Suckage
I read a post on Paul Lester's blog this morning that got me thinking about my goals again. Paul wrote out a very nice response to the typical question about "How can I keep from sucking at photography?"
First of all, it's OK to suck at photography as long as you have a good time at it. In fact, most people don't realize they suck at photography until someone else tells them they suck. I know I never sucked at photography until I had my first encounter with someone who wanted to be critical of my work. From that point foward, I sucked most of the time and still do for that matter. It's a real downer for some people. The epiphany of suckage ruins many good photographers. At that point, a photographer tends to change what he's doing to suck less in the eyes of those who shone light on the suck factor of his work.
First, you need to find what you like. Then, you need to find your voice, or what you have to say about it.
This little jewel from Paul's post sums up a lot of good wisdom for photographers. This should come first. If you find yourself changing what you like in order to reduce the suck factor of your work, then you may need to re-evaluate why you are interested in photography.
Keep in mind... this comes from a photographer who is not interested in commercial work :)
Life Images
I was browsing the magazine rack at Barnes and Noble last week when I stumbled across a photo magazine that I hadn't seen before. I'm not a fan of most photography magazines because they are more about equipment and technique than about images. One of my favorite magazines, which is now available by subscription only, is LensWork. There are a few others I like as well, but I only tend to read photo magazines where images are the centerpiece rather than equipment reviews, advertising, and various other crap that I could care less about.
This new magazine I came across is called Life Images: A Collection of Captured Moments & Inspired Journaling. The magazine is full of beautiful images that have been made by amateur and professional photographers, but the most intriguing part of it for me is that each photographer has written something to go along with the image. Some of the included journaling may be a descriptive account of the photo, a poem, a quote, or some other inspired words that bring additional life to the images. Each photo is usually tagged with the camera make and model, and some brief information about the post processing of the image. I'm not really sure why they bother to include that, but it's there. There are lots of images in the magazine that are made with small point-n-shoot digital cameras.
The magazine is a little pricey, but I have enjoyed reading the material cover-to-cover several times over. It's $14.99 for an issue (and it's quarterly) and there is no break for a subscription at $60 per year. The magazine is very well constructed on heavy paper stock and it's approximately 150 pages with a small amount of advertising all concentrated in the back of the magazine.
I'm looking forward to seeing how well this publication does, and possibly even submitting some of my own images in the future. At least check this out when you find it on a rack somewhere... I think you will be amazed at what you find inside...
Infrared Photography
My Hoya R72 infrared filter finally arrived yesterday. I used to have one of these filters when I owned the Sony CyberShot DSC-707 camera, but I got rid of it when I moved to the digital SLR camera. Infrared photography didn't work as well with the SLR and I had no use for the filter after I got rid of the Sony camera. With the purchase of the new Canon PowerShot G9, I decided to give it a try again. None of the US-based camera retailers had this filter in stock, so I went to Ebay and found a good deal on one from a vendor in Hong Kong. Luckily, the filter arrived here in 11 days, which was better than I expected on a slow mail trip of that distance.
This photograph was made at ISO 80, f/2.8, and 8 seconds in manual exposure mode on the G9. I don't have much sunlight to work with today. The skies are partly cloudy, but the effect of the infrared filter is still definitely visible. The first issue I encountered during this test was that the Canon G9 seems to max out at a 1" shutter speed in the aperture priority mode. I had to switch to manual mode to get a long enough exposure with the infrared filter in place. By nature, this infrared filter blocks all visible light below 720 nanometers, which equates to nearly 12 stops of light in most cases. Longer exposures are normal for this type of photography with digital cameras.
This particular photo has no real intrigue on its own, but it's just a test. Now that I know I can get the results I want with this camera and filter, I'll shoot some more interesting photos with it in the near future...
New Age Wedding Photography
Those of you who know me also know that I don't do wedding photography for a lot of different reasons. The weddings that I have done have been for friends only. I turn away an obscene number of wedding opportunities. I always refer them to other photographers I know who shoot weddings regularly. I'm not equipped to provide the full service that many customers want in a wedding package. I don't have studio space or lighting equipment to provide formal bridal portraits. I don't have the patience to sit down and edit between 500 and 1000 digital images at a time. I don't have the will power to negotiate an adequate profit to cover the time it takes to shoot and process a wedding.
