Posts
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Another Web Gallery Style
Uwe Steinmuller suggested I check out the Lightroom templates of Matthew Campagna at Turning Gate. You can link to the same Deadwood Portfolio images but in a different style. This one can be navigated by using the arrow keys on the keyboard, very nice.
Deadwood Portfolio
I'm experimenting with the web gallery feature of Lighroom and have uploaded a portfolio of images that I'm considering submitting - where hasn't been decided. Anyway that led to wanting to show you the images and so to lightroom rather than simply adding them to smugmug - I wanted a cleaner interface. I gather there are already some nice templates available but this was one of the ones built into Lightroom, with colours changed.
You can view the portfolio at Deadwood Portfolio
Friday, August 31, 2007
Persistence
The other night I showed you the pathway within two hours of shooting it. With a bit of time, I used the slideshow feature of Bridge to look at the images, giving stars to those with potential, eventually including this version which is better than the original in two ways - the sun has moved round a bit and is just barely shining on this side of the concrete. Instead of a single cyclist in the distance going away, now I have two cyclists, one in each direction and significantly closer.
I stayed with the walkway shot for the better part of half an hour. I grabbed the first shot less than a minute after pulling up - afraid something would go wrong with the light.I later moved a bit closer and switched to a shorter lens to get a less obstructed view of the bottom of the walkway at the near end. I took a number of shots, adjusting exposure as I went and watching the histogram for blown highlights as I went. A couple of cyclists decided to stop on the pathway near the bridge, spoiling the clean lines of the composition. They were a bit far away to ask them to move and I waited them out for more than 15 minutes before they slowly got their act together and rolled off. Fortunately I still barely had the right light and was able to catch this image within seconds of them leaving.
Exposure was 1/50 at f10 Of course I'd have liked to use f16 for maximum depth of field but that would have involved too slow a shutter speed. I could have raised the ISO of the camera but my 1Ds2 is fairly noisy at higher ISO's and even 400 is a compromise. The other issue is that in the failing light I was having to adjust things - a camera with a dial in ISO selector sure would be nice - there was no time after the layabouts finally moved off to fiddle with menus.
Anyway, the image worked, it makes a nice print and if the furthest pillars aren't absolutely crisp, it hardly matters. It's actually pretty amazing how well the cyclists turned out for 1/50 second, the joys of them moving straight at and away from the camera.
So, Just How Good Are You Anyway?
Over the years I have spent way too much time worrying about whether I'm any good as a photographer and I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of you have too. It doesn't matter what recognition we might receive, we keep on worrying - ok we know we are good enough to get in a magazine, but do we have a place in the history of photography, do we add anything meaningful to the art, will anyone remember us after we're gone, just how do we compare to famous photographers we can name?
In my article on assessing your level in photography, I gave broad categorizations with the idea that they strictly be used to help you figure out what you need to work on to move forward. It certainly wasn't designed to 'rate' yourself.
Let's imagine that someone (it won't be me), took my concept of levels a whole lot further and actually developed a rating scale, zero to one hundred, rank novice to supreme almighty. All manner of questions arise, not the least of which is why bother. But you know the internet, you can rate your IQ, your personality, the kind of lover you are, who you should marry, what job you are suited for, so it isn't very far fetched to imagine someone coming up with such a scale.
Here's the problem, well actually a whole lot of problems.
1) Even assuming such a scale were 'accurate' in any fashion, so what - does it really help you or anyone else to know that you scored an 87 while some famous photographer scored only 86. It won't make you more famous, I suppose you could advertize your score in your ads in "Black and White" but can't imagine anyone using it to decide if they like your work. It doesn't tell you how to move on.
2) Any rating scale has to take on the likes and dislikes of the designer of the scale and who the hell made him God of values? Can you imagine someone who doesn't like jazz coming up with a music rating scale?
3) Perhaps the biggest concern is that even if somehow we overcame the above problems and could with reasonable accuracy tell someone "this is how good you are", is it actually helpful to know? Would it make a difference to know that you are at the 87th percentile (better than 87% of all photographers). I mean, if that included the millions of snap shooters, it would hopefully be a given, if the rating placed you on a skill rating rather than a population position, would knowing you are an 87 help?
