Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Fir branch under ice
Hiking in the white mountains of NH on Dec.1, there was no snow at the trail head, but eventually became a foot deep. Having made such a mistake once before (several years ago), I kicked myself for doing it again.
It was a long cold day, but there were rewards. In particular there were a few little streams that crossed the trail with small waterfalls only a few inches in height. The spray of water caused some interesting ice formations, including the one shown here. The fir branch was covered in ice, but the mossy rock beneath it was not, presumably because the movement of the water was enough to prevent freezing.
In retrospect, the choice of aperature plays an important role in the success of this image. Both the extreme foreground and the extreme background are slightly out of focus. However, I wish I had framed the image a bit more to the left to avoid the ice touching the left edge of the frame.
Click on the image for a larger view.
Canon EOS 5D mk II, 70-200mm (@ 170), ISO 800, f/7.1, 1/200 sec
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunrise and Fog
Olympus C5060, ISO 80, f/4.8, 1/640 sec
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Third Sheep
Looking at a map, I chose some back roads to explore. The first road followed a river, but I saw nothing that caught my photographic intentions. Then I drove off through some farmland and stumbled upon these sheep, grazing on a hillside covered with frost. Atop the hill, the sun was catching the orange leaves of autumn maple trees. At the bottom of the hill was a still pool catching reflections.
Just a bit of sunlight on the trees, combined with general cloud cover, the conditions were fleeting and did not last. I captured about a dozen images; this is one of my favorites.
Where is the third sheep? Uphill, further toward the trees, out of frame ... but appears in the reflection.
Canon EOS 5D mkII; 70-200mm @ 200; ISO 800, 1/320, f/10
Sunday, October 4, 2009
.
I created this image about one year ago on color transparency film (Fuji Provia F), medium format 6x6, using the venerable Bronica SQA. (That was the last time I used film.) Scanned to digital at 4000dpi, the digital image is a bit more than 70 megapixels, allowing a life-size 36-inch print. At 33x33 inches, this image was printed on a canvas gallery-wrap, stretched on a wood frame much like a painters canvas. The image wraps around the edges, 1.5 inches on every side, such that the face of the print is 30x30. This is the second canvas gallery-wrap I have printed this year. The first was a panorama, five feet wide.
What I want to share with you is a comparison of three different print types.
Printing on canvas has become very accessible these days, available from many vendors. Upload the digital image to the vendors website, choose your options, and provide payment. I chose Artistic Photo Canvas, having seen the excellent prints first hand. Of course, canvas is remarkable for the texture. APC uses only a high-quality cotton canvas and provides a protective clear coat over the final print. However, be aware that the maximum black density (Dmax) and the highlight intensity cannot match printing on more traditional photo papers. The overall contrast is therefore reduced. Although APC boasts one of the highest Dmax available on canvas, it is poor compared to traditional photo paper. None-the-less, it is an impressive way to display a photograph.
Then, I had the same image printed on metallic photo paper. This print is craaazy! The highlights in the image have a 3-dimensional quality that seems to exceed the 2-dimensional nature of the medium. Compared to a traditional photo paper, metalic paper may exhibit some minor loss in subtle color gradation; but holy cats, man, it is stunning. It is not suitable for every image; for example, I would not recommend metallic paper for portraits. To get the most from a metallic print, ensure good illumination; without good light, it tends to look like any ordinary print.
.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Seasonal fun
Friday, September 18, 2009
An Evening with Photographer Joe Buissink
Just returned from seeing a presentation by photographer Joe Buissink. I confess Joe shattered any pre-concieved notions I held about high-paid celebrity photographers. He shared many images and his passion for capturing fleeting moments between people.
He still shoots film and his clientel are people who seek that and appreciate that. He primarily shoots available light at ISO 1600 and 3200. His images tend to be less grainy than most of us associate with high ISO. His film processing lab will visually inspect the film during development, empirically pushing the development until the density is good. This avoids low density low contrast, which requires compensation during printing and thereby incurs enhanced graininess.
