3 Changes

I don't mean to get off on a rant, but...

Ok, I'm not going to pull a Dennis Miller on this one. In all seriousness, I've been slowly but surely taking my photography in a different direction. In January, I had pretty much burned myself out of photography. I didn't shoot much for a few months. Then I realized what was going on. I had shot myself into a rut. I was shooting the same stuff. I was being safe. I wasn't getting out of my box. I'm sure there are about a dozen more cliche's I could use here, but I think you get the point. As a result, I've been slowly making some changes over the last few months to the way I approach this art. Some subtle, others less so, but all important. It's been tough fully implementing my plans, due to life's habit of getting in the way, but I'm working on it as much as I can.

1. Getting out of my comfort zone

This is change #1. As I said above, I had been shooting myself into a rut. I was shooting the same things in the same way. I was bored, so I took a break. Once I realized what I had done, the first thing I needed to do was get out of my comfort zone. As a result, I've been looking at things differently. I've been shooting things I would never have considered. I've been trying techniques that I have never done before. It's a bit scary stepping into something you know little about, but it's also exciting, and quite a lot of fun. This is probably the biggest change I've made. I've started becoming less dependent on my gear, and more dependent on my skill. I don't have the greatest gear by any stretch of the imagination, but I no longer care. It's the image that counts, not the equipment used. If you find yourself in a rut, try new things, and don't be afraid to fail! I've failed a lot recently, but I've learned more in the past few months than the past couple years combined.

2. New style of Editing

A month ago, I edited completely with Photoshop Elements 7. I thought this had everything I might want/need to shoot. I was wrong. Although there is a lot I could do with this program, I realized that it really is geared toward the novice, and people who aren't that comfortable editing photos. As a result, a lot of the power of Photoshop is toned down to make for an easier editing experience. Don't get me wrong, I still recommend PSE for novice photographers, but there's a point where you grow out of it. I picked up a copy of CS5, and also a copy of "Photoshop CS5 Restoration and Retouching for Photographers Only" by Mark Fitzgerald. I've learned a lot about CS5, and have drastically changed my workflow. Although I still have a lot to learn, I've gotten a much greater handle on how to edit photos. I used to dread editing, now I actually look forward to it.

3. New way of Organizing my Photos

Although this was probably the most subtle change I made, it was also one that took me the most work to accomplish. I realized the way I currently organize my photos isn't very conducive to editing and browsing my photos. It's something I've wanted to do for a while, but I just didn't have a good way that would work for me. However, by using some tips presented in the book I mentioned above, and adding in my own way of doing things, I've come up with a great way of organizing photos that works for me and makes it much easier to locate photos. Moving my existing photos to this new system, however, took a lot of time and effort. However, that work has paid off. I plan on making another blog post at some point to give pointers on organizing photos, and showing off my method. Hopefully that will help people. The biggest thing I can say is, come up with something that works for YOU and make sure you're consistent in using it. If you follow those rules, you'll be ok.

So that's that. Hopefully these changes will keep my interest in photography up and should improve my own work. Maybe I've provided some inspiration to others to change their methods. Maybe not. Either way, I know I'm in a much better place.

The Final Image is What Matters

Let me preface this post with this:

This is my blog.
These are my opinions.
My opinion isn't fact.
If you don't like my opinions, you don't have to read any further.

I don't mean to be terse here, but I recently got into a discussion online with a gentleman that kept trying to tell me my opinion was factually wrong. I won't get into details, but it boiled down to him telling me that it has been scientifically proven that a style of photos I find beautiful, are ugly. Does it sound as absurd to you as it does to me?

Anyway, through the course of this discussion, a little rabbit trail formed. This rabbit trail was about what matters in a photograph. This same gentleman whom I've mentioned above stated that the difficulty of the shot needs to be taken into consideration when determining how good a shot is. My argument was that the shot should simply be taken at face value.