Perhaps someone might find out they are better than they thought, and therefore might make more effort to get their work out in public, but I don't see it making them a better photographer. What if the opposite happpened and you scored lower than you thought you should - you could get defensive, or give up trying to get your work out there, but again, it won't help you improve.
The real answer is that worrying about our "place" in photography is a chumps game - completely unproductive - really, we are only as good as the next image we take, and our limited energies should be brought to bear on making that image every bit as good as possible.
A photographer might have only one or two really good images in him, the rest being quite mediocre and he doesn't know how he managed those two images. But the fact is, he did manage those and presumably can therefore do it again, sooner or later, and if he can learn from his successes, is likely to produce strong images at an ever increasing rate.
A photographer might have several portfolios of great images, but that's no guarantee the next one is going to be even passable.
No, it's time to stop worrying about how good we are, open our eyes to the world and get looking for interesting possibilities.
In my article on assessing your level in photography, I gave broad categorizations with the idea that they strictly be used to help you figure out what you need to work on to move forward. It certainly wasn't designed to 'rate' yourself.
Let's imagine that someone (it won't be me), took my concept of levels a whole lot further and actually developed a rating scale, zero to one hundred, rank novice to supreme almighty. All manner of questions arise, not the least of which is why bother. But you know the internet, you can rate your IQ, your personality, the kind of lover you are, who you should marry, what job you are suited for, so it isn't very far fetched to imagine someone coming up with such a scale.
Here's the problem, well actually a whole lot of problems.
1) Even assuming such a scale were 'accurate' in any fashion, so what - does it really help you or anyone else to know that you scored an 87 while some famous photographer scored only 86. It won't make you more famous, I suppose you could advertize your score in your ads in "Black and White" but can't imagine anyone using it to decide if they like your work. It doesn't tell you how to move on.
2) Any rating scale has to take on the likes and dislikes of the designer of the scale and who the hell made him God of values? Can you imagine someone who doesn't like jazz coming up with a music rating scale?
3) Perhaps the biggest concern is that even if somehow we overcame the above problems and could with reasonable accuracy tell someone "this is how good you are", is it actually helpful to know? Would it make a difference to know that you are at the 87th percentile (better than 87% of all photographers). I mean, if that included the millions of snap shooters, it would hopefully be a given, if the rating placed you on a skill rating rather than a population position, would knowing you are an 87 help?
Perhaps someone might find out they are better than they thought, and therefore might make more effort to get their work out in public, but I don't see it making them a better photographer. What if the opposite happpened and you scored lower than you thought you should - you could get defensive, or give up trying to get your work out there, but again, it won't help you improve.
The real answer is that worrying about our "place" in photography is a chumps game - completely unproductive - really, we are only as good as the next image we take, and our limited energies should be brought to bear on making that image every bit as good as possible.
A photographer might have only one or two really good images in him, the rest being quite mediocre and he doesn't know how he managed those two images. But the fact is, he did manage those and presumably can therefore do it again, sooner or later, and if he can learn from his successes, is likely to produce strong images at an ever increasing rate.
A photographer might have several portfolios of great images, but that's no guarantee the next one is going to be even passable.
No, it's time to stop worrying about how good we are, open our eyes to the world and get looking for interesting possibilities.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
More Modern Concrete
Shot at 7:32 this evening, uploaded to Blogger at 9:19 - ain't technology wonderful.
Good News and Bad News
Well, got an email today from the publisher of
Take Your Photography To The Next Level
indicating that my concern about time frame was correct, we'll need to put the publishing date back to mid November. The good news, hey, it's listed on Amazon.com, now that really makes it feel like it's happening.
The link above will take you to the amazon.com page, hey, I'm excited.
Take Your Photography To The Next Level
indicating that my concern about time frame was correct, we'll need to put the publishing date back to mid November. The good news, hey, it's listed on Amazon.com, now that really makes it feel like it's happening.
The link above will take you to the amazon.com page, hey, I'm excited.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Youtube Is A Photographic Resource?
have been checking out youtube for a variety of things from sailboats to Paul Potts to photography - there was a good interview with Michael Kenna and a multipart series on the history of photography including film of Edward Weston in the darkroom - called Exposures. Some of the stuff is pretty low quality, but other material is enough to make you look up better copies of the images you see. Check it out, you might be pleasantly surprised.