Joe seeks emotional moments, not necessarily perfect sharpness or perfect composition. His pitch to prospective clients is more about himself and his passion. He tells the stories behind the images that you would not know from the image alone. Once people are hooked on his passionate approach, they tend to give him less direction and restrictions. He typically does not have to align himself to a required shot list.
Joe does more than just weddings. He recently completed work on a book about autism and the images comminicate a compelling joyful story. He photographed Stephen Spielberg's birthday party, Christina Aguilara on tour, and the closing episode of the Frasier television show at request of Kelsey Grammer.
The Buissink approach to photographing people is eye opening (to me anyway) and it was a truly enjoyable evening. However, it is no secret that he caters to very wealthy people and the cost for his services is adjusted to their financial means. I personally do not know anyone who can afford him.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Pixels (part 1)
If you want to share it on a computer screen, one megapixel is more than enough. Why? Computer displays typically have either 72 pixels per inch or 96 dots per inch. So, for example, to display a photo at a size of 6 by 9 inches, you need (6 x 96) x (9 x 96) = 497,664 pixels = 0.497 megapixels.
Computer screen: 72 - 96 dots (pixels) per inch
Photo print: 240 - 300 dots per inch
Magazine: 100 - 200 dots per inch
Poster or banner: 100 - 150 dots per inch
Billboard: 10 - 20 dots per inch
Magazines print fewer dots per inch. If you look real close, you may see the individual dots, but maybe not. It depends upon the exact printing equipment and the tendency of ink dots to blend together. Billboards, viewed from far way, use very low resolution simply because it is not apparent from far away.
So, here is another example. For a photo print 6 x 9 inches, you need (6 x 240) x (9 x 240) = 3,110,400 pixels = 3 megapixels. More pixels in your camera means that you can get larger prints without sacrificing quality. Using the same math, you can easily see that a 20 x 24 inch print needs 27 megapixels.
You may ask: 240 dots per inch? My printer supports 1000 dots per inch.
OK, here is the bottom line. If you print at the higher resolution, can you see a difference in the final print? You might see a tiny difference, but 240 dpi usually provides excellent quality and sharpness. If you are using a photo lab to make your prints, consult their guidelines, but 240dpi or 250 dpi is very common.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Water Lilly
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Worth a thousand words?
River Fog Fire from Kevin Davis on Vimeo.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Give us your photos and abandon all your rights
Send Us Woodstock Photos
By submitting your photo(s) to Boston.com, you agree that such photo(s) and the accompanying information will become the property of Boston.com and you grant Boston.com, The Boston Globe, Boston Metro and their sublicensees permission to publicly display, reproduce and use the videos in any form or media for any and (all editorial and related promotional purposes) purposes.. You also warrant that (i) the photo is your original work, or is properly licensed, and does not violate the copyright or any other personal or property right of any third party, and (ii) you have obtained any and all releases and permissions necessary for our intended use. Your submission also allows Boston.com to edit, crop or adjust the colors of the image(s) on an as needed basis.
Translation: give us your photos without any conditions; the photos will then become our property, not yours. You forfeit all rights and we can do whatever we please with them. While we cannot foresee all possible ways in which we might use these photos, whatever the use might be, you hereby certify that anyone appearing in the photo has granted you permission to use the photo in that way and you now transfer that right to the Globe.
Sadly, this tactic seems more and more common today. The implications for possible abuse, particularly on the internet, are astounding. This allows Boston.com to display your photo and print an insulting caption. This allows Boston.com to place your head on someone else's body. This allows Boston.com to sell your photo for a profit and give you nothing in return.
Just say no.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Digital Effects with Slide Projectors
Well, here is a nifty trick from 1997. This effect was included in a slide show using two 35mm projectors and a dissolve controller.
The original image was a 35mm color transparency, which was scanned to digital (Kodak Photo CD). I digitally manipulated the image to a line drawing, like a child's coloring book, and filled in some color. Then the digital image was output back to a 35mm slide using a digital-to-film recorder.
