I have several passions. They change over time, they do ebb and flow with some sort of tide and timing.
One of the staying-power lasting passions for me after 46 years is for the visual arts, specifically photography: recording glimpses of things which represent other deeper things.
Like any healthy passion pursuit, there are many aspects of and outlets for this passion of mine. I like that.
I make images / photographs almost every day. Some are casual and careless; others are intentional and serious.
On the days I don't make them, I definitely consume images, taste them, ponder them, dream of making them, refine my mental framework about visual images.
My worst nightmare would be to become blind, I sometimes think. But in a strange way, I would probably accept even blindness (just as every person who is blind must do), and I think my passion for the visual would not go away, it would just adapt.
Much of our vision is imagination. We see a ball, but we imagine childhood, play, innocence, leisure, competition, cohesion, teamwork, or perhaps many other things. We even imagine things that are not possible to see, triggered by the things we see.
If we were to lose our sight, we'd still have imagination, which spans much broader and deeper than physical sight.
Imagination is a form of faith: wondering, hoping, believing, conjuring, placing trust in what might be even if we don't exactly see it.
There's so much mystery in this realm of sight and imagination that I expect I'll never lose my passion for photography. It's poetry for the eyes; and when poetry really moves you there's no explanation, there's only mystery.
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Sep 2, 2009
Aug 11, 2009
30 Lessons for Photographers
Here are 30 lessons I'm learning as a photographer and visual artist.
I write these in the first person because primarily this is a list for me, not about some other theoretical photographer somewhere. In no particular order:
All of that said, I'm sorry to admit I fall short of many of these lessons all the time, that's part of my own failure and recovery and striving to be better, more professional, innovative, adaptive, and versatile as a photographer. There's always room for improvement.
Photography will never be boring unless I work myself into a deep nasty lazy rut and stay there.
To some, this list might make photography seem like a big burden, and I could see how it might feel that way. For those who simply enjoy photography as a wonderful, casual, creative hobby, much of this list is not necessarily for you and that's OK. This is more for those who make a significant portion of their living as (and/or desire to improve as) serious visual artists over the long haul. To do so requires discipline and intentionality.
And more on this soon, but I love having an iPhone with me and making simple, creative images with it daily. It's suitable for work, and for play, and repeatedly helps me lean into some of these lessons.
I write these in the first person because primarily this is a list for me, not about some other theoretical photographer somewhere. In no particular order:
- set goals and track my achievement of those goals, revising along the way
- learn and adapt on a daily basis
- at times move beyond on my "tried and true" or default techniques (lighting, composition, gear, framing, angles, whatever.)
- always get the shot and deliver the results
- learn from mistakes and failures (mine and others)
- don't repeat the same mistakes or failures ("ya don't get fooled again" - W)
- don't look too much at the photography of others (if I end up largely trying to imitate it, or thinking it's already been done)
- don't look too little at the photography of others (if I miss learning from others' inspiration, successes, failures; how good images could be better, or what makes them great)
- review my work from last week, month, year, and 10+ years back, to see how I've improved and where I need to improve or get out of a dumb rut
- never become complacent (a healthy discontent is much better, it leaves room for striving & moving somewhere)
- push myself regularly to tackle projects I'm not sure I can accomplish, or things I haven't done before
- dispel the notion that new gear will help me make better images than I can make with the gear I already have
- keep my promises, such as when I'll process and deliver images & prints
- deliver results, instead of making excuses (to myself or a client)
- don't wait for the best work to come to me rather than setting a strategy, going out to get it, making it happen
- don't be a well kept secret - not doing a half decent job at marketing
- don't be a self-absorbed self-promoter or spam my social networks (which I really don't, just something I want to remain sensitive about)
- move toward work I'm passionate about, rather than relying on work that I don't care so much about
- don't repeat "I hope some day to do more of such and such" rather than just doing it
- pay less attention to the latest buzzwords, jargon, fads or hype (examples might be HDR, Lensbaby, etc.) than to the consistent quality of the images I make
- make photographs, more than reading about / discussing photography
- don't play it safe, avoiding risks; be a little reckless now and then
- take a break from photography now and then to enjoy the finer things in life (yes, there are)
- present my work in a way that elevates it, puts it in its best light; not too casually as can be my tendency
- don't take myself too seriously at any time
- take advantage of opportunities to elevate and encourage the work of others - accomplished pros and amateur photographers alike
- pursue my best ideas even if I might not know how to get paid for them
- shoot it Now, or This Week; don't say "I'll shoot that sometime"
- always notice the light, how it behaves, and how beautiful it makes everything
- don't be so preoccupied with chasing my own concept of vision or inspiration that I don't let wonderful images knock down my door, come and find ME out of the blue
All of that said, I'm sorry to admit I fall short of many of these lessons all the time, that's part of my own failure and recovery and striving to be better, more professional, innovative, adaptive, and versatile as a photographer. There's always room for improvement.