Doubt
Doubt creeps into photography everywhere, from thinking that you won't find anything today, to pessimism over the weather, to thoughts about the quality and volume of your photographs, to how you think others will perceive our work. Doubt can literally keep us home when we should be out shooting, or giving up, just before the sun finally breaks through and highlights the subject.
Doubt makes us abandon working on an image. It keeps us from showing our work to someone else, afraid it won't be good enough.
Doubt in fact causes a hell of a lot of damage. I suppose there are a few positive things you can say about doubt - if you don't ask, you won't be put down, and if you doubt that there's anything worth photographing, you might be right, but look at the cost.
How many times have you set off in less than ideal light, with no prospects of it improving, only to find clouds blow in or you find a ravine in shade so it doesn't matter that there are no clouds, or the high sun works for the image.
If the answer to the above question is never, then I suspect you don't get out enough. Some of this comes down to luck but if you don't go out at all, you will never be lucky, so the fellow who is prepared to be lucky is the one taking home the great images.
If you genuinely think your images aren't very good, well, you're probably right, and you have work to do - the worse the images, the easier it is to make big strides in quality. If on the other hand you compare your images to well known photographers and feel they hold up, but are simply afraid that you might get rejected, well, the sooner you put those doubts behind you and go for it.
If you are good and fear you aren't, testing the waters by submitting your work or showing it at a workshop is a great idea. If you think your work is good, and it isn't, because you haven't yet learned about the ways in which it could be better, well, that needs found out too, and the sooner you get it over, the sooner you can start improving.
Doubt makes us abandon working on an image. It keeps us from showing our work to someone else, afraid it won't be good enough.
Doubt in fact causes a hell of a lot of damage. I suppose there are a few positive things you can say about doubt - if you don't ask, you won't be put down, and if you doubt that there's anything worth photographing, you might be right, but look at the cost.
How many times have you set off in less than ideal light, with no prospects of it improving, only to find clouds blow in or you find a ravine in shade so it doesn't matter that there are no clouds, or the high sun works for the image.
If the answer to the above question is never, then I suspect you don't get out enough. Some of this comes down to luck but if you don't go out at all, you will never be lucky, so the fellow who is prepared to be lucky is the one taking home the great images.
If you genuinely think your images aren't very good, well, you're probably right, and you have work to do - the worse the images, the easier it is to make big strides in quality. If on the other hand you compare your images to well known photographers and feel they hold up, but are simply afraid that you might get rejected, well, the sooner you put those doubts behind you and go for it.
If you are good and fear you aren't, testing the waters by submitting your work or showing it at a workshop is a great idea. If you think your work is good, and it isn't, because you haven't yet learned about the ways in which it could be better, well, that needs found out too, and the sooner you get it over, the sooner you can start improving.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Customers
As artists we are supposed to be above mundane things like actually selling our images, promoting our business, advertizing and encouraging sales, but in the real world some of us at least hope to support our craft through sales, and a limited number actually need the income, lacking any other source.
This means that some of us, perhaps a lot of us, are going to have to come in contact with customers.
Customers are an odd breed and it won't do you any harm going in to know a bit about their peculiarities, foibles and predilections.
I base my experience largely on selling at the local farmers market, admittedly quite different from a high end gallery, but I don't suppose that's where you personally will deal with customers anyway.
So, with that in mind, here's some observations about "the customer".
1) Some customers see something they like and within seconds out comes the money and they're off before you can say thank you.
2) other customers spend literally hours trying to decide which image they want - then just as you're back is turned, they disappear and you can't believe how much time and effort you spent showing them images only to not get a sale. The good news is they often come back - sometimes months later and make that purchase.
3) Many customers are looking for decoration more than fine art, and it's important that the image fit in both shape wise and colour wise with their decor.
4) Some customers need really large prints but you are unlikely to sell many of them until you have enough of a reputation selling smaller ones - my advice is to hold off on buying a larger printer until you can pay for it out of profits.
5) Some customers need long prints so having the occasional panorama can help sales.
6) Customers like choice, but too much choice can make it difficult for them to decide. Displaying around 50 photographs works and more can be in a catalogue book or on a computer.
7) Sometimes customers want a series on a theme and so it's good to have available a series of images on a subject.
8) some customers can't decide and need help, a few can't even then. I have been known to suggest they pay for one with a visa card and take two or three home and return the ones they don't need. Never been ripped off yet.