Wedding photography is a rough business. I have seen a lot of changes in it during the time I have been involved in photography. Most of these changes are due to the proliferation of inexpensive digital cameras. A lot of people who buy digital SLR cameras find themselves in a situation where they want to make money with them, and wedding photography is probably one of the first ideas that pop into their heads. Professional wedding photography is expensive, and it's expensive for a reason. Owning a digital camera and showing up at a wedding does not a wedding photographer make. Professional wedding photographers spend thousands of dollars on camera, studio, and computer equipment. Most of them have also been formally trained in the operation of their camera equipment. The work of a professional is not hit and miss. It's very calculated and precise. High quality professional wedding photography packages cost between $2500 at the very bottom end and go up to $5000 and $10000 very easily.
In the new age of wedding photography, there are tons of amateurs with cameras who will offer to photograph a wedding for chump change. Some may even offer to do the photography for free in an effort to get their own portfolio started. There is definitely a market for this type of photography. I would not hesitate to say that there are a lot of folks who get married that simply can't afford to spend $5000 on photography. $5000 could and would most likely be the single most expensive element of most weddings. As a wedding photography customer, one important thing to consider when you purchase your photography is that your photos are, in reality, the only tangible memories that you will carry into the future after the wedding day. It's an important choice that you have to consider. You can buy from a professional wedding photographer and guarantee yourself a set of excellent images. You can buy from a professional wannabe and hopefully get something you can be happy with.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the professional from the wannabe. You definitely can't tell it from the price of the package. One way is to find out if the photographer you choose has a studio and can offer formal studio bridal portraits. Photographers who can't offer this service aren't likely to be as serious about professional wedding work. The true professionals can offer you everything YOU want as a customer and they won't try to sway you into what they can do instead. A professional will always provide you with what you want and then offer you ADDITIONAL things if they have other ideas.
Another interesting thought is that the word PROFESSIONAL does NOT guarantee that the photographer is a GOOD photographer. I know tons of amateur and semi-pro photographers who have a keen eye for photos and would regularly produce more intriguing photos than your average professional. That's just another monkey wrench in the greater scheme of things when it comes down to choosing a photographer for your wedding. Your best bet is to look at their image portfolio and just decide if you like what you see. A wedding photographer's portfolio will contain a sampling of the photographer's best work from many wedding jobs. Everything you get in YOUR package won't look as great as all the images in the portfolio.
This all being said, I shot a wedding for a friend on Saturday. The above image is from that set. I shot the wedding at the bare minimum cost I could come up with to cover my time and expenses. The groom is a friend of mine and he wanted me to shoot the wedding even after I explained that this type of photography is not my forte. Since I have only done weddings for friends in the past, I agreed to do it. The wedding itself was very informal and the guest list was short as well. That made the overall pressure of the situation a lot lower than it would have been for a full-blown formal wedding.
Anyway... enough about that for now :)
James Nachtwey
I was reading in Nathan Armes' blog earlier today when I stumbled across this TED story on James Nachtwey. This 20-minute video is well worth the time to watch. Nachtwey makes several important points in this monologue that really make me think about the role of journalism in today's society.
Being ready and being there…
I don't get to photograph golf very often, but when I do, I'm usually struggling to find action opportunities. This particular photograph is rather stereotypical of the sport, and it's similar to many I have seen before... better than some and not as good as others.
Approaching the game of golf with a camera is quite a bit different than most other sports for several reasons. First of all, it's not a sport with high levels of action in general like basketball, football, or baseball. It's closer to baseball than the others in the fact that you can anticipate action to happen at specific places and times. Just being there and being ready is the key.
As I browse through my photo archives, I see hundreds of almost images that suffer from the being ready and being there syndrome. Being in an unfamiliar situation makes it even more difficult. A photographer must be able to adapt to the situation at hand without flinching. This applies to all types of photography, not just sports. A landscape always exists and it's not going anywhere, but being there and being ready for the perfect light, weather, time of day, and composition is the photographer's responsibility. In some situations, being there and being ready isn't enough. In these situations, it's patience and persistence that pay off. In a previous discussion, we talked about working the subject. The idea of working the subject goes a bit deeper, in many cases, that shooting a bunch of photos from different angles and perspectives. It may often involve returning to a subject over the course of days, weeks, months, or years to harvest the perfect image.