Under the direction of a dissolve controller, one slide projector faded out while the second projector faded in. Projected onto a big screen, it was a really great effect.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Refinement
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Tall Ships
With weather forecast for sunny skies, Tom S and I arrived at South Station shortly after 7am to catch some good morning light. However, our plans were soon foiled as we discovered that the Fish Pier and World Trade Center pier were entirely closed to the public until 5pm. After conversations with several police and pedestrians, we opted to take the water taxi to Charlestown Navy Yard and so achieved some nice images from out on the water. The attached image shows the Kruzenshtern as the water taxi came around the World Trade Center pier.
In Charlsetown, we were among the first group of people to board the Picton Castle and Bluenose II, before the crowds and long lines formed. USS Constitution, permanent resident in Charlestown, was undergoing major renovations, but still earned a very long line of eager spectators. We skipped it, thinking it is here year round and there is no need to wait in line today.
By 11am, the light was harsh and we called it a day. Shooting film that morning, Tom dropped off his film at a local lab where it was processed within a couple hours. Though I was shooting digital, Tom beat me to the punch, posting a couple of scanned images in email before I could complete my digital workflow.
.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Kodachrome is dead; long live Kodachrome
Having experimented with a variety of films during the late 1980s and early 90s, I preferred Ektachrome over Kodachrome. But more importantly, for the outdoor images I typically shoot, my favorite film was not Kodak at all but rather Fuji Provia.
"In 20 stunning photos, the glory of Kodachrome comes through in the work of Fortune's distinguished photographers."
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0906/gallery.kodak_kodachrome.fortune
In 1973, Paul Simon wrote:
Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away
.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Windows vs Mac -and- Nikon vs Canon
Considering Mac OS X and Windows 7, some people dare to say that the culture war between Mac and PC has now become somewhat moot. Feature-for-feature, Mac and PC are now entirely comparable. It's akin to the culture war between Nikon and Canon cameras. Those people who maintain extreme brand loyalty usually do so because of experiences 10 years ago and not because of objective comparison.
If you're looking to buy a new SLR camera, and you already have some Nikon lenses, you will likely buy a Nikon. Same goes for Canon.
f you're looking to buy a new computer, and you already have a software and accessories for Mac, you will likely buy a Mac. Same goes for PC.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Social media - reality vs hype
Personally, I know friends and family who tenatively signed up for social media, such as Facebook, at the urging of someone else, but ultimately do not find it compelling. Worse yet, for some people, social media is simply more noise in their already busy lives. Yet, many many writers online continue to promote social media as absolutely essential for modern living. So ... what is the disconnect here? Is it reality or hype?
The primary disconnect lies in how different people use social media differently. There are millions of people who use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc just for fun, posting videos of their family vacation, or exchanging thoughts on matters that endure for mere minutes to maybe a week (then forgotten). Then there are tens of thousands of small buisiness owners who are trying to maintain their professional identity or "brand" on the internet. In truth, there is a broad spectrum of users. Most people do not have a critical interest in promoting themselves online. Most of the talking and writing is being done by people whose buisiness involves internet services and/or media, particularly independant contractors, consultants, and small buisiness owners who rely upon clients or simply fans. But if you sell tires at a local auto mart, "social media" is mostly hype.
In a recent blog post, photographer Jim Goldstein made some very good clarifying points regarding social media, particularly for visual artists. He contrasts different types of online networking. Static web sites are oriented around posting content, to which viewers might possibly leave comments or ask questions. Blogs are a part of that, perhaps encouraging more reader feedback. Podcasts are similar, though there seems less of an option for leaving comments/feedback. Discussion forums provide more of multi-person conversation, where participants can periodically pop in and see if anything interesting is being discussed. Although Jim does not mention it, there is another style here, the digest; a forum may optionally send to you a digest topics that interest you. Ultimately, down the far end of the spectrum, you end up at Twitter, a gumbo of communication streams that never stop.
"The interesting thing about Social Media and how to get the most out of it is to change ones mindset from merely posting content, but to talking to your target audience about your content." - JG
My own perspective is that all these tools are just that, tools. Not everyone needs every tool, though some writers seem to suggest it is so. If you don't have a lot of time on your hands, Twitter is probably not for you. And if you're looking for work, Facebook may not be the most effective tool.
.Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Katahdin
Atop the Dudley Trail is the infamous Knife Edge between Pamola Peak and Baxter Peak. Having now personally traversed the Knife Edge, I must tell you that words cannot do it justice. It is the most dramatic landscape I have ever seen in the northeast USA; beyond that, I am at a loss for words.
It is widely reported that Mt. Washington is home of the world's worst weather. Truthfully, many mountains have the same weather; they just don't have an observatory at the summit to record the facts. At Katahdin, when the weather turned bad, I left and went home.
.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Backpacking and Photography
But how to carry all this stuff? "Photo backpack" sounds perfect, but truthfully, these things are designed to carry camera equipment and not much else. Photo backpacks cannot carry all the food, clothing and camping equipment for overnight trips. A hiker's backpack is necessary. I use a large backpack, stuff a camera bag inside of that, then make daytrips from camp, carrying only the smaller photo bag.
In the past, my camera bag on these trips has been a waist pack plus a small day pack. In fact, the LowePro Orion AW actually comes with both (at least mine did years ago). The waist pack allows fast access to camera equipment without removing a pack from my back.
For my upcoming trip, I will be using a Kata 3N1. This bag quickly converts from a two-shoulder backpack to a one-shoulder sling. On top of that, it has a small compartment at the top, just big enough for lunch and a jacket. Compared to the Orion AW waist bag, the small 3N1-10 is about the same capacity, while the larger 3N1-30 has twice the capacity and still provides fast access to equipment.
My large backpack is an old Kelty Super Tioga external frame pack. Because most hikers today use internal frame packs, most don't realize that an external frame pack is still a good option in some cases. Some people seem to believe that external frame packs are relics from WWI and no longer manufactured today. Of course, this is false. Just as an example, the ancient and venerable Super Tioga lives on in 2009, though the name has changed. I recently ordered a replacement hip-belt for my Super Tioga, which simply is not possible with an internal frame pack.
.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Custom Photo Book
Today, making a custom photo book is much easier. Several online photo services provide the ability to layout the book and upload it for printing. I chose MPIX, having compared their product to a competitors product. The resulting book looks terrific. But what really amazed me was how fast MPIX produced my book. It was in my hands just 24 hours after I uploaded it! They printed the book and bound it within a few hours and shipped it the same day.
Creating your own custom photo book is so simple anyone can do it. There are varying options such as size, choice of paper, hardcover vs softcover. My book project included 20 images, 10x10 inch pages and a black hard cover with soft suede-like feel, for just $30. Adding a couple lines text to the cover cost an additional $7, which seems like a lot of money when you consider that this is almost %25 the cost of the book it is printed on. Alternatively, a hard cover with photo on it is $50 total for the book. Soft cover with photograph on it is less expensive.
.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Wedding shoot
I rented a PocketWizard remote flash setup and also a better flash than what I own, both from LensProToGo. Unfortunately, testing the equipment the evening before the wedding, the PocketWizard transmitter failed. While this is certainly not as bad as discovering a failure an hour before a shoot, it was stressful none the less. Fortunately, I was able to make a long detour on my way to the wedding and pickup a replacement from LensProToGo. The moral of that story is: make sure to get rental equipment in your hands (and test it) a few days in advance of your shoot; if there is any problem, your supplier has time to ship you a replacement
During the actual wedding ceremony, I relied upon available light. After the ceremony, with more time and freedom of place, we staged some photographs with the bride, groom, wedding party and parents. For these staged shots, I primarily chose electronic flash bounced off a reflective panel. A small light source (e.g. flash pointed directly at your subject) can be harsh with specular highlights and hard-edged shadows; the reflective panel creates a larger light source, which creates for a more gentle light, reducing specular highlights and softening shadow edges. Having the flash on a remote stand allowed me to change my camera position without needing to move the reflector.
It was a very lonnng and tiring day. Late at night, reviewing the images on the camera LCD, there were definitey some issues, but I was most concerned with apparent bluriness. However, the images looked much better once I got them onto a desktop computer display.