Photography will never be boring unless I work myself into a deep nasty lazy rut and stay there.
To some, this list might make photography seem like a big burden, and I could see how it might feel that way. For those who simply enjoy photography as a wonderful, casual, creative hobby, much of this list is not necessarily for you and that's OK. This is more for those who make a significant portion of their living as (and/or desire to improve as) serious visual artists over the long haul. To do so requires discipline and intentionality.
And more on this soon, but I love having an iPhone with me and making simple, creative images with it daily. It's suitable for work, and for play, and repeatedly helps me lean into some of these lessons.
Jul 14, 2009
Exposure: Over, Under, or Neither?
Over the past few years I have heard and read various arguments for how to expose digital images. Over-expose? Under-expose? Neither? I want to offer a few thoughts about balancing these arguments in light of each photographic situation.
For starters, if it needs to be said, virtually everyone who can shoot "RAW" images should be doing so. A camera-raw image holds much more information than a compressed JPG file which the camera can make by throwing away information it decides will not be needed, in a split second based on predetermined criteria chosen by the camera manufacturer.
It might be a perfectly fine JPG file, but it's a reader's digest version of the full RAW file.
And secondly, a very common photographic challenge is to somehow capture and store (either on a piece of film or a digital sensor and file) the large range of dark and bright information which our eyes can so easily take in.
With photographs, often a sacrifice must be made, to preserve the details in the brightest areas of an image at the expense of the details in the shadows; or vice versa. The "dynamic range" of a human eye is huge - the range of brighter and darker exposure values which can be taken in as part of a scene.
The dynamic range of color negative film is about 8-10 exposure stops. The dynamic range of color slide film (which Kodak just discontinued - Kodachrome, the longest and best regarded slide film) is about 6 exposure stops. Because slides are projected as-is, they need to be exposed correctly.
The dynamic range of a digital sensor today is 5-12 exposure stops depending on the camera. The higher dynamic range is only found in higher end DSLRs costing several thousand dollars. This is rapidly changing of course, as the search for the digital sensor holy grail continues.
That should be enough background. Regarding digital exposure, there are three approaches: over-expose by about 1-2 stops; under-expose by about 1-2 stops; or do neither -- seek an "accurate" exposure for the subject that neither favors the highlights nor the shadows. The game plan, in all cases, is to try to recover useful image information (captured by the sensor and stored in the RAW file) in the darkest and the brightest areas of an image.
1) The over-expose strategy. This is sometimes called "Expose to the right," which refers to the histogram: choosing to expose images so that there's more information crowding the brighter (right) side of the histogram (which all DSLRs and some point-n-shoot digitals provide on the LCD display) and there is little or no "clipping" of blacks and shadow detail on the left side of the histogram. The argument here is that it's easier to recover highlight details out of the nuanced exposure information from a RAW file than it is to do so with details in the shadows.
2) The under-expose strategy. Not everyone agrees with the "expose to the right" approach. I just listened to a podcast where a respected photographer was advocating exposing for good preservation of highlight details even if this means the shadows are clipped and end up crowding the left side of the histogram, with the expectation that these can be recovered relatively more easily from the RAW file than is the case with highlights. Basically, approaches 1 and 2 are opposites. Opinions differ, and people can back their opinions with anecdotal experience.