9) You don't sell enough small cheap prints to make any real money, but it does get people looking and when they see the larger prints, they are impressed and you will sell those because of having the small ones on display.
10) customers spend as much time reading the blurb that comes with the print as they do looking at the images - so make a point of supplying a 'history' with each image describing the circumstances and location, but don't bother with technical details, that's not what interests them - few care what lens you took it with or what f stop. They do care about how you found the image and where it was shot and any anecdotes you can tell about the circumstances really help.
Anyway, there's a few thoughts on customers.
This means that some of us, perhaps a lot of us, are going to have to come in contact with customers.
Customers are an odd breed and it won't do you any harm going in to know a bit about their peculiarities, foibles and predilections.
I base my experience largely on selling at the local farmers market, admittedly quite different from a high end gallery, but I don't suppose that's where you personally will deal with customers anyway.
So, with that in mind, here's some observations about "the customer".
1) Some customers see something they like and within seconds out comes the money and they're off before you can say thank you.
2) other customers spend literally hours trying to decide which image they want - then just as you're back is turned, they disappear and you can't believe how much time and effort you spent showing them images only to not get a sale. The good news is they often come back - sometimes months later and make that purchase.
3) Many customers are looking for decoration more than fine art, and it's important that the image fit in both shape wise and colour wise with their decor.
4) Some customers need really large prints but you are unlikely to sell many of them until you have enough of a reputation selling smaller ones - my advice is to hold off on buying a larger printer until you can pay for it out of profits.
5) Some customers need long prints so having the occasional panorama can help sales.
6) Customers like choice, but too much choice can make it difficult for them to decide. Displaying around 50 photographs works and more can be in a catalogue book or on a computer.
7) Sometimes customers want a series on a theme and so it's good to have available a series of images on a subject.
8) some customers can't decide and need help, a few can't even then. I have been known to suggest they pay for one with a visa card and take two or three home and return the ones they don't need. Never been ripped off yet.
9) You don't sell enough small cheap prints to make any real money, but it does get people looking and when they see the larger prints, they are impressed and you will sell those because of having the small ones on display.
10) customers spend as much time reading the blurb that comes with the print as they do looking at the images - so make a point of supplying a 'history' with each image describing the circumstances and location, but don't bother with technical details, that's not what interests them - few care what lens you took it with or what f stop. They do care about how you found the image and where it was shot and any anecdotes you can tell about the circumstances really help.
Anyway, there's a few thoughts on customers.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Modern Construction
Modern construction may not have the lovely patina that old buildings have, but even relatively new concrete can be quite interesting. I'm not sure if I have the best shot here and I was only out with my little camera, not sure what I'd find, so I think I'll go back tomorrow with the big'n and see what I can do.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Jura Canyon ReEdit
I liked this in colour but I really like it in black and white - definitely a portfolio image, one that will be in the book. The editing continues, Chapter 3 - Composing, back from the copy editor, still being fine tuned, but on schedule.
Verve Gallery
I had commented recently on the wonderful photography of Ryujie but lamented the awkwardness of his site with his scrolling thumbnails and small images. Verve has let me know that they have some of his images up and I have to say it's a nice clean site with thumbnails that don't wander off and good sized images when you click on the thumbnails and an unobtrusive watermark in the bottom left. A couple of arrows to negotiate from one image to the next and it would be perfect but it's pretty darn good as it is.
Check out Verve Gallery and the work of a number of photographers and particularly Ryujie.
Check out Verve Gallery and the work of a number of photographers and particularly Ryujie.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Editing Never Stops
After writing about small changes and reading Andy's comment about the huge number of selections we have to make from before we shoot to well after, I decided to fiddle with this image a bit more. The new version is above, the old below.
Keep in mind that the lower one is in fact version 3, with each version having dozens to hundreds of adjustments made to it - for better or worse. I think I like the new one - but will have to live with it a while to see.
Small Changes Can Make A Big Difference
Several times in the last month I have noted that very small changes to camera position or to cropping an image or in image rotation, make a big difference to the outcome and appearance.
For example, in using image-distort to correct perspective in Photoshop, alignment has to be within 0.1 degree - anything bigger is noticeable - who would have thought that such a small angle wouldn't look right. Of course when straight lines are near an edge this shows more, but I know for a fact I cannot hope to align my camera to within .1 degree so that means that virtually all images that need to be spot on will need an adjustment - even if you have used a spirit level on the camera.