For information on wedding photography, I recommend the training videos by David Ziser at KelbyTraining.com. KelbyTraining allows anyone to sample the first few video chapters for free; subscribe as a member to see all chapters.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Adobe Camera Raw
Adobe Camera Raw, often abbreviated ACR, is not what the name implies. It is computer software for editing digital photographs, with support for Raw format files from more than a dozen camera manufacturers. ACR has some particular ability to open Raw formats from various camera vendors, but it can also be used with common JPEG or TIFF. Yes, some features will not be available unless the image is in Raw format, but .... Adobe Camera Raw is not a file format and is not entirely dependant upon any Raw format.
If you capture photographs in Raw format (in most circumstances, you certainly should), your computer likely will not be able to open and display these images without special software. Your camera will include a CD-ROM of software from the camera manufacturer. Your camera manufacturer may offer additional software, such as Nik Capture Nx, which only supports Nikon Raw format (NEF). Other options include Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom, which include ACR.
ACR provides a few key features that render your free software (included with your camera) obsolete. White balance and exposure are very fast and easy. But "recovery" is absolutely essential; I rely upon it frequently. Fill light, black point, and vibrance are also fast and effective, but place a close second behind "recovery".
Both Adobe Bridge (part of Adobe Creative Suite) and Adobe Photoshop include ACR. This allows ACR/Bridge to carry out time-consuming operations on a large number of files, while you continue to use ACR/Photoshop.
One small complaint. When I purchased a new DSLR camera, I already had Adobe CS3, which includes Photoshop and ACR, that supports Canon Raw files. However, this camera introduced a new Canon Raw format, which was not supported by the ACR included with CS3. While Adobe does issue free updates to ACR, all new ACR updates were only compatible with CS4. I had to spend money not just on a Photoshop upgrade but upgrade the entire Creative Suite to CS4. Adobe makes a distinction between Adobe CS3 (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc) and Adobe Photoshop CS3. This is not clear on the Adobe website.
In retrospect, to get support for my new camera, there was one alternative to an expensive upgrade to CS4. Adobe DNG Converter is a free download that will convert the latest Raw file formats to DNG format.
On Macintosh computers, both iPhoto and Aperature applications are able to open Raw files, thanks to the Apple Digital Camera Raw module. Apple Digital Camera Raw is the means by which Mac OS X provides system-level support for digital camera RAW files.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Diamonds in the rough
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Tripods - is Good and Inexpensive possible ?
A couple years ago, I went hunting for a good tripod around $100; here is what I found.
There is one quality that a tripod must have above all else; it must be sturdy. While this might seem a good opportunity to denegrate a lot of department store tripods, I am not going to to that. Why? Because "sturdy" means one thing if your camera weighs 10 lbs and means something quite different if your camera weighs 10 oz. A tripod of the department store variety is typically intended for lightweight cameras. For the intended camera, some of these tripods can be quite sturdy, while others simply defy the notion of "sturdy" no matter the camera. Decades ago, my first tripod could be readily described as flimsy; the parts were not fitted together with any precision to prevent the parts from moving about. Without comparing it to other tripods, I knew no better. Of course, there is an argument to be made that any tripod is better than no tripod at all.
The second quality I look for in a tripod is good control of the camera movement. Camera movement is a funciton of the tripod head, as opposed to the tripod legs. The two most common types of tripod heads are the ballhead and the tilt & pan head. Tilt & pan heads are often referred to as video heads because they are particularly useful for video cameras. These heads have long handles attached so you can pan and tilt the camera very smoothly without jerky motion. Ballheads are more compact, basically a ball and socket with one knob that loosens/tightens it. Loosen it and the ball can move in any direction, forward, backward, side to side. A good quality ballhead will have a tension adjustment to prevent the camera from suddenly falling to one side when you loosen the ball. A bigger ball will support a heavier camera compared to a smaller ball. A bigger ball will move more smoothly than a smaller ball. A bigger ball usually has a bigger price tag.