3) The "neither" strategy. When shooting slide film, this was the only choice. Shooting even 1/2 stop over or under would result in an image on slide film (projected on a screen) that looks incorrectly exposed. And even though digital sensors and raw files allow for a range of choices to be made after the image is captured, some would advocate that the best approach is to accurately expose the overall image on average, leaving room to pull details from either the shadows and the highlights (or both) back into an edited image for the screen or for print.
My argument with all the above is that it depends. Specifically, it depends on at least three things, and we're assuming for this discussion that the image is being recorded to camera raw, not just to a JPG file. It depends on the subject, the camera, and the intent for the image.
First, what is the subject matter? Does the image being captured have a huge dynamic range of 15-20 stops of information, such as a sunlit marketplace with trees and shiny roofs and faces peering out from doorways and windows? Or is it a soft lit portrait of one of those faces surrounded by the darkness of the interior? Is it a macro of a flower? Is it a bride in a white dress, with African skin tones, and surrounded by a wedding party with varying skin tones and some of them wearing black tuxes?
In each case, how the image should best be exposed depends on the subject and the light which makes it visible to the camera. There is no simplistic, universal approach like "expose to the right" or "expose for the highlights" or "just expose it accurately!" :-)
Second, what camera is recording the image, and what kind of digital raw file does its sensor create? Is it capable of some of the highest dynamic range that today's best sensors can achieve? Or is it a 4 year old DSLR which makes a very nice image but may have only 7-8 stops of dynamic range on a good day?
Third, what is the intent for the image? If it is for family prints and shared Flickr sets, or a print ad campaign, or a fine art gallery show, or wedding enlargements, or a coffee table book -- each of these intended uses for the images might inform the best arguments for how best to expose the images. There's no one golden rule of exposure that best suits the many ways images might be used.
One rule that does apply to almost all images, whatever the exposure, is that post-production is an important part of making the image. A careful study, on a calibrated monitor, of the shadows and highlights, and an evaluation of what information can be recovered, and which information should be favored when we can't "have it all." Because we can't. Photographs don't yet store the information our eyes could see when we saw the scene. The challenge is to make our best effort at capturing the best essense of a scene and representing it later.
How do you expose digital images? Over? Under? Neither? I'm interested to hear your comments.
For starters, if it needs to be said, virtually everyone who can shoot "RAW" images should be doing so. A camera-raw image holds much more information than a compressed JPG file which the camera can make by throwing away information it decides will not be needed, in a split second based on predetermined criteria chosen by the camera manufacturer.
It might be a perfectly fine JPG file, but it's a reader's digest version of the full RAW file.
And secondly, a very common photographic challenge is to somehow capture and store (either on a piece of film or a digital sensor and file) the large range of dark and bright information which our eyes can so easily take in.
With photographs, often a sacrifice must be made, to preserve the details in the brightest areas of an image at the expense of the details in the shadows; or vice versa. The "dynamic range" of a human eye is huge - the range of brighter and darker exposure values which can be taken in as part of a scene.
The dynamic range of color negative film is about 8-10 exposure stops. The dynamic range of color slide film (which Kodak just discontinued - Kodachrome, the longest and best regarded slide film) is about 6 exposure stops. Because slides are projected as-is, they need to be exposed correctly.
The dynamic range of a digital sensor today is 5-12 exposure stops depending on the camera. The higher dynamic range is only found in higher end DSLRs costing several thousand dollars. This is rapidly changing of course, as the search for the digital sensor holy grail continues.
That should be enough background. Regarding digital exposure, there are three approaches: over-expose by about 1-2 stops; under-expose by about 1-2 stops; or do neither -- seek an "accurate" exposure for the subject that neither favors the highlights nor the shadows. The game plan, in all cases, is to try to recover useful image information (captured by the sensor and stored in the RAW file) in the darkest and the brightest areas of an image.
