Photographs You Don't Like

I was reading TOP (the online photographer) today, on making snap judgements on whether images are anything from wonderful to crap, and the response from one reader that the best images all were of the same style/subject that he photographs.

This got me thinking. How much can you learn from looking at images similar to yours? You might well improve your composition, tonalities, lighting, or even sharpness, but there is unlikely to be any quantum leap in your abilities as a photographer.

If instead one were to take some images you definitely don't like, but which are consistently recognized as wonderful and spend some considerable time with them, just perhaps that quantum leap in abilities might just happen.

Apropos this, I can't help but read the reviews of my books on Amazon, and of late there have been several extremely negative reviews of both my writing (which is fair enough) and of all the photography in "Why Photographs Work" which is frankly pretty darn stupid. In the end, these kind of negative reviews "I only saw three or four photographs I liked" say far more about the ignorance of the writer of the review than it does about my book, or for that matter, any book.

What they are saying, in essance, is that they don't see any redeeeming worth in the photographs of Ted Turner, Bruce Barnbaum, Michael Kenna, Beth Moon, Elizabeth Opalenik etc.

Given the multipublication of their work, the numerous books they have in print and the general respect  in which they are held, it would behoove the photographer who feels that way to spend some time studying these and other famous images they don't approve of and if over time they still can't see the worth of such images, should sit down with someone of experience who does.

One of the great joys of exploring the world of art is to find new great artists and to learn to appreciate their work.

Since the development of youtube I have 'discovered' the work of Queen, and its leader Freddy Mercury. I'd heard the name, never knew the work. It's been a fantastic trip, and such a tragedy to lose someone of his talent 'before his time'.

Anyway, I was giving a talk on photography last weekend and used a couple of music analogies, including a short clip from Queen, which not one person in the audience of more than 100 was able to identify.

You can look at this as sad, that they have been denied this great music, or alternatively be glad for them that they can come across Queen's work for the first time. Where was I when Queen was at its height. Wasn't I ready for it at the time?

Give yourself a chance to make new discoveries, and should your reaction be negative where many you respect feel otherwise, give yourself a chance to warm to the images.

Skateboard Ramps

For the last year or so I have noted that each Fall, a nearby city storage area becomes cluttered with interesting curved shapes. I guessed that these were temporary skateboard ramps set up in various communities for the kids, but the stacked shapes fascinated me. An attempt to photograph over the chain link fence after wading through waist deep snow last Winter was a complete bust, but today after work I stopped by and got permission to go in and photograph.

Initially the sun was very strong and I had difficulty coming up with suitable and manageable compositions. I switched over the camera to exposure bracketing (Panasonic GH2), and continued to shoot.

I love the ability to quickly set controls on this camera - from single to multiple exposure, from spot reading to average, changing ISO and so on.

I strongly dislike that my right hand almost constantly triggers the menu function while I'm trying to shoot. I may actually have to put something on the back to protect the button more.

I'm not in love with the EVF - in sunlight it really is the pits with glasses on - I understand that those lucky enough not to need glasses are fine with it - and of course in lower light it's wonderful - but I wouldn't choose a similar evf again. I constantly had to use one of my hands to shade the viewfinder and my glasses so I could see the viewfinder at all.

I haven't blended any of the multiple exposures yet - this was simply a pick of the litter so to speak - the exposure which produced recoverable highlights and adequate shadows.

Through Barn Window

Shot last Fall, but couldn't quite find the right crop or editing at the time, and today felt ready to tackle it. Focus blend of course, though I did photograph this with the 5X7 too, lens tilt to adjust focus plane. Am yet to process the negs though.

Andy Nixon Blog And Videos

Just stumbled on the blog of Andy Nixon and he has some very interesting content. I have just finished a short video of Michael Levin out photographing in Japan and when seen full screen, you get to see several of Michael's images at a great size.

Still to be explored are other videos on Paul Caponigro, Charlie Cramer and David Ward. I'll be back.