Now, I think there is some merit in his argument. Look at competitive gymnastics, for example. If the gymnast decides to do a difficult stunt, and she’s successful, she gets a higher score. Teachers typically give students leeway if they choose a difficult subject to write about and will give them a higher score accordingly.

Here’s the problem with both of these scenarios, however. There is a level of objectivity in the grading. Granted, there is always a subjective side of each of these, however, there is also a set of standards (objectivity) that the judge or teacher must follow. When it comes to photography, there is no standard. Photography isn’t competitive. Photographers (unless you’re in school for photography) aren’t being graded on their photos. A photo is considered good, if someone thinks it’s good. A photo is considered bad, if someone thinks it is bad.

There are some photographic genres that are considered very difficult. Sports photography, landscape photography, and wildlife photography come to mind. But should the fact that a particular shot is difficult, especially if you can’t tell from the context of the image that it is difficult, be weighed into the final evaluation of the image? I don’t think so. Here’s the example I gave, that was never responded to. If you take a blurry image of a gorilla, but tell me that you were hanging in a tree, upside down, blindfolded with one hand behind your back when you took it, how should I rate it? I might say that for the circumstances, the image is ok, but in the end, it’s still a shot of a blurry gorilla. I’ll tell you to try again, without the handicaps. I’ll tell you to go back in the jungle, set up your camera on a tripod or monopod, and try again.

When I look at a photo, I don’t care how difficult the image was to take. All I care about is what the image looks like, and how I respond emotionally to it. I will look at the technical and compositional aspects of the shot, and make a judgment. Just because you tell me you shoot 100% manual, will not change my perception of your shot.

Here we go again

So once again, I let life get ahold of my and take me away from my photography. That's not a very good excuse for me to not post, but it's the one I'm making anyway. The weather has been lousy (still is), I've been busy (work, school, husband, father), not to mention I've recently been through a move across town also. Things are starting to somewhat slowdown, and I am thinking this means I should be able to shoot and post more. That's the plan anyway. Besides, here in Sitka, we're running into some exciting times. Summer is on it's way, and that means all sorts of wildlife. Eagles, deer, bears, sea lions, whales, you name it. The herring fishery has been on 2 hour notice since last Friday, and I hope that means I'll get a chance to shoot some of it this year.

I have a lot of unprocessed images on my hard drive at the moment, and the plan is to go through some of those and see if I have anything worth posting. If I do, I will get those posted soon. Since this is a photoblog, I'd like to actually post photography, and not just words. I'll also be getting out to shoot a lot more often as well. So expect to see more. In the mean time, let me post one of the last images I took that I processed.

First of all, the settings. I was on O'Connell bridge, which links Sitka with Japonski island. I was on a tripod, mirror lockup, with a remote shutter release. ISO 200, shutter 1/40, and aperture f/16. This was taken New Years Day 2010. The moon is actually about to drop below the horizon and is the remnants of the blue moon on New Years eve. I was inspired by this shot because I had driven over the bridge the day before (driving to work) and I saw about 40 photographers on the bridge snapping shots at about 7:30am. The moon was bright orange and was absolutely stunning. I was kicking myself because I didn't have my equipment, and didn't have the opportunity to go out there anyway that day. So I went out the next day, and I was the only one on the bridge. Although I didn't see an orange moon, this shot turned out better than I expected. Anyway, I hope you enjoy.

Want to start in Photography? Read this first.

My inspiration for this post is a thread I recently read on a photography forum I frequent. I seem to get a lot of my blog post ideas from there. I've seen threads like this in the past, but I usually don't bother thinking about them, or even bother to comment on them. But this one struck a chord with me. I won't give you the exact quote, but the opening post of the thread came from a brand new poster and it went something like this:

"Hello everyone! We've been taking my infant to photo studios to get pictures taken, but have been less than pleased with the results. My wife and I have decided to buy some photography equipment and take our oun portraits. We have no experience in photography, but would like to know what equipment we need to take good pictures."