1) The over-expose strategy. This is sometimes called "Expose to the right," which refers to the histogram: choosing to expose images so that there's more information crowding the brighter (right) side of the histogram (which all DSLRs and some point-n-shoot digitals provide on the LCD display) and there is little or no "clipping" of blacks and shadow detail on the left side of the histogram. The argument here is that it's easier to recover highlight details out of the nuanced exposure information from a RAW file than it is to do so with details in the shadows.
2) The under-expose strategy. Not everyone agrees with the "expose to the right" approach. I just listened to a podcast where a respected photographer was advocating exposing for good preservation of highlight details even if this means the shadows are clipped and end up crowding the left side of the histogram, with the expectation that these can be recovered relatively more easily from the RAW file than is the case with highlights. Basically, approaches 1 and 2 are opposites. Opinions differ, and people can back their opinions with anecdotal experience.
3) The "neither" strategy. When shooting slide film, this was the only choice. Shooting even 1/2 stop over or under would result in an image on slide film (projected on a screen) that looks incorrectly exposed. And even though digital sensors and raw files allow for a range of choices to be made after the image is captured, some would advocate that the best approach is to accurately expose the overall image on average, leaving room to pull details from either the shadows and the highlights (or both) back into an edited image for the screen or for print.
My argument with all the above is that it depends. Specifically, it depends on at least three things, and we're assuming for this discussion that the image is being recorded to camera raw, not just to a JPG file. It depends on the subject, the camera, and the intent for the image.
First, what is the subject matter? Does the image being captured have a huge dynamic range of 15-20 stops of information, such as a sunlit marketplace with trees and shiny roofs and faces peering out from doorways and windows? Or is it a soft lit portrait of one of those faces surrounded by the darkness of the interior? Is it a macro of a flower? Is it a bride in a white dress, with African skin tones, and surrounded by a wedding party with varying skin tones and some of them wearing black tuxes?
In each case, how the image should best be exposed depends on the subject and the light which makes it visible to the camera. There is no simplistic, universal approach like "expose to the right" or "expose for the highlights" or "just expose it accurately!" :-)
Second, what camera is recording the image, and what kind of digital raw file does its sensor create? Is it capable of some of the highest dynamic range that today's best sensors can achieve? Or is it a 4 year old DSLR which makes a very nice image but may have only 7-8 stops of dynamic range on a good day?
Third, what is the intent for the image? If it is for family prints and shared Flickr sets, or a print ad campaign, or a fine art gallery show, or wedding enlargements, or a coffee table book -- each of these intended uses for the images might inform the best arguments for how best to expose the images. There's no one golden rule of exposure that best suits the many ways images might be used.
One rule that does apply to almost all images, whatever the exposure, is that post-production is an important part of making the image. A careful study, on a calibrated monitor, of the shadows and highlights, and an evaluation of what information can be recovered, and which information should be favored when we can't "have it all." Because we can't. Photographs don't yet store the information our eyes could see when we saw the scene. The challenge is to make our best effort at capturing the best essense of a scene and representing it later.
How do you expose digital images? Over? Under? Neither? I'm interested to hear your comments.
Jul 9, 2009
Nikon Lenses Rants and (mostly) Raves
I feel like slightly ranting, and mostly raving.
Can I just say this? I love my Nikon Nikkor lenses.
And FYI, this is a "big picture" blog post, not a techy nitty gritty post about lenses.
A lense, made up of many groups and elements of ground glass, takes in light from an image which might be inches or meters or miles away, and focuses it on a piece of film or a digital sensor. This is a small miracle. To do this with the high quality with which today's lenses are capable is a bigger-than-small miracle. It might be scientific to a certain degree, but like most of science, it's also miraculous.
As professional SLR brands go, my experience has been 100% Olympus with film, and for the past 6+ years is now 100% Nikon with digital. (I still have an Olympus OM-1n film camera and love it, more on that some other day.)
30 years ago I cut my teeth on some really nice Olympus Zuiko and Tamron SP lenses, and I've had a couple very good Sigma lenses over the years too. (In my youth, a Tamron 80-200 was on my camera about 80% to 200% of the time.)
But today, I do love the quality of the Nikon / Nikkor lenses in my kit. I prefer Nikkor's higher quality ED glass, and I like fast glass.
