tone, is that the increments are each of them small enough not to be all that noticeable, the but the accumulated changes end up taking us way past the point we might have gone, had we done it in one step.
I find it very helpful to save the image a few times under diff. names during long editing sessions, coming back the next day, with fresh eyes to revisit just how far to go. often the next day I'm horrified at just how far I took something the previous evening without recognizing just how far beyond optimal I'd gone. Often it's simpler to start over.
Both have their place, but they're hardly interchangeable. Photoshop gives us powerful tools. Skill is in knowing when not to use them, or even more, how to use them subtly.
In the days of the wet darkroom, novice and even experienced printers would struggle with how dark is too dark, how contrasty is too contrasty. Even Ansel struggled with this, though at a higher plane than most everyone else.
One problem with sneaking up on just the right contrast or saturation or tone, is that the increments are each of them small enough not to be all that noticeable, the but the accumulated changes end up taking us way past the point we might have gone, had we done it in one step.
I find it very helpful to save the image a few times under diff. names during long editing sessions, coming back the next day, with fresh eyes to revisit just how far to go. often the next day I'm horrified at just how far I took something the previous evening without recognizing just how far beyond optimal I'd gone. Often it's simpler to start over.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Do We Need To Do Projects?
Brooks Jensen has written about the importance of projects, especially from the point of view of a publisher. Sandy Wilson commented on my last blognote to the effect that projects are an artificial idea largely promulgated by teachers, critics and publishers, the implication being that at the very least projects are not needed, and implying they might not even be a good idea, or perhaps 'might not be good for you'.
I think the truth is somewhere between. Some photographers seem to do nothing but projects. They don't carry a camera unless they are on a project. Others simply carry a camera when they have the time, photographing whatever appears before them that might photograph well. Others do a bit of both.
Elliot Erwitt is famous for his dog pictures, but he photographs amusing and insightful relationships all over and often without featuring dogs. Edward Weston would go on trips, but then photograph whatever happened on hand while there, from dead pelicans to nudes, pottery to friends.
It's true that Edward Weston made a project of Armco Steel, but only insofar as he visited it and got a few photographs - certainly not enough to make a real 'project' of it, not enough to submit a portfolio of the images so he could get them in Lenswork. Yet one of those images was certainly considered a milestone in his work. Did he then go around a whole whack of other industrial sites - no he didn't.
In selecting images for "Why Photographs Work", I selected an industrial image from a photographer famous for his landscapes, and he quite reasonably asked if we could select a different image that was more typical of his work In another case, a photographer had 'moved on' since doing the image I selected and didn't want to be included if it meant going with an old project. He felt obliged to support his galleries which were all showing his new and diff. work.
Some subjects are best explored thoroughly and only over a long period do the best images develop. Other times, there simply isn't enough material to make repeated visits worth while - before long you simply make variations of the shots you made last time.
Of course, you also have the problem of defining what constitutes a project - wouild you call landscape in general a project - hardly. What if you limited it to mountain photography? Or a specific mountain - but what if you then find you don't have enough great images of that one mountain, so you have to travel and build mountain photographs over many years - still a project?
No matter what topic/subject/project you come up with, you can generalize it enough so it doesn't look like a project, or narrow it so much its unlikely you will get a whole portfolio of images from it.
You'd think that photographers who shoot almost at random and with no real plan or project in mind, would eventually shoot enough images they'd get lucky and over 20+ years produce a portfolio of really interesting, yet entirely unrelated images. Interestingly, I don't think this happens very often. Typically the people who can produce a sig. number of 'random' images of great power or beauty are the same ones who also gravitate to projects.
I suspect that projects are a natural side effect of being curious and interested - why wouldn't you want to explore more situations that have given you pleasure, challenge or success in the past.
What does happen is that lots of photographers simply don't have enough depth in any one subject to make a show or please a publisher and they don't because they like to spread themselves thin, which is just fine. They do need to be aware though, that this may mean they aren't going to get published or acquire fame until late in life by which time the apparent randomness of their work coalesces into a series of subjects of enough depth.
Of course, this raises the subject of how you define success in photography and that's a topic for another day.
