Category Archives: Discussion Starter

Post to start discussion on all sorts of topics.

Gear whores, does it make for better images?

3 Replies

We all know them. People with the latest and greatest gear. Actually, I am probably one of them myself, although, I don’t suffer from this affliction like I used to. There was a time when I wanted all the fastest lenses and best camera available. I thought better gear would mean better images. Well, it does, if you know how to get the most from the superior equipment. But what if you don’t. I can remember reading about fast lenses when it was all new to me. I had to have one. I didn’t have a clue what it meant, I just wanted fast glass. This was a time before I understood what an aperture was and what it did. These days I unerstand and appreciate just what fast glass is, but, does it make for a better photograph? Well, yes and no. I have taken so quite good shots on my old 300D and kit lens. And I can assure you I have taken some shocking photos with my 5D and L series lenses.

So, why, if you are able to take acceptable photos with lesser gear, do we go out and spend our last dollar on the lastest gear. Well, the better gear does make it easier to get that good shot. Take viewfinders for example. On the 300D, I used to struggle to see unless I was out in dalylight. There were 2 reasons to this. First, I had slow kit lenses on the camera. You can only get so much light passing through a f/5.6 lens. The second reason was the viewfinder seemed tiny. When I got the 5D, the biggest change from the 30D was the viewfinder. It seemed enormous. So with a larger viewfinder, and say a f/2.8 lens, suddenly, I felt like I had night vision. Obviously, being able to see the subject you are trying to photograph, will help you take a better photo.

So, I can see the subject better with a better camera, that doesn’t mean I will take a better photo. I can still manage to stuff it up. What else can help? Image stabilisation? Fast frames per second? USM focussing lenses? Live View, which rules out a viewfinder altogether? Well they may help, but even all those things combined, wont mean better images. You could place me in front of the best lathe in the world, with the finest timber available, a skilled trademan by my side, and I doubt I could turn a high quality candle holder to save my life. In much the same way as some really talented people are using rubbish cameras to turn out amazing photos, the skilled tradesman could probably make a superior product with a wobbly lathe and some drift wood.

Drifted

Candleholder?

So, does all this mean that the gear whores out there take rubbish photos? Hardly. There are plenty of people with loads of talent that are gear whores. Just like there are plenty of people with little or no talent who have all the latest and greatest gear. I suppose todays lesson is this. Buying the best gear won’t mean instant awesome photos. Learning to use your camera to its fullest will not only be more rewarding, but stand you in good stead when you want to mortgage the house for that Nikon D3x.

Why do you post photos?

9 Replies

Flickr, SmugMug, Picasa or any other photo website. Why do you do it? Kudos from strangers, friends etc. To learn?

I was asked yesterday why I post photos on Flickr and photo forums? It is a good question. Like most people, I like having others say positive things about my photos, but I think there is more to it than that. By posting my photos, I think I have improved as a photographer. I have learnt a lot. My views have changed. All by getting feedback to my photos. Flickr is probably not the best place to go to get constructive criticism, but some of the photography forums I visit certainly are. To have someone point out small details in an image that could have been done better is a great way to learn, but it isn’t for those with fragile egos. There are plenty of things that others would like me to change in a photo that I am not willing to. This shot for example.

Blue and Yellow

Although I posted it on Flickr and asked people to refrain from asking me to clone out the power lines, plenty of people on photography forums who didn’t see that request told me the shot would be improved by cloning out the power lines. One person even did it for me and I agree, the image did look better, but I am a bit of a stickler for not manipulating my images, so they stayed in. Had I not posted it, I would never had seen the result of the image with out the power lines.

Its the same with numerous images I have put on Flickr. People have suggested crops, levels changes, saturation changes etc etc, all of which I probably wouldn’t have even considered unless some new eyes had seen the image. It is a fantastic way of learning. Whether you take on board all the suggestions, it does give you a new perspective on a given image.

So I suppose the main reason I make public the photos I take is for the kudos, but the constructive criticisms I have received have made me a better photographer. And that on its own is worth the time to upload my photos to a public place.

What drives you to place your photos in the public eye?

Bokeh, why, oh, why?

7 Replies

Anyone that frequents photography forums, or Flickr, will have heard of bokeh. People talk of photos with creamy bokeh. They ask what lens to buy based on the bokeh it produces. Dear lord, Flickr even has HBW, Happy Bokeh Wednesday! My question is this, is it really that important? I would have thought having the main component of the image in focus was more important than the shape or creamyness of the out of focus area.