The main lenses I regularly use today are 3 primes and 3 zooms, all Nikkor:
Balancing these things, the 70-300 Nikkor I already have makes a very nice image, and is much more portable. I would need a different camera bag to carry the 70-200 2.8 with my kit. :-/
My only super wide currently is the 10.5mm DX lens, which doesn't cover the D700's full frame, although I can shoot a very usable (if lower res) wide image with it on the FX sensor, and I've done that a few times.
Three other lenses I'm interested in are the Nikkor 14-24 (to fill the focal gap; and some architectural stuff I do) and the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 (for individual portraits with very narrow dof) and a longer fast prime (400mm or more) for wildlife stuff and sports. And for the moon, I love to shoot the moon.
Lenses. There are always more of them. And one can always dream, right? But the point is to make great images, not accumulate lenses.
As I mentioned, I like fast glass. Part of the reason in the past was that I like to shoot handheld, and shooting people and events that are on the move (while I too am on the move) and when the light might be on the low side is much easier to do with a wide aperture.
The second reason I like fast glass is I love bokeh and separation from the background. Aside from some cultural documentary and event photography and certain macro scenarios, I'm often at or very close to wide open, on my fastest lenses.
Fast glass is expensive, heavy, bulky... and worth it all.
Raves? I do have them, one for each lens.
Since Nikon does and will increasingly continue to make great glass for the relatively newer FX digital sensor size (which does remain compatible with DX sensors too, those cameras simply use less of the image delivered to the focal plane by the lens), there's a much bigger risk of lost investment in a DX lens than a normal lens that covers a full 35mm frame area.
Having said all of the above, life has constraints, and not only am I willing to live within constraints, and not only do the lenses I already own provide a huge creative lattitude to make the images I love to make; but I believe my creative efforts will thrive more when I work within constraints rather than without them.
Meanwhile, Nikon: please keep making great lenses, please apologize to each of us some day (a free new lens would do) for the wrong-twist-direction thing; and thanks for the wonderful tools.
Can I just say this? I love my Nikon Nikkor lenses.
And FYI, this is a "big picture" blog post, not a techy nitty gritty post about lenses.
A lense, made up of many groups and elements of ground glass, takes in light from an image which might be inches or meters or miles away, and focuses it on a piece of film or a digital sensor. This is a small miracle. To do this with the high quality with which today's lenses are capable is a bigger-than-small miracle. It might be scientific to a certain degree, but like most of science, it's also miraculous.
As professional SLR brands go, my experience has been 100% Olympus with film, and for the past 6+ years is now 100% Nikon with digital. (I still have an Olympus OM-1n film camera and love it, more on that some other day.)
30 years ago I cut my teeth on some really nice Olympus Zuiko and Tamron SP lenses, and I've had a couple very good Sigma lenses over the years too. (In my youth, a Tamron 80-200 was on my camera about 80% to 200% of the time.)
But today, I do love the quality of the Nikon / Nikkor lenses in my kit. I prefer Nikkor's higher quality ED glass, and I like fast glass.
The main lenses I regularly use today are 3 primes and 3 zooms, all Nikkor:
- 24-70mm 2.8 (main lens on my D700)
- 17-55 2.8 (approx DX equivalent to the 24-70; main lens on my D300)
- 105mm 2.8 VR micro
- 50mm 1.4
- 10.5mm 2.8 (DX, usually attached to my D300)
- 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR (a cheaper but really good lens, just not as fast)
Balancing these things, the 70-300 Nikkor I already have makes a very nice image, and is much more portable. I would need a different camera bag to carry the 70-200 2.8 with my kit. :-/
My only super wide currently is the 10.5mm DX lens, which doesn't cover the D700's full frame, although I can shoot a very usable (if lower res) wide image with it on the FX sensor, and I've done that a few times.
Three other lenses I'm interested in are the Nikkor 14-24 (to fill the focal gap; and some architectural stuff I do) and the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 (for individual portraits with very narrow dof) and a longer fast prime (400mm or more) for wildlife stuff and sports. And for the moon, I love to shoot the moon.