Sound innocent enough? Well, to a grizzled amateur, the insinuation is that any Joe Blow off the street can throw some money at some photography gear and shoot amazing shots. This is pretty off-putting to people who may not have ever made a dime on photography, but have spend months, years, or even decades working towards bettering themselves at their chosen craft. To a professional, who's spend years training, years refining their work, and thousands of dollars on equipment, this is a slap in the face. It would be akin to saying, "Hello! Professional photographers, like yourselves, in our area suck. What equipment do I need to buy to put you out of business?".

So I've blown it a bit out of proportion, but the insinuation is there. The problem is, non-photographers think that there's nothing more than pointing your camera in the direction of something interesting and clicking the button. They also tend to believe that a really expensive, fancy camera will make great photos automatically. Occasionally, I'll show some of my work to friends, co-workers, and family, and more often than not, I'll hear something like, "Wow, those are great shots, you must have a really nice camera!" It's as if they are using the fact that I have DSLR, and they have a $200 point and shoot as a crutch for why they can't take shots like that. I've taken a page from the book of Scott Bourne (he mentioned this one once when he hosted TWiP), and when I hear people say something like that, I'll usually respond with, "Yeah, I got it at the same place Shakespeare got his pen." Maybe it sounds a bit arrogant to say that, but really, people should give credit where credit is due, but I digress.

So now, to relate to the title of this post. Do you want to start in photography? If so, there are some things to think about. Here is a list of questions you need to ask yourself. This list isn't all inclusive, but it will get you started.

• Why do I want to learn photography?
• Have I done any research on photography?
• What genre do I think I would like to shoot?
• Do I have an idea of what gear I would need to buy?

The first question is really the most important part, as it will dictate a lot of decisions later. If you just want to get some snaps of the kids playing, you probably can get away with point and shoot camera. If you want to learn the ins and outs of photography, you probably want to get a DSLR. If you want to make money with photography, you probably want to go through some kind of training, and buy pro level (read: expensive) gear.

This next question will help you to decide if this is really something you want to undertake. Photography has a very steep learning curve. The terms, phrases and acronyms you hear will be like learning a new language. For example, "I made this shot at ISO 100, 1/20sec, f/13 hand-held with VR on, spot metered off rocks, then recomposed." The other thing that you really need to understand is (and I hope your research will lead you to this) that photography is as much (or more than) an art as it is a science. There is certainly a technical aspect to photography, but the artistic side is going to make or break your shooting.

The third question will help you to narrow down the types of equipment you want to buy, as well as help you look at how to accomplish that type of photography. Shooting landscapes requires a completely different skill set from shooting portraits. I can make great looking landscapes, but I am pretty bad at portraiture, and I have over 10 years experience in photography!

Once you've taken time to think about the first three questions, you can begin to decide what equipment you want. Here, you'll want to decide what camera system you want to buy into (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, etc), and any additional equipment you might need. The answers to the first three questions should answer that for you. If you want to do portraits, you're going to have to invest in lighting and a set of lenses that give you an appropriate field of view. If you want to do landscapes, you pretty much need a tripod, someway of triggering your camera remotely, and a wide angle lens.

The point I want to stress is that photography is not easy. Once you get the basics, there's still a lot to learn. It's not for everyone. Please make sure to take your time, do your research and don't jump in unprepared, or you'll get frustrated very quickly.

There are no rules in Photography!

There, I said it. I finally got it off my chest. Maybe it's just me, but one of the biggest pet peeves I have about the online photography culture is the reliance on certain "rules" of photography. I know what you're saying, "But Rich, what about the Rule of Thirds?" What about the Rule of Thirds, indeed! The RoT is the biggest offender in my book, but it's not the only one.