So what is bokeh? Well, different things to different people it seems.

Wikipedia says

Bokeh (derived from Japanese boke , a noun form of bokeru, “become blurred or fuzzy”) is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field. Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

Right, clear as mud. If you happen to be a Poindexter, there is an even more in depth article here. Be aware, its heavy going, but if you love chatting about circles of confusion and aperture shapes, your blood pressure will rise with every passing paragraph.

So it seems bokeh is all about the look of the out of focus part of an image. Right.

So when did bokeh become popular? Again, Wikipedia say “The term bokeh has appeared in photography books at least since 2000.” That may be the case, but it seems to be tossed around with gay abandon in plenty of photography forums, and it seems to be happening more and more. It has even gotten to a point where I saw a question asked today on Flickr wanting a point and shoot recommendationbased on the bokeh the tiny tiny lens will produce.

Yellow Dots

Creamy???

I did a 30 second survey just now on Flickr. Two simple searches. Here are the results.

We found 32,076 results matching “sydney opera house“.

We found 405,609 results matching bokeh.

Who would have thought Bokeh would be more common than an Australia icon? Not me, thats for sure.

So, can someone explain the appeal in this bokeh trend? Is the backgraound more important than the foreground in a photo? Help me understand! Please.  🙂

Barack Obama, Canon and fanboys.

4 Replies

After spending a lot of my day at work watching the US election online and then witnessing some of the online discussions about the result, it got me wondering, “What makes people so passionate about their political views, religious beliefs and product loyalty?” Really, some of the tripe that I read about Obama winning the election was beyond belief. Ignorance is alive and well it seems. What drives people to hate the so called opposition in all aspects of life? I can, to a point, understand it in politics and religion, after all, they can have a profound effect on our lives. And I know that when I was younger, I was probably guilty of an intense dislike of people who didn’t agree with me, but these days I would like to think I am a little more tolerant of people with different beliefs to my own. Sure, I still find it hard how people can believe their lives are in some way controlled by a higher being, but I don’t hate them for it. As long as they don’t push their ideals on to me, I am fine with them having their beliefs.

Having pondered the political and religious idea for a few hours this afternoon, tonight it struck me. I was sitting, looking at where our kitchen used to be, will be again in a week or two, but isn’t at the moment, and it came like a bolt of lightning. People have the same fervent beliefs regarding products. You see it so often on internet forums, PC vs Mac, Intel vs AMD, Microsoft vs Apple and the list is longer than a politicians lunch. But what purpose does it serve? Do people really get such a kick out of bagging a product that they don’t use, and sometimes, have never used? Again, it wasn’t long ago that I was bagging Macintosh computers myself, and yet here I sit, plugging away happily on my 16 month old MacBook Pro. These days I wonder why I didn’t make the move years ago. I know it was because I used to play a lot of racing simulations that wouldn’t run on the Mac, but it doesn’t stop me thinking about it.

Fil-Lm

So we come to photography, after all, it is what this BLOG is supposed to be about. I saw a forum post today that went along the lines of…Anyone that uses a Nikon is a piss poor excuse for a photographer! What? I mean really, does the camera make that much difference? I would say no. This person had a link to their gallery in the forum signature, so I went off for a look at this Canon super photographer. To say I was under whelmed, well, is an understatement. Piss poor would best describe his photographic achievements. Now I am quite happy using a Canon camera, but if I won the lottery 3 months back, I would have traded the lot for a Nikon D3.

So help me understand this blind faith. Do you know of instances of it where you have read something on the net and shaken your head? Why do people need to degrade a person because of their product choice? Is it purely insecurity on their behalf? Its got me beat.

Is it too easy to take a good photo these days?

7 Replies

The aforementioned question popped into my head the other day whilst I was pouring over the Shorpy website, a fantastic site of old photos that have been digitised and retouched. You really need to have a look yourself to see how good these photos are. There really are some stunning photos on there. This shot for example, taken in 1947, over 60 years ago, is a beautiful photo. I don’t know if I could reproduce that image today. But I bet there are plenty of people who could.

And that brings me to the point of this BLOG entry. Is it too easy to take a good photo? Obviously, it isn’t, otherwise Flickr and sites like it would be loaded to the brim with magnificent images, and clearly, they are not. But I wonder what what the photographers of the mid 20th century think of the current day photo makers. Would they be sitting back in the recliners recalling the old days of large format cameras and lugging them 20 miles along a gravel road in bare feet just to get a shot. Not having the fancy exposure meters in todays cameras. The ability to chimp a shot, on the spot and retake it. The luxury of Photoshop compared to the dark room.