Sometimes cropping 1/8 inch off the side of an image can significantly change the appearance of an image, particularly when there are objects near the edge. There is a world of difference between being near the edge, touching the edge, or sneaking across the edge, the latter often being problematic and yet hard to see in a viewfinder, one of the advantages of large format.
Camera position too can be really critical - when I was photographing the steel cylinders, in the middle of the image two shapes crossed each other and I moved the camera to get them to just touch. In practice I might have been better with the camera another millimeter to the left, and on the right side of the image, one of the shapes was a fraction too close to the edge.
Things like rotation can be fixed in your editing programme but framing and positioning issues cannot. I guess the lesson is that if you can't be 100% sure it's right, then shoot more than one image and give yourself a choice. Either move back slightly or zoom out slightly so you can guarantee you didn't frame too tightly by that crucial 1/8 of an inch.
For example, in using image-distort to correct perspective in Photoshop, alignment has to be within 0.1 degree - anything bigger is noticeable - who would have thought that such a small angle wouldn't look right. Of course when straight lines are near an edge this shows more, but I know for a fact I cannot hope to align my camera to within .1 degree so that means that virtually all images that need to be spot on will need an adjustment - even if you have used a spirit level on the camera.
Sometimes cropping 1/8 inch off the side of an image can significantly change the appearance of an image, particularly when there are objects near the edge. There is a world of difference between being near the edge, touching the edge, or sneaking across the edge, the latter often being problematic and yet hard to see in a viewfinder, one of the advantages of large format.
Camera position too can be really critical - when I was photographing the steel cylinders, in the middle of the image two shapes crossed each other and I moved the camera to get them to just touch. In practice I might have been better with the camera another millimeter to the left, and on the right side of the image, one of the shapes was a fraction too close to the edge.
Things like rotation can be fixed in your editing programme but framing and positioning issues cannot. I guess the lesson is that if you can't be 100% sure it's right, then shoot more than one image and give yourself a choice. Either move back slightly or zoom out slightly so you can guarantee you didn't frame too tightly by that crucial 1/8 of an inch.
Days of 4X5, And Again?
This was quite a departure for me. I decided to haul out my 4X5 after not using it for more than a year - God was I slow! Still, I had fun, and it certainly works.
I don't know that the images are any better than I am getting with stitching and my 1Ds2 and when you factor the $10 per shot, film and processing included (and a hell of a lot more if you want it drum scanned), and the time it takes to make a single image, well I guess there's a reason I shoot digital.
But it was fun, and I might well do it again in black and white, but probably not colour. This was using my Shen Hao teak 4X5 with black fitting - an absolutely gorgeous looking camera and quite nice to work with, quite precise, well made except for the back on axis tilt which is a bit stiff (you still have base tilt which I normally use anyway).
If someone were interested in getting into 4X5, this would be an excellent way. ON a really tight budget, you could do what I did at first which is use a 4X5 crown graphic with a 135 optar lens - a pretty good combination for landscape work and more than enough to get you going in large format. But that teak camera sure is pretty, and with a shen hao 6X12 roll film back, well....
Monday, August 20, 2007
How Bright Is Right?
Here's four renditions of a single image. A case could be made for any one of them as being the best, well perhaps not the brightest, but all are acceptable, yet the mood is dramatically different. None is 'real' while the others not. The photographer is free to interpret the image any way he fancies.
Partly this is a function of black and white photography in general, but also it's a matter of subject - in this case who's to say how bright the lighting was, how light the paint. It's likely that this much manipulation in colour would give it a distinct sense of unreality - not necessarily a bad thing, simply something to recognize.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Just Dreaming
I wonder what would happen if instead of going round various galleries begging for a showing, then being grateful for anything at all that they offer you, instead photographers would submit their portfolio of prints to an auction house who would advertise the work and galleries would bid on the portfolios.
The photographer would get a straight sum for his portfolio at the auction, minus the auctioneers commission - no framing costs, no shipping, no promises not kept, hidden expenses, net profits that turn out to be zero, and so on. The galleries would have lots of choices since the auction house could and would have hundreds of portfolios to pick from. The galleries would buy the prints at bulk prices (perhaps as little as 10 cents on the dollar.