Let me back up a moment, and set this up for you. There's a couple of photography forums that I frequent, and occasionally post on. Recently, on one of them, I got involved in a couple discussions that eventually led to me wanting to write this post. The first one was essentially about the Rule of Thirds. I took the standpoint that it can be counterproductive to teach the RoT to newer photographers because it pigeonholes them into thinking inside that little box. Rather than try to teach composition organically, you can go to about a million photography sites that list compositional rules. By calling them rules, people assume that they are supposed to shoot that way. What a way to box someone in artistically! One poster asked me how I was taught about photography in that discussion. I explained how I had a mentor who never told me about the Rule of Thirds until I asked him about it. But by then, I had built my eye up compositionally that I didn't need to think about the RoT, I just automatically placed my subjects/horizons/etc where I thought they looked best. He replied saying that it's impossible to teach photography online like that, unless the more experienced photographers are willing to spend a lot of time mentoring newer photographers. I had never thought about it that way.

In another discussion, a newer photographer asked what the best ISO setting for a particular circumstance was. In this case, it was low light, indoor, sports photography. A few people had replied with answers like, "Oh, 400-800 ISO should be fine," and "It doesn't really matter, just don't go above 1600 ISO, there will be too much noise!" (These quotes are actually paraphrases, and not actual quotes from the discussion). I started thinking about how unhelpful these answers were. They seem helpful, but anyone who's been into photography for a while can see the trap here. That trap is getting pigeonholed by a rule. My reply to this new photographer was simply use the lowest ISO that will give you the shutter/aperture combination that's appropriate for the shot. This may be a rule, but I dare you to find me a situation where you couldn't use this. (And no, saying you want noise for artistic reasons, is not a reason. We're working off the assumption that noise is bad.) Considering that you only get one benefit, but also one big drawback by raising ISO (more light, but more noise) there's no reason to go any higher than you need to.

Now, before I go too much further, let me say that, I agree, most of the time, with all of the popular rules of composition. They were labeled rules for a reason (as in, most of the time, they will give you the best shot), and I am not an advocate for straight, non-converging lines, centered subjects, centered horizons, etc. I simply believe that composition needs to be taught in a way where the rules are automatic. But that the photographers eye automatically knows when to break the rules. Unfortunately, that's the sticking point.

Here's the rub. We call them rules. We learned in grade school that you aren't supposed to "break the rules." Sure, we've heard the cliche, "Rules were meant to be broken," but honestly, do people really believe that? Rules are meant to be followed. If they weren't meant to be followed, they'd be called "guidelines" or "suggestions." There's a rule that says you aren't supposed to go faster than the posted speed limit in your car. Is that rule meant to be broken? Why should someone who's new to photography assume that the compositional rules were meant to be broken? The answer is, they shouldn't because we're conditioned to follow rules, and we are hesitant to break them.

So how am I now combating this semantic war against the "Rules" of photography? Simple. I don't call them rules. If I critique someone's photo, I say, "Nice job not centering your subject and horizon, it looks good like that!" Or in the negative, I might say, "Make sure your subject isn't centered, and maybe move the horizon up or down a bit." Yeah, it's a little more verbose than saying "Check your RoT," but at least I'm not responsible for reinforcing the idea of "Rules" of photography. I suppose I should be glad it wasn't called The Law of Thirds.

Sorry!

I'm currently in the process of reworking how I organize and name my images. As a result, I've pulled all the images I have stored online, offline. This has caused some of the images on this blog to become non-existent for the time being. Rest assured, once I've finished everything I need to do, I'll make sure to get those images re-posted.

Halloween is Coming!

Sorry I haven't posted in such a long time! I'm back in school, and I simply don't have time to shoot, edit and post. I will try to post more in the future, but you know how that goes sometimes.

This is a portrait I did of my daughter Emma in her Halloween costume. She's the cutest little Ewok! It was taken about 45 minutes prior to sunset, and as a result, there is that nice warm light coming in. I love this photo, from a purely sentimental point of view. Unfortunately, as a photographer, I see lots of flaws, such as the out of focus face, and that distracting leaf. However, this was my first real attempt at a portrait, and I think I did a pretty decent job.