Why Should I Vote?
Why should I vote? The North Carolina primaries are not until May. I'm a registered Republican and the presidential nominee from the party has been selected. Why would North Carolina even hold a Republican primary (** for president**)? Would it not be a good idea to cancel the remaining Republican primaries (** for president**)? In North Carolina, I can't switch over and vote in the Democrat primaries since I'm registered as a Republican. I would have to change my registration in order to do that, and registrations have to be changed at least 30 days prior to election day.
** Addendum **
I modified the contents of this post on 3/8/2008. Some local political groups who are campaigning against a local politician rather than for their own candidate in the congressional race are misrepresenting my idea behind this post, so I needed to clarify myself. I have read through their material and will be back with more about their mudslinging later :)
Don’t forget to look…
I have been reading some other photo blogs lately where discussions of approaching the subject have been discussed. Paul Lester started the thought process with his Avoiding First Impressions post. The idea behind the post is the common idea of working a subject until you come up with the shot you really want. It's easy enough to fumble around a subject, snapping from different angles, perspectives, and lighting situations. In many cases, a photographer can visit a location many times until the weather and light lend themselves to a worthy photo. Some of his reader feedback led to a second post where the question of is there one approach better than another? question comes to the table.
These questions are always fun to ponder. It's like we are trying to formulate an equation to guarantee results. I consider myself to be a decent photographer, even though my interests are not very concise. How can I explain a situation where I spend an entire day out with the camera and come home with a few hundred photos, none of which are worth saving? Is it because I didn't work the subject? Definitely not...
I like to recall a few words of wisdom occasionally that I have heard many times from another photographer... The muse is fickle... The ability to effectively work any subject is going to be directly related to your personal interest in that subject. Some subjects speak with a stronger voice than others, making it easy to find your shots. Others are a little more quiet and subdued. When I find an interesting subject that doesn't jump out at me and automatically guide my camera to proper angles and perspectives, I tend to just stop what I'm doing and spend some time looking rather than shooting. When something attracts my photographic interest, it's always quite beneficial to determine exactly what attracts me before I start shooting. Getting back to the fundamental elements of image design, it's easy to remember that shapes and textures tend to attract our eye as much as color and contrast. When I approach a specific subject, I tend to look in those directions more often that trying to create a photo that simply documents what I saw. The photo at the top of this post doesn't very nicely describe the context of a Christmas Cactus, but it perfectly demonstrates the elements of it that catch my attention when I look at them. In this case, I didn't work the subject. I loaded up my 50mm lens and a 36mm extension tube and shot two images after spending about 5 minutes looking around the flower and gathering a piece of black foam core to use as a backdrop. I did get a photo I like though...
What are the advantages of working the subject?
One advantage is that you might stumble across an idea that you would never have encountered otherwise. You might also catch a few worthy images of those ideas during the process.
What are the disadvantages of working the subject?
There probably aren't many other than the possibility that you might never see what you are photographing...
Macro without a Macro Lens
I have still been experimenting with the extension tubes on my Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. This photo was made using the 20mm and 12mm extension tubes (Kenko) with the 50mm lens at f/2.0 with a shutter speed of 1/60". I used the Canon 550EX flash and bounced the light from a wall directly to the right on this image. I started out playing with all three extension tubes stacked (36mm, 20mm, and 12mm) but quickly figured out that it was just too much for this particular composition. I haven't had an opportunity to spend much time playing with the extension tubes on the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L yet, but I need to try that out as well to see what kind of results I can get and add some working distance to the subject.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Lost in the Technology
Digital SLR cameras continue to improve in quality and capabilities. I'm quite confident that theses cameras have surpassed the 35mm film market in many ways, and are approaching the medium format market rather quickly. As digital cameras develop, one of the areas of 'improvement' in each of them seem to be lowering the noise on high ISO images with each new revision of the image sensor technology. There will come a day when you simply can't get a grainy image when you want one. You will have to find a way to add it with post processing techniques.
Powered by ScribeFire.