Good tripods are often sold in two separate pieces, the head and the legs. The connection point between the two is a simple screw afixed into the top of the legs. While European tripods may use a different standard, there are two english measurment standards for tripod screw mounts, 1/4 inch and 3/8 inch. If you buy the head and legs separately, just make certain that the mount is compatible. Some tripods sold with both legs with head actually have a detachable head, which gives you the option of upgrading the parts later. Simply be aware of which screw size is used. If it has a 1/4 screw mount, that does not necessarily mean you cannot use a tripod head with 3/8 screw mount. You can employ a 1/4 to 3/8 adapter. However, a set of legs with 1/4 screw mount is intended for smaller cameras; I recommend that you don't put a 10 lb camera on a set of legs that is not designed for that much weight.
For hundreds of years, tripod legs have been made from wood and these are still available today. However, most legs today are made from aluminum. Innovations over the past 10 years have led to the use of other materials such as carbon fiber. Regardless of the material used, most tripods are adjustable in size for simple reason of portability. A common design consists of sections of tubing that fit within each other like a telescope. When the legs are completely stowed, the tripod has a minum height. This measurement is important for reasons of portability, particularly if you intend to carry your tripod onto an airplane. Fully extended, each tripod has a maximum height. Most people will want a tripod that is tall enough such that you need not bend over to look through your camera's view finder. Two tripods with the same maximum height may have very different minimum height. In particular, if the tripod legs are each comprised of four sections, this will typically collapse to a size that is significantly smaller than tripod legs having only three sections or two sections.
So here was my task; find a good tripod, not too expensive, nothing too fancy, too heavy or too expensive. Considering the particular photographer, this would be her first tripod; while I insist upon a quality product, I didn't want to spend hundreds of dollars.
From my own experience, Gitzo tripods are superb. Unfotunately, the cost was a higher than I was intending to spend.
One of the most respected names in tripods is Manfrotto. Manfrotto model 190 was just the right size, with easy-to-use lever locks to extend the legs, 3 leg sections. Legs adjust to 4 different angles and will drop flat to the ground (for ground level photography) with use of a piece (included) that acts as a center-column replacement. Leg tubes are somewhat triangular, stronger than simple round tube. Cost is $125 with no head. Adding the cost of a separate tripod head, this was not inexpensive.
Manfrotto did offer less expensive tripods but they all seem to include a permanently attached head and are rated to support only 2-4 lbs. This might be acceptable for the particular photographer I was shopping for, but I felt that it was a undesirable compromise for anyone using an SLR camera.
You will find Slik tripods in department stores as well as specialty camera stores. Slik model 330 and 340 seemed pretty good, but I felt that the leg-locking levers are too small / under-designed. The model 500 corrects this, but is a significantly larger tripod. Levers are better on Calumet. I believe the included head is removable/replacable.
Giotto has been offering tripod products for a few years; a relative newcomer compared to Manfrotto and Slick. Excellent quality. Better legs than Calumet. However, legs are extended using a twist lock similar to Gitzo and I think lever locks better for a new photographer. Furthermore, each takes 3 turns to lock/unlock, whereas Gitzo is only 2 turns. Extending the Giotto is tedious.
Giotto ballheads, purchased separately, were also very good quality; includes tension adjust. Hoever, the ballhead cost $90 without quick-release and $120 with quick-release; so the combined cost of the legs plus the head was a bit too much.
Tilt-all has made photography products for decades. Unfortunately, the tripods I saw were unacceptable. Every part had a cheap finish and the twist-locks on the legs were lousy.
Induro tripods looked interesting on-line, but I could not find these products in any local stores.
In the end, I found a clear winner ... Calumet. Similar to the Manfrotto 190, but the legs were constructed from cheaper thin-wall round-tube aluminum. Legs were locked/unlocked via easy-to-use lever locks. Four leg sections instead three (so collapses smaller). Legs adjust to 3 different angles. Though the center column prevents it from going flat to the ground, the bottom half of the center column can be removed or the entire column can be inverted. Includes a pan-tilt head with quick-release; and the head can be replaced with a good ball head (1/4 inch thread). Three year warranty. Cost $50, wow! I would have expected $90. I bought it.
In a later post, we'll take a closer look at ballheads.