But think about it - the photographer would produce a series of prints that he estimates should sell for $500 each, perhaps 20 of them, theoretical max. sales would be $10,000, but of course he'd never expect to see that in any current sales model. With current galleries, lets suggest that he is lucky enough to sell 7 prints of the 20, and that the gallery pays him 50% but charges him some show costs and framing, so his take is $1000 total for those 7 prints.
Under my hypothetical system, lets say that the gallery were to bid $2000 for the whole 20 prints - take away 20% for the auction house, that leves $1600, which the photographer gets within 2 weeks of the auction. The gallery paid $100 per print instead of $250 which means they can spend more on promotion or can sell for less. What if the gallery used a 100% markup - ie. sells the images for $200 each, but offers substantial discounts on multiple prints. It would be possible for a purchaser to come away with half a dozen prints, framed for $1000, thus decorating an entire wall - which after all is a much larger market than looking for collectors.
I don't suppose it would ever happen, but you do have to wonder if it doesn't make sense.
One could make the argument that the problem is the galleries and their high expenses but someone has to show the work to the public - internet viewing does not generate good sales unless you already have a reputation and not well even then. Someone has to do the framing - so I think the galleries need to continue to exist.
This idea would introduce more competition - a gallery might see work that they think is really hot and currently undervalued and pick it up for a song, yet sell each image for 10X what they paid for it - how's that for encouragement - it would be a bit like trying to pick up a used camera on ebay.
The idea in the end would be for retail print prices to be substantially less, thus dramatically increasing the market for images - a whole lot of people who currently know they can't afford anything in a gallery would start shopping for bargains there.
Collectors need NAMES - people with reputation, to protect and increase the value of their work, real people just want some lovely images for their wall, images that will tell their friends of their taste, not their financial acumen.
Oh, I know, it's a pipe dream, and what if the galleries only offered $200 for the entire portfolio - but I think that in this system of bidding, it would soon sort itself out.
Anyway, just a thought.
The photographer would get a straight sum for his portfolio at the auction, minus the auctioneers commission - no framing costs, no shipping, no promises not kept, hidden expenses, net profits that turn out to be zero, and so on. The galleries would have lots of choices since the auction house could and would have hundreds of portfolios to pick from. The galleries would buy the prints at bulk prices (perhaps as little as 10 cents on the dollar.
But think about it - the photographer would produce a series of prints that he estimates should sell for $500 each, perhaps 20 of them, theoretical max. sales would be $10,000, but of course he'd never expect to see that in any current sales model. With current galleries, lets suggest that he is lucky enough to sell 7 prints of the 20, and that the gallery pays him 50% but charges him some show costs and framing, so his take is $1000 total for those 7 prints.
Under my hypothetical system, lets say that the gallery were to bid $2000 for the whole 20 prints - take away 20% for the auction house, that leves $1600, which the photographer gets within 2 weeks of the auction. The gallery paid $100 per print instead of $250 which means they can spend more on promotion or can sell for less. What if the gallery used a 100% markup - ie. sells the images for $200 each, but offers substantial discounts on multiple prints. It would be possible for a purchaser to come away with half a dozen prints, framed for $1000, thus decorating an entire wall - which after all is a much larger market than looking for collectors.
I don't suppose it would ever happen, but you do have to wonder if it doesn't make sense.
One could make the argument that the problem is the galleries and their high expenses but someone has to show the work to the public - internet viewing does not generate good sales unless you already have a reputation and not well even then. Someone has to do the framing - so I think the galleries need to continue to exist.
This idea would introduce more competition - a gallery might see work that they think is really hot and currently undervalued and pick it up for a song, yet sell each image for 10X what they paid for it - how's that for encouragement - it would be a bit like trying to pick up a used camera on ebay.
The idea in the end would be for retail print prices to be substantially less, thus dramatically increasing the market for images - a whole lot of people who currently know they can't afford anything in a gallery would start shopping for bargains there.
Collectors need NAMES - people with reputation, to protect and increase the value of their work, real people just want some lovely images for their wall, images that will tell their friends of their taste, not their financial acumen.
Oh, I know, it's a pipe dream, and what if the galleries only offered $200 for the entire portfolio - but I think that in this system of bidding, it would soon sort itself out.