I think the truth is somewhere between. Some photographers seem to do nothing but projects. They don't carry a camera unless they are on a project. Others simply carry a camera when they have the time, photographing whatever appears before them that might photograph well. Others do a bit of both.
Elliot Erwitt is famous for his dog pictures, but he photographs amusing and insightful relationships all over and often without featuring dogs. Edward Weston would go on trips, but then photograph whatever happened on hand while there, from dead pelicans to nudes, pottery to friends.
It's true that Edward Weston made a project of Armco Steel, but only insofar as he visited it and got a few photographs - certainly not enough to make a real 'project' of it, not enough to submit a portfolio of the images so he could get them in Lenswork. Yet one of those images was certainly considered a milestone in his work. Did he then go around a whole whack of other industrial sites - no he didn't.
In selecting images for "Why Photographs Work", I selected an industrial image from a photographer famous for his landscapes, and he quite reasonably asked if we could select a different image that was more typical of his work In another case, a photographer had 'moved on' since doing the image I selected and didn't want to be included if it meant going with an old project. He felt obliged to support his galleries which were all showing his new and diff. work.
Some subjects are best explored thoroughly and only over a long period do the best images develop. Other times, there simply isn't enough material to make repeated visits worth while - before long you simply make variations of the shots you made last time.
Of course, you also have the problem of defining what constitutes a project - wouild you call landscape in general a project - hardly. What if you limited it to mountain photography? Or a specific mountain - but what if you then find you don't have enough great images of that one mountain, so you have to travel and build mountain photographs over many years - still a project?
No matter what topic/subject/project you come up with, you can generalize it enough so it doesn't look like a project, or narrow it so much its unlikely you will get a whole portfolio of images from it.
You'd think that photographers who shoot almost at random and with no real plan or project in mind, would eventually shoot enough images they'd get lucky and over 20+ years produce a portfolio of really interesting, yet entirely unrelated images. Interestingly, I don't think this happens very often. Typically the people who can produce a sig. number of 'random' images of great power or beauty are the same ones who also gravitate to projects.
I suspect that projects are a natural side effect of being curious and interested - why wouldn't you want to explore more situations that have given you pleasure, challenge or success in the past.
What does happen is that lots of photographers simply don't have enough depth in any one subject to make a show or please a publisher and they don't because they like to spread themselves thin, which is just fine. They do need to be aware though, that this may mean they aren't going to get published or acquire fame until late in life by which time the apparent randomness of their work coalesces into a series of subjects of enough depth.
Of course, this raises the subject of how you define success in photography and that's a topic for another day.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Ideas For Projects
Where do ideas for projects come from? How do we know if an idea is a good one, or is it us trying too hard or getting desperate or doing it because we think we should?
Here's some things to think about.
1) of all the great artists there have ever been, only a tiny fraction were revolutionary - most were evolutionary - that is, taking an idea and modifying it to make it their own. Why should we expect any more of ourselves? So, take a cool idea by someone else and modify it to make it your own.
Ryuijie photographed flowers in blocks of ice. So you come up with something besides flowers to photograph in ice, or a different way/veiewpoint to photograph the ice, or something besides ice (fine sand or flour?). What about photographing faces in water - you'd need either a fish tank or a waterproof camera and a pool. What if the water were coloured, unevenly? What if you used oil? How about using coloured lights shining through the ice to make interesting effects?
Get the idea?
2) Never underestimate the value of doing something for fun. Cleaning out my Dad's house the other day I came across his original leather encased folding SX-70 - and with film being made for it again, this is a great opportunity. Can't see the point of doing landscapes with it, but what about nudes, flowers, mechanical close ups?
3) I guarantee that no matter how clever you are at coming up with an original idea, someone else will point out that you weren't the first after all - so why all the angst over the struggle to find original ideas. How about instead finding a good idea by someone else ans asking yourself, "how can I use this idea around something that is important/interesting/exciting/puzzling to me?"
4) follow up on those fleeting observations. I have noticed that often large trucks have interesting patterns of mud or snow on their back doors. There's never time to photograph them on the highway, but what about going to a truck stop and spending a day photographing trucks - forecast is for snow this weekend, so might be my last chance this year.