Where the photographers of days gone by better photographers than today? I hear names like Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand, Paul Strand and W. Eugene Smith and wonder how they would go with a nice new Nikon D3 and a few fancy lenses. Would Ansel Adams still take B&W landscapes? Or would they be colour rich ultra wide spectaculars?

I also wonder if they realise that their photos will be regarded as classics. Did Breson realise at the time that his photo of the man jumping a puddle would be a classic. Considering the man jumping the puddle was obviously still going to end up in the water, wouldn’t it have been better if the shot was slightly later, thus showing the man standing on water? Would that have changed peoples perception of the shot. After having heard some of the critics talk about the photo, I doubt it would have made any difference. Breson called it the decisive moment. I think it was a missed chance. Would he have taken a better photo with a Canon 1D MkIII firing away at 10 frames per second?

One thing that we can try is using older gear to take photos. I have already touched on that in the previous BLOG article, “Film, why is it so addictive?”. Using old equipment is one way to compare you photos from the older gear vs the newer gear.

There is no right answer to any of this, much like a lot of the previous BLOG entries. It is just a chance to discuss another aspect of a very interesting pass time, hobby or occupation. Feel free to discuss this. Suggest other photos or photographers. Have you tried to take photos with older gear? What was your experience?

Colour vs No Colour (color for the Americans out there).

7 Replies

Given the reaction to the previous few BLOG discussion topics, I expect this little collection of unstructured sentences, littered with spelling and grammatical inaccuracies, will generate its fair share of hysteria. Despite the fact that I am only trying to generate some interesting discussion on a few photography forums and Flickr discussion groups, it seems I have managed to piss a few people off. So be it. Im no stranger to a heated discussion. I have said before I love a passionate debate. And I have even had my mind changed by some of the discussion. Sit back down all you Strobists, I’m still an advocate of natural lighting, you haven’t swayed me yet.

Todays chatter is about black and white photography,(for those middle aged men with bushy beards and cardigans, please don’t take me to task over the fact that is should be duotone or some other term you have dragged out of “A pedants guide to correcting idiots.” I like to speak in simple terms)  and its reluctance to go the way of black and white TV. Black and white photography seems to be making a resurgance, I suspect, partly by people like myself diving into the non-digital (read, film) world of photography. Developing your own black and white film is cheap. Quite a bit cheaper once you are set up than taking the rolls to your local lab or chemist. But there is also an ever increasing crowd out there who are converting their colour images to black and white using Photoshop, GIMP and all the other virtual darkrooms available on the humble home computer. I used to poo-poo the idea, telling people if you can shoot colour, why go back to black and white. Animals see in black and white (I am too lazy to Google and see if that claim is 100% correct, so I am ready for the comments telling me I obviously didn’t see the NatGeo special on the  Pacific Blue Bearded Tit) and we see in colour. It might be why we are apex predators, who knows. I just know I used to like my photos in living colour, not some dreary black and white image. I think it was Dave Foley’s character in the terrific sitcom News radio who said something like “I find black and white photography pretentious”. I agreed, at the time.

As it turns out, I must have magically evolved overnight quite a while back, because I can cope with a colour free photo these days. The odd one, not all photos. I even convert some of my own photos to black and white now. I really have no idea what photo I should convert to black and white, but it is usally a photo with a sombre mood, like this.

Remembering as a unit

Remembering as a unit

I can remember when I took it that that photo would brobably benefit from being processed as a black and white image. It happens on occasions. It might be that tiny part of my brain that houses the 3 synapses that make up my artistic side, the bit that I keep closed down for fear of my plums falling off. I have been told time and time again that there is some arty fartyness (if that doesn’t convince people there isn’t, nothing will) in me, and for the love of Mary’s young bloke, I wish they would stop.

So what I would like to know is why people embrace black and white photography with such gusto? I have heard things like tonal range, which makes as much sense to me as quantum physics to a 3 year old. Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti black and white, just curious as to why it is so much loved. I hold people like George Voulgaropoulos in the highest regard. His photos are amazing at times. And every now and them he takes them in colour too. Have a look at his work. Proof that that taking photos with out colour is the new black, and white!

Film, why is it so addictive?

21 Replies

Let me begin with a photo.

1st Frame of my 1st film developed right here at home.