Anyway, just a thought.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Out Of Focus
This isn't a discussion of calculating depth of field, finding out best f-stops and dealing with diffraction. Rather it's a discussion of the whole business of whether everything should be sharp or not.
Let's look at some characteristics of having part of the image significantly out of focus.
1) it sure makes the sharp bits stand out
2) contrast in the blurred area is lower
3) specular highlights that might be distracting if sharp are blurred and not so white
4) details that would distract are hidden in the blur
5) progressive blurring (as in a portrait) makes you concentrate on the sharpest bits, usually the eyes)
6) out of focus results usually in smooth tonal transitions
7) lets not forget that accepting a shallower depth of field means a higher shutter speed or slower iso setting which may offer significant advantages
8) out of focus can actually be very attractive - there are whole discussions about bokeh and the ability of particular lenses to render out of focus areas attractively, but regardless of equipment and diaphragm shapes, blurred can be beautiful.
It's traditional in some subjects to try very hard for universal depth of field - ie the whole picture is sharp, while in birding and sports shots, photographers actually take advantage of the blurring to isolate the centre of interest.
Does this then mean that one shouldn't ever have blurring in landscapes, or that good depth of field isn't suitable to sports images? I can think of examples where the blurring was crucial to the landscape, the depth to a particular sports shot.
It might be time to start asking yourself is there a way to take advantage of shallow depth of field.
Extremely shallow depth of field, achieved generally with long lenses or really wide apertures or in macro situations. If most of your shots are sharp from near to far, perhaps you might want to deliberately try some out of focus blurring.
Let's look at some characteristics of having part of the image significantly out of focus.
1) it sure makes the sharp bits stand out
2) contrast in the blurred area is lower
3) specular highlights that might be distracting if sharp are blurred and not so white
4) details that would distract are hidden in the blur
5) progressive blurring (as in a portrait) makes you concentrate on the sharpest bits, usually the eyes)
6) out of focus results usually in smooth tonal transitions
7) lets not forget that accepting a shallower depth of field means a higher shutter speed or slower iso setting which may offer significant advantages
8) out of focus can actually be very attractive - there are whole discussions about bokeh and the ability of particular lenses to render out of focus areas attractively, but regardless of equipment and diaphragm shapes, blurred can be beautiful.
It's traditional in some subjects to try very hard for universal depth of field - ie the whole picture is sharp, while in birding and sports shots, photographers actually take advantage of the blurring to isolate the centre of interest.
Does this then mean that one shouldn't ever have blurring in landscapes, or that good depth of field isn't suitable to sports images? I can think of examples where the blurring was crucial to the landscape, the depth to a particular sports shot.
It might be time to start asking yourself is there a way to take advantage of shallow depth of field.
Extremely shallow depth of field, achieved generally with long lenses or really wide apertures or in macro situations. If most of your shots are sharp from near to far, perhaps you might want to deliberately try some out of focus blurring.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
It's Official, Book Baby On The Way
I note that Rockynook Publishers now has my book listed as forthcoming so that makes it pretty official. The next milestone which should happen relatively soon is to see it listed on Amazon, and I'll let you know when it does.
The final cover will have the addition of foreword by Micheal Reichmann.
You can get a taste of the book by getting the latest fotoespresso online edition and scrolling to the essay Reading Photographs. This is one of approximately 45 essays in the book and is a substantial addition and modification of a blog entry and will give you a good idea of what the book is about.
I note that Rockynook has the book publishing date as October. I just a few minutes ago sent back chapter 1 to the copy editor with final corrections, 7 more to go, then we have to organize all the photographs, and some drawings, and create an index - so I'm hoping October and optimistic for before Christmas.
Not sure about ordering the book - I see that Rockynook has said the book is 200 pages - we'd originally agreed on 250 but preliminary estimates suggested smaller and cheaper. Final editing brought it back up and then some. Will Rockynook be changing the size (I hope so) and the price? - more than likely. Will they honour the current price if you preorder now and will that be any less than you can get it from Amazon once it gets listed - I don't know the answers to these questions but we're only talking $5-$10 here one way or another.
Guess what, I've read the book and I wish it had been there for me in the past. The topics are not radically different from sections of other books. The approach and practicality are I think a whole lot different and hopefully better and more useful.
Thanks all for your support and encouragement.
George
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