Tripod Modifications

For a long time I have been using the Gitzo series 3, 4 section tripod, with a centre column and an Acratech ball head. After last weekend's shooting in the wind and watching the magnified image on the lcd waving around, I decided to do something about it and today was my first opportunity to try out the motified rig.

Out went the centre post, Manfrotto leveling head and Acratech ball head, all of which perched the camera a good 8 inches above the top of the tripod.

Instead I now have the Really Right Stuff Leveling head that directly fits the System 3 tripod 75 mm. opening. On top of that I have the BH 55 RRS ball head with lever opening.

I'm impressed with the significant addition to steadiness and the leveling head for the tripod works a treat - one hand on the camera, a twist to the handle that sticks below the tripod, eye on the level and I'm quickly set up for any panos I might make.

It really is a pleasure to use well designed equipment. I should say though, that the Acratech head was lighter, just a bit taller (3/4 inch) and has worked extremely well. It will remain on the centre column for when I still need that.

 Photos from the RRS catalog.

Wire and Fence

Just having fun. The top image was done both wide open and stopped down and I preferred the latter. The bottom image was wide open and would have been a disaster stopped down, 70-200 mm. lens in both cases.

Hornby In Colour

More On Stone

As usual, you can click on the image to see it larger. Worth it here as you can see the detail in the stone. Image toned with beige first then purple, and the percentages turned way down for a selenium look.

Lighting Is Everything

The above is a rock cut for highway expansion. The bluish gray shale was in afternoon sun and a this angle - was glowing. Other than a focus blend (poorly done, I needed at least one more image and a mid section is out of focus, damn it) the image has had NO manipulation at all. This looks just like the raw file.

The wind was blowing fairly hard and I could see on the magnified live view that the camera continued to shake, even when using my hat to block the wind. That's it for centre posts. I'll carry it in the car, but not use it. I did find that taking the lens hood off the 70-200 reduced shake to some degree. Next time I'll use an umbrella to block the wind.

Hornby Island

From a few years ago, two images for stitching, neither on its own looking very good and therefore overlooked, but when combined...

Glenbow Ranch

Signed up for a photographic excursion into the newly opened Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park. Located between Calgary (pop. 1 million) and Cochrane (30,000?) on the Bow River, eventually the park will connect the two. it's 32,000 acres of hills, meadows, prairie grassland and working cattle ranch

Timing Is Everything

I'm driving home from Edmonton and as I drive past the grain terminal, I think to myself I must see if I can photograph it before they start knocking it down this winter - well, a second glance and I see I have NO time to get over there before they start...

The Beginning Of A New Project?

This rather nice image is simply a plastic grocery bag, lit from above and behind with a couple of 4 foot fluorescents, right behind my computer. There might be something here.

Original File For Machine Shop Image

Canvas Printing

It had been my intention to clean the jets of my old 7600 and load it with some Breathing Color canvas - but clogged jets and issues around stretching, framing and coating the prints, and I concluded that it might just be easier to order them online.

So, I checked out some companies. One seemed very reasonable and offered free shipping - but I noted that they didn't talk colour space or icc profiles and I wondered if this might not be what I was looking for. A few more attempts and I came across Canada On Canvas. They seemed to suit so I processed a file (the cover image from my first book - broken window, and uploaded to their ftp site after appropriate sharpening and converting to Adobe RGB.

Within the week came back a 20X30 canvas print, mirror edges (which they did) on 1 3/8 wood framing. It looked so good my office staff wouldn't let me bring it home and it has engendered a number of very favourable comments.

I happened to owe my sister a print, and wanted a couple of prints for my father, and I was behind in a Christmas present for a friend, so since the first print looked so good, I quickly arranged 3 more canvas prints. Two of the three I have seen and I'm delighted with the results - spot on colour (the joys of a profiled monitor, and at their end good profiles for printing).

Sure I'm losing some profit by not doing my own framing and stretching - frankly - they are welcome to it. I don't even have to leave home. Compared to getting prints done locally, the results are far superior - and I have cancelled any plans for replacing my 7600 with a newer and bigger printer - I just don't see the point.