That photo was the 1st photo on the 1st roll of film I developed myself. It was surprisingly easy to do, except the bit where you have to get the film out of the canister and onto a spool and into the light proof tank, all in the dark! But the developing itself was a doddle. Pour some liquids into a tank for a certain amount of time. Agitate a few times. Tip out. Done. Well, there is a little more to it than that, but its not hard. When the 1st negatives where hanging up to dry, I was as excited as a Strobist at a flash give away!

Now I never really understood the lure of film, until I started playing with it myself. I blame Harry, he gave me a Canon EOS 1000F film camera and some great advice. Since then, I have scoured eBay for all sorts of filmy goodness. Some can be seen below.

It is now turning into an obsession. These things are so cheap on eBay it is ridiculous. I think the Yashica MG-1 rangefinder was the most expensive so far at $35. The next on the list is a TLR. Maybe another Yashica or Rollie, something thats is medium format so I can play with 120 film.

What makes film photography so addictive? I don’t know. I know alot of other people love film and take some amazing photos with it. I can’t put my finger on what it is, maybe its the fact that it is more hands on. It is tactile, unlike digital. There seems to be a greater sense of satisfaction with film compared to digital. I find I take my time when taking photos using film. You don’t have that feeling of invincibility that digital seems to instill in people. Its like my “What the Duck” mug says, “Shoot like hell, hope one sticks”. I don’t do that normally, let alone on film which is actually costing you every shutter activation.

Film is not for everyone. I expect Gen Y kiddies would hate it. But for people willing to give it a go, I highly recommend it. Grab a $5 eBay special and throw some cheap film in it and have a go. After all, if you don’t like it, just sell the camera on eBay and put it down as a learning experience.

If you love film, lets hear why.

Street. The new black. Or is it?

8 Replies

The pavements of our large cities run amok with humanity. People, people, everywhere. Smiling, scowling, deep in thought, drugged to the eyeballs, you’ll see it all on the streets. The smell of sweat, cologne, fear and greed. The sounds of traffic, people on mobile phones, dogs barking and planes overhead. The touch of a smooth hand rail, your fellow commuters rubbing against you in a packed train, a slippery pavement after rain. Big cities give me sensory overload. It might be why I moved away from Sydney. There is too much happening. I can only imagine New York at rush hour. I have seen places like Athens, Bangkok and Hanoi at peak hour, and it blurs my brain.

(C) Vitek
(c) Vitek 2008

“Whats this got to do with photography?” I hear you ask. Well, this blog post is all about street photography. It seems to have become trendy the past few months on a lot of photography forums I visit. It is the new black!

The first time I really took any notice of street photography was when I watched the fantastic six part documentary, The Genius of photography and they featured Joel Meyerowitz who I found fascinating. I still don’t know why.

Now, I love street photography. It is raw and in your face a lot of the time. Its something I wish I could do, but just don’t have the guts to get out there in confront people. Part of me loves the photos, and part of me hates the invasion of privacy.

Which brings me to a question I keep asking myself when ever i think about street photography. The question of privacy. I know there are some that say anyone out in public is fair game, but I know for sure, if Bruce Gilden (see him in action here ) jammed a camera and flash 3 foot in front of my face, I wouldnt be all that pleased about it. Having said that, some of his photos are fantastic.

I am also a huge fan of Joe Wigfall’s photography. Some of his photos are taken from the hip, which seems far less intimidating than Gildens method. Joe features in an excellent interview here on James Robinson Photography Blog, an excellent site for interviews of a wide range of photographers.

An example of Joe Wigall's excellent work.
(c) Joe Wigfall 2008

If I ever did manage to get into street photography a bit more, I would love to be able to produce the types of shots that Vitek takes. I love the way he uses light. He has an eye for detail. I just wish he hadn’t rubbed out a stack of his photos from Flickr.

There are plenty of other photographers who take fantastic street photos, who are your favourites? And what are your thoughts on the issue of privacy and the photographer?

Flashers, are you one?

13 Replies

For all those who wander the suburbs in a trench coat and nothing else, please go to the next Google search result, I am actually about to delve into the photographic world of flashers and their flashes.