The other day I was crossing a bridge and noted the interesting shapes of the light rail structure as I passed. I might just start a project on recording the city's rail system - think about it - you can photograph at sunrise or sunset, in the rain, at night, in a snow storm or after one. You can photograph the tracks, bridges, wiring, stations, and don't forget the travellers. You can go on the trains and photograph the people (good use for a small non threatening camera like a point and shoot). There's more chance that your efforts to record part of your city as it is now will have lasting impact than any project photographing delapidated buildings.
5) no point in pinning all your hopes on a project you are unlikely to pull off any time soon - sure it would be interesting to go to Namibia but I can't afford it, don't have the time, and it's a long way. Work instead with what you have available. Don't bemoan lack of mountains if what you have is prairie. Come up with a way to make what you have work for you.
Don't underrate the idea of a project as simple as "the people I know".
Good luck and great ideas.
George
Here's some things to think about.
1) of all the great artists there have ever been, only a tiny fraction were revolutionary - most were evolutionary - that is, taking an idea and modifying it to make it their own. Why should we expect any more of ourselves? So, take a cool idea by someone else and modify it to make it your own.
Ryuijie photographed flowers in blocks of ice. So you come up with something besides flowers to photograph in ice, or a different way/veiewpoint to photograph the ice, or something besides ice (fine sand or flour?). What about photographing faces in water - you'd need either a fish tank or a waterproof camera and a pool. What if the water were coloured, unevenly? What if you used oil? How about using coloured lights shining through the ice to make interesting effects?
Get the idea?
2) Never underestimate the value of doing something for fun. Cleaning out my Dad's house the other day I came across his original leather encased folding SX-70 - and with film being made for it again, this is a great opportunity. Can't see the point of doing landscapes with it, but what about nudes, flowers, mechanical close ups?
3) I guarantee that no matter how clever you are at coming up with an original idea, someone else will point out that you weren't the first after all - so why all the angst over the struggle to find original ideas. How about instead finding a good idea by someone else ans asking yourself, "how can I use this idea around something that is important/interesting/exciting/puzzling to me?"
4) follow up on those fleeting observations. I have noticed that often large trucks have interesting patterns of mud or snow on their back doors. There's never time to photograph them on the highway, but what about going to a truck stop and spending a day photographing trucks - forecast is for snow this weekend, so might be my last chance this year.
The other day I was crossing a bridge and noted the interesting shapes of the light rail structure as I passed. I might just start a project on recording the city's rail system - think about it - you can photograph at sunrise or sunset, in the rain, at night, in a snow storm or after one. You can photograph the tracks, bridges, wiring, stations, and don't forget the travellers. You can go on the trains and photograph the people (good use for a small non threatening camera like a point and shoot). There's more chance that your efforts to record part of your city as it is now will have lasting impact than any project photographing delapidated buildings.
5) no point in pinning all your hopes on a project you are unlikely to pull off any time soon - sure it would be interesting to go to Namibia but I can't afford it, don't have the time, and it's a long way. Work instead with what you have available. Don't bemoan lack of mountains if what you have is prairie. Come up with a way to make what you have work for you.
Don't underrate the idea of a project as simple as "the people I know".
Good luck and great ideas.
George
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Michael Reichmann
Just have to comment on Michael's latest image of a ladder on his site. Not sure if this link will survive new content on his site but do check it out. he comments that it was taken with the Fuji X-100 and that he's managed 4 portfolio quality images in one shoot. One can't help wondering if a fixed lens no zoom camera like this perhaps lets you concentrate more on the seeing instead of the fiddling - will look forward to his comments in the next few weeks.
This is a lovely image, almost abstract, simple, strong, wonderful colour. Makes you think, want to look again, ask questions or simply admire the beauty in something not inherently beautiful.
This is a lovely image, almost abstract, simple, strong, wonderful colour. Makes you think, want to look again, ask questions or simply admire the beauty in something not inherently beautiful.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Image Editing Videos Now Fully Uploaded
There are now seven videos uploaded to youtube, labeled athabasca edit 1 through 7, for about an hour of real time editing with commentary. You may learn a few tricks but the more important message is the process of analysing the image to see where improvements could and should be made, about decisions on cropping and taking things too far and backing up, of trying things and seeing what works.