Now I want some canvas prints for myself. I'd had considerable reservations about printing on canvas - texture, detail, etc. but so far I'm delighted. That the prints are light compared to a glass/matte/frame job on regular paper, not to mention a fraction of the price, and darn, they look nice on the wall. I did get frames for my Dad, thinking he might not appreciate the modern look of unframed canvas with mirrored edges, but the consensus in our office is we sure don't miss those frames and glass that hides the image.

Whether the prints will stand up to time remains to be seen. I am a bit concerned that Canada On Canvas uses a vinyl product for protecting the prints. Sure can't see or smell it which suggests to me that it isn't loaded with damaging and eventually leaving plasticizers. The product they use is well known for protecting canvas prints. If they last 30 years, I'll be well pleased.

George

Ressurecting An Oldie (but Goody?)

Came across this old image and decided to play with it. Some 30 layers later, each masked and painted, and some careful cloning in a small area, and I'm quite pleased with the result.

In total this adds several hundred subtle changes to colour, tone, or contrast in one area or another, this on top of all the changes I made last time round. Despite this, the final image is very close to the original scene that attracted me.

Walkabout

Certainly different from my usual subject/style/equipment - shot with my new Fuji X100 as Ken and I wandered around downtown Calgary no a Sunday morning. A bit lucky with the placement of the young woman, but none the less indicating the camera is fairly responsive. Decent dynamic range too, from sunlit cloud to shaded alleyway.

Casual Shooting

Picked up a Fuji X100 this afternoon and with the small amount of charge in the lithium battery, was able to head out and take a few snaps. Discovered this snow plow round a corner and out of sight. Had fun playing the angles, trying the EVF vs. Optical viewfinder.

Quickly found the evf quite dark, though useable, the Optical finder very nice. At 10X15 image size on print, it's tack sharp, f 11, 1/35 second, EI. 400. Later in the day I found out how to use the auto ISO - very nice - you can specify max. iso and min. shutter speed - prob. should have shot this at 1/60 to be safe and ei. 800 - but I got away with it.

As I played round the plough, I did think I missed my wide angle zoom - I actually had to move in and back to get the right framing - how inconvenient was that. Perhaps the image would have been even more dramatic with a wider lens - but a) I didn't have one with me, and b) the only reason I went shooting was because it didn't take a lot of time and effort. I do think I move around more hand holding - it's so much easier to try low and high angles - not that I don't adjust my tripod height - I always do - but perhaps not as much when you have to stop, and adjust three legs, then get back to the right position again, and make sure the legs aren't on something soft, unstable or perilous.

What I was thinking as I shot was how much better this would have been with a steady platform - but what I have to get into my head is 'the shot you get is ALWAYS better than the shot you didn't take'.

Don't know why they didn't provide the camera with an ISO dial - that really would have been the cream on the cake - but for hand holding, I think I'll take advantage of Auto ISO, setting the f stop and letting the shutter speed go where it will, with exposure compensation as needed (that is a dial on top).

What I'm less certain of is how much I'll like a fixed 35 mm. lens, but I got the camera with the idea of eliminating too many choices, and I'll let you know how it works out.

Up Close And Out Of Focus (mostly)

So, why is it that there is so little depth of field when photographing portraits when photographing mountains and nearby fences is relatively easier?

The formula for Depth of field (at least one of them anyway) is:

where N if the f number, f is the focal length, c is the circle of confusion and s is the distance the camera is focused. Note that in the formula, depth of field varies as the square of the subject distance. That means that if we have 2 feet in front of the subject distance of 10 feet, we'd not have one foot if we were shooting at five feet, we'd have six inches, one quarter - so moving in close hugely affects depth of field. Changing focal length of lenses complicates things, but this explains the typical depth of field scale on an old fashioned prime lens - with almost no useable depth at near focus, and fairly decent depth at the longer distances.

The formula came from Wikipedia

Feed Mill