Lenses. There are always more of them. And one can always dream, right? But the point is to make great images, not accumulate lenses.
As I mentioned, I like fast glass. Part of the reason in the past was that I like to shoot handheld, and shooting people and events that are on the move (while I too am on the move) and when the light might be on the low side is much easier to do with a wide aperture.
The second reason I like fast glass is I love bokeh and separation from the background. Aside from some cultural documentary and event photography and certain macro scenarios, I'm often at or very close to wide open, on my fastest lenses.
Fast glass is expensive, heavy, bulky... and worth it all.
Raves? I do have them, one for each lens.
- My 105mm 2.8 "micro" (the rest of the world calls this "macro" except Nikon) is an amaaaazing lens. I use it all the time for macro photography, individual portraits, and even some landscapes and wildlife. It has wonderful bokeh, separation, macro capability, and can focus about a foot away from the subject. I use its VR some but not a lot, usually when doing handheld macro photography. If the subject's not moving (wind, etc.) and VR is helping me on the camera side, I can get crisp images.
- I love the 50mm 1.4 for individual and group portraits, low light, streetwalking. It has beautiful bokeh, and wonderful separation at f/1.4 or slightly closed down. It's so nicely compact. And it has an aperture ring on it. I (don't use but) love that!
- I love the 24-70 f/2.8 for groups, portraits, landscape, architecture, and event photography. This is the lens I usually keep on the camera. (The 17-55mm is comparably wonderful, on the D300, but I'm usually shooting this 24-70 on the D700)
- I love the 70-300 (on a DX body this zooms to an equivalent 450mm!) with it's VR and light weight. I do some portraits with this, especially outdoors with just 1-2 people. In spite of the smaller slower glass it produces very nice images. The VR is nice, esp. at 300mm.
- I love the 10.4mm fisheye even though it's a DX lens and doesn't cover my FX sensor; I've still used it on the D700 for some very usable images. It can focus up to an inch away! It's an awesome lens. Thanks Nikon! It's wonderful on the D300. Actually, it's my main lens on the D300. It's my "Fish on a Stick". More on that some other day. :-)
- First, something I am confident will never change, I resent the decision Nikon made in the very early beginning days to use a "backwards" rotation to attach the lens to the camera. Completely unnecessary mistake by Nikon! And even though I've been using Nikon cameras and lenses almost daily for 6+ years, it's still partly counter intuitive. Lefty Loosy, Righty Tighty. I don't actually ever use that reminder, but I do instinctively know which way things go "tight" and which way things go "loose," this is universal and worldwide. Why, oh Nikon, did you do the opposite? I think there's probably no good reason you couldn't have reversed the mount so it was compatible with THE WHOLE FURGEN RESTA DA WORLD. But no. And now it's too late to change because on the other hand, the AMAZING thing you have accomplished is virtual compatibility between your oldest and newest lenses and bodies. There's no going back now. OK, rant #1 is over, I'll try not to bring it up again. (breathe)
- My 105mm 2.8 is the only Nikkor lens I've ever used that has serious problems auto focusing. It will very slowly "hunt" its way (usually in the wrong direction and eventually back again) to find focus even when it was very close to focus or even ON focus to begin with. By slow, I mean, several (3-5) seconds! I have used this lens on four (4) Nikon DSLR cameras, always with the same result. This lens, which produces amazing images, is the only one one I know that's dubious of the Nikkor name for this stated reason.
Since Nikon does and will increasingly continue to make great glass for the relatively newer FX digital sensor size (which does remain compatible with DX sensors too, those cameras simply use less of the image delivered to the focal plane by the lens), there's a much bigger risk of lost investment in a DX lens than a normal lens that covers a full 35mm frame area.
Having said all of the above, life has constraints, and not only am I willing to live within constraints, and not only do the lenses I already own provide a huge creative lattitude to make the images I love to make; but I believe my creative efforts will thrive more when I work within constraints rather than without them.
Meanwhile, Nikon: please keep making great lenses, please apologize to each of us some day (a free new lens would do) for the wrong-twist-direction thing; and thanks for the wonderful tools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