A couple of years ago, I had never heard the term strobist before, but these days it seems every man and his glow worm are getting into off camera lighting. Apparently, the flash built in to most of todays cameras, is good only for blinding the unsuspecting portrait victim. Strobists seem to look down their noses at people who activate the flash and mush the shutter button. Unless you have got a couple of $5 second hand flashes, a few reflectors, an umbrella, a small notepad and 2B pencil, light stands, a soft box, a snoot, an assortment of coloured gels, a Fong whale tale and 1024 Eneloop batteries to create a second sun you just aren’t fair dinkum. According to David Hobby, over at http://strobist.blogspot.com/ “The site has over 230,000 regular readers, our discussion group has more than 30,000 members, and we are all about sharing ideas and techniques for small-flash lighting.” That is a lot of light getting pumped out.

Dust?
Macca flashes!

Now, I will say right now, I am not a strobist. I have a flash, that I haven’t a clue how to use properly, so it hardly ever goes onto the camera. I am sure if I had the inclination, I could probably work it out, and it may even improve my photos, but I don’t. Why? Well, I prefer to use available light. I like fast lenses. And I think strobists are your modern day trainspotters. Thats why I included the notepad and 2B pencil in the above inventory of your average strobist. Thats so they can document how they took the photo and include it in the Flickr descriptions. You will see things like.

“Strobist Info: Nikon SB-800 on 1/4 power left of camera, batteries at 15.8% capacity, through shoot-through reflector  and snooted using Pringles snoot. Topaz coloured gel on second SB-800 to right of camera, light stand extended to 61% of reach and pointed at 78.9 degrees to the model and ever so slightly upwards. “

Obviously, I have edited the description down, but you get the idea. Now whilst I am not a strobist, I love their passion. It seems once you go over to the strobist camp, you never come back. And the best thing about them, they seem to have a terrific sense of humour, are ingenious and take some damned fine photos.

Now back to the anti-strobists like myself. I have a feeling that natural lighting, or available light, whether it be natural from the bright round thing in the sky, or from man made light that isn’t a flash, seems to give a photo more atmosphere. I know, not all the time, but its my belief that most of the time it does. It might be more of a challenge, to try and get a photo with available light, although, after reading some of the strobist descriptions, they do take some time setting things up.

Happy Birthday Onz!

Using available light, see how sexy it looks  🙂

Which brings me to this weeks discussion point, are you a strobist? If not why not? if yes, what made you go over to the light side?

Photography, is it learned, or are you born with it?

5 Replies

It is not often that I change my opinion on something after speaking to someone for 15 minutes on any subject, let alone one that I am quite passionate about, but today, it happened. And I am not sure if i am happy about it or not.

I was invited out for a coffee with a local who is quite a big wheel in one of the local camera clubs. I had never met him before, and I consider him to be quite the bohemian, judging by his photos and a couple of chats I have had with him on the phone. I have 2 mobile phones, one work, one personal, and the personal phone had the work number on redial in case I needed to get out with dignity.  As it turned out, he was a terrific bloke. He has been taking photos with all sorts of cameras for near enough to 40 years. He was interesting and obviously very smart. His name is Bruno.

The premise for the meeting was to talk about my entries in a recent competition at the camera club. Bruno has been putting pressure on me for a few months now to take an active part in the club. I’m not the most social bloke in the world, and sitting around critiquing other peoples photos isn’t exactly my idea of a good night out. I would much rather be out and about taking them. Also, sitting around with people with 40 years experience sort of intimidates me. I don’t know much about the famous photos or photographers, and what I do know, doesn’t impress me a great deal.

Then we got to talking about good photos, and who takes them. I had, up until this morning, always thought it was something you could learn. You know, don’t cut off heads, try and get horizons right, stuff like that. Bruno is of the opinion, and I have to say he made a bloody good arguement about it, that people have either got a good eye for photography, or they don’t. My arguement was based around people going to university, art school or night school to learn how to take good photos. Well, Bruno took that point of view and wiped the floor with it. Certainly, people can be trained to take good photos technically, but subject matter, compostion, understanding light and numerous other things are done more by instinct for the better photographers according to Bruno.

I have mentioned on Flickr and other sites that I have been told that I have a good eye, but that is from people that only see whats on Flickr. And that, I can say with some certainty is but a pinch of the photos that I actually take. I would estimate that 1 in 30 or 40 photos I take makes it on to Flickr. And that is the cream of the crop. The rest are rubbish. But after a few more minutes of chatting to Bruno, I think he has a point. He gave me a few photographers to look at, all very well credentialed, and told me to look at their photos, and see if I thought they took good photos. Five or the six I looked at, didn’t take very good photos, in my humble opinion anyway. They looked forced. Some looked like they had tried too hard to make a certain type of photograph, and failed.

So, now I would like to hear other peoples points of view. Lets have it.