Just do a youtube search for George Barr
Just do a youtube search for George Barr
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
What Are The Best Photographs Ever?
I'd like you to name your all time favourite photographs by someone else - the top of the top, the supreme, the wonderful, the magic.
Here's why. I want to see if we can learn anything from these images - are there threads of consistency - about subject or approach, project vs. one off, obvious message or not, etc..
I think a number of us would list Edward Weston's Pepper #30 as one of those top ten photographs, despite its mundane subject and lack of political message, but you can't infer much from a single image, so bring em on, what are your top 10 outstanding choices.
Why not open it to images of yours? Simple. You might think it's because I don't think you can make an image that good but you'd be wrong - it's just that we have emotional attachments to images of our own which may not be apparent to others and that is going to confuse and analysis of common threads.
If you can supply a url that will take us to each image, even better, we can look them up.
Come on, enlighten us, surprise us, shock us with your all time favourite photographs.
George
Here's why. I want to see if we can learn anything from these images - are there threads of consistency - about subject or approach, project vs. one off, obvious message or not, etc..
I think a number of us would list Edward Weston's Pepper #30 as one of those top ten photographs, despite its mundane subject and lack of political message, but you can't infer much from a single image, so bring em on, what are your top 10 outstanding choices.
Why not open it to images of yours? Simple. You might think it's because I don't think you can make an image that good but you'd be wrong - it's just that we have emotional attachments to images of our own which may not be apparent to others and that is going to confuse and analysis of common threads.
If you can supply a url that will take us to each image, even better, we can look them up.
Come on, enlighten us, surprise us, shock us with your all time favourite photographs.
George
Friday, February 18, 2011
Image Editing Video
The second image editing video is up, showing the use of Selective Color Adjustment Layer to fix a specific problem without creating more problems than I'm fixing.
Athabasca Edit 2
I should have Edit 3 up later tonight as I fix the water.
George
Athabasca Edit 2
I should have Edit 3 up later tonight as I fix the water.
George
Monday, February 14, 2011
Videos
There are now a total of four videos on youtube
1) is a brief description of the three books I have written, to a background of me out shooting.
2) is a slideshow of images selected from those I made in 2010.
3) is a more detailed description of "Why Photographs Work" and includes 8 of the images from the book.
4) is my first editing video - this takes my athabasca falls image and shows the adjustments I make in camera raw, then an analysis of the image on what needs to be fixed or improved. Subsequent videos (not yet made) will take you through the changes I make, from cropping to colour adjustment, contrast enhancement, fixing highlights and shadows, and fine tuning an image.
1) is a brief description of the three books I have written, to a background of me out shooting.
2) is a slideshow of images selected from those I made in 2010.
3) is a more detailed description of "Why Photographs Work" and includes 8 of the images from the book.
4) is my first editing video - this takes my athabasca falls image and shows the adjustments I make in camera raw, then an analysis of the image on what needs to be fixed or improved. Subsequent videos (not yet made) will take you through the changes I make, from cropping to colour adjustment, contrast enhancement, fixing highlights and shadows, and fine tuning an image.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Second Edition of Take Your Photography...
My publisher has asked me to do a second edition of Take Your Photography To The Next Level. I have made it clear that I'm not prepared to label it a second edition without substantially improving the book - at least a couple of new chapters, expanded text, more pointers and better resources. My challenge now is to deliver on this stand before the end of July.
I have some sense of where I'm going with this but am definitely open to suggestions from those who have read the book and liked it and more especially found it useful.
You can either comment on this blog entry or email me directly through the contact on my website. The latter allows for more detailed suggestions and also some privacy, as well as giving me your email address so that I can respond to you, perhaps with some questions or discussion on your suggestions.
Thanks,
George
I have some sense of where I'm going with this but am definitely open to suggestions from those who have read the book and liked it and more especially found it useful.
You can either comment on this blog entry or email me directly through the contact on my website. The latter allows for more detailed suggestions and also some privacy, as well as giving me your email address so that I can respond to you, perhaps with some questions or discussion on your suggestions.
Thanks,
George
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Lightroom For Editing?
Frank Field commented on my use of Lightroom, saying he's gone the opposite way - using Photoshop for his editing.
Let me make it clear - I was referring to the use of Lightroom for organizing my images, not editing them. More specifically, after watching the Luminous Landscape tutorial, I am even more convinced that the point of Lightroom is to make editing easier, not better, and as I've said many times, fine art photography is always about better. Easier is a distant second.
I do pay attention to easier - the whole digital workflow is what has made me sufficiently productive to get published and write books and for someone who has to edit a lot of images, Lightroom may be exactly what they need.
For example, they show editing of an image of a nearby hillside and distant hills. They want to balance the brightness of the two and use two different gradients, and it gets close, but you can still see that the blend is not perfect. Then they use local adjustments and fancy masking, and still don't fix all of the problems that the gradients caused. I could have fixed the whole thing in seconds with a curves adjustment layer and skip the gradients. OK, I have some skill in using gradients, but I argue in my second book, From Camera To Computer, that it is better to use a few tools really well, than dozens with less skill - especially when working on one image as opposed to dozens or even hundreds. It's the difference between getting a single image fantastic and getting a whole wedding shoot really good.
Let me make it clear - I was referring to the use of Lightroom for organizing my images, not editing them. More specifically, after watching the Luminous Landscape tutorial, I am even more convinced that the point of Lightroom is to make editing easier, not better, and as I've said many times, fine art photography is always about better. Easier is a distant second.
I do pay attention to easier - the whole digital workflow is what has made me sufficiently productive to get published and write books and for someone who has to edit a lot of images, Lightroom may be exactly what they need.
For example, they show editing of an image of a nearby hillside and distant hills. They want to balance the brightness of the two and use two different gradients, and it gets close, but you can still see that the blend is not perfect. Then they use local adjustments and fancy masking, and still don't fix all of the problems that the gradients caused. I could have fixed the whole thing in seconds with a curves adjustment layer and skip the gradients. OK, I have some skill in using gradients, but I argue in my second book, From Camera To Computer, that it is better to use a few tools really well, than dozens with less skill - especially when working on one image as opposed to dozens or even hundreds. It's the difference between getting a single image fantastic and getting a whole wedding shoot really good.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Lightroom
After procrastinating for years, I'm determined to start using Lightroom to catalogue my images properly. A new computer and even more hard drives has pretty much forced me into this.
I'm almost finished the superb Lightroom 3 Tutorial Videos from Luminous Landscape, more than 8 hours of invaluable information. I'm starting with the importing of all my raw files (some I haven't seen in years) and most importantly, adding keywords to them so all the images from each imported folder can be found, then more keywords for smaller groups of images.
I'm also looking into using Lightroom and an add-on website publisher from Photographers-toolbox to link to my Rapidweaver website - to automate updating my web images through lightroom and to better control the size of images on various sizes of screen.
I'm almost finished the superb Lightroom 3 Tutorial Videos from Luminous Landscape, more than 8 hours of invaluable information. I'm starting with the importing of all my raw files (some I haven't seen in years) and most importantly, adding keywords to them so all the images from each imported folder can be found, then more keywords for smaller groups of images.
I'm also looking into using Lightroom and an add-on website publisher from Photographers-toolbox to link to my Rapidweaver website - to automate updating my web images through lightroom and to better control the size of images on various sizes of screen.
Video On Youtube
I've just uploaded my first video to youtube. It's short and simply describes the three books I have written, but it shows me out photographing at one of my favourite local spots. You might be slightly entertained.
Can't sort out the link from the office but if you do a youtube search for George Barr Fine Art Photography, you'll find it.
Can't sort out the link from the office but if you do a youtube search for George Barr Fine Art Photography, you'll find it.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Heating Plant Reflection
I tried blocking the reflection with my hat but liked the version with the reflection. The dark circle bottom centre is not my head - it's the front of the 17-40 mm. lens and camera body. The lens was touching the window.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)