[title of blog]

Stealthy phone cameras

2011-07-13T14:00:00.001-04:00

As you can tell from the blog here, I've been having a lot of fun with my phone's camera. At first I was just looking for interesting compositions, but lately I've shifted over to more of a street photography approach. The great thing about using my phone to take photos is that everyone assumes I'm tweeting (see above), so I can get true candids of people nearby. Here are a few I've taken recently:

A few tips: turn off the "camera" sound (I do that anyway, nothing I hate more than a fake shutter), make sure you can tap the screen to take a photo, pre-focus if possible to help with shutter lag, and practice your timing (there's a huge shutter lag on my phone and it's not always consistent, but I'm getting the hang of it).

~S

~S [title of blog] on flickr

Wedding'd Out

2011-07-06T09:00:00.004-04:00

© Simon Hucko 2011. Please do not use without permission

This past weekend marked the 4th wedding that I've attended in the last 8 weeks. Between the weddings, bachelor parties, bridal showers, and the various holidays and family occasions, I've basically been busy every weekend from early February until today. Not that I'm complaining, mind you - it's been a fun year so far and I had a chance to reconnect with some friends that I haven't spent much time with since high school. It does, however, provide somewhat of an excuse for why I've been neglecting the blog here, and why I've been lucky to post 1 photo per week to Flickr. Now that I'm done with weddings for the year, I should have more time to shoot and blog about it.

© Simon Hucko 2011. Please do not use without permission

A side effect of attending so many weddings and completely missing spring waterfall season is that my photographic interests are starting to shift. I will always have a place in my heart for gorges and streams, but I'm finding myself driven more and more toward photographing people. I've always enjoyed documentary candids of friends and family, and hanging out with them at 4 weddings gave me a lot of opportunity to take those kinds of photos. I'm starting to get an itch to do some street photography, and while I haven't quite worked up the courage to walk up to a stranger and stick a camera to my face I'm starting to "practice" without my camera. I'm also getting sucked in to portrait photography, something I used to have no interest in whatsoever, and even agreed to shoot my wife's cousin's senior photos. Expect to see some changes in the type of work I post here.

© Simon Hucko 2011. Please do not use without permission

I'm not sure what my point is (or if I even really have one), just thought I'd give you all an update on how things were going. For those of you in the US and Canada, how was your long weekend? Any good fireworks photos or party candids you care to share?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

What to do with your lens cap

2011-06-13T09:00:00.002-04:00

After seeing the flurry of activity on Twitter about a kickstarter project designed to hold your lens cap on your strap, I was rather surprised that so many photographers feel like they need a "solution" for their lens cap. Here's what I do:

When I pull my camera out, I take the lens cap off with my left hand and stick it in my back pocket. There it stays until I'm done shooting or want to switch lenses. Cap goes back on, and lens goes back in the bag. Most lens caps are pretty durable, so sitting on them isn't an issue. Since I've conditioned myself to always put the cap in my pocket, I never have to scramble around trying to find it. I noticed condensation on the cap from my body heat/moisture sometimes - simple solution is to put it in my pocket so that the "front" of the cap (the side that goes away from the lens) is facing my backside. That way any condensation will happen there and won't get on the lens when I cap it back up.

What do you do with your lens caps? Do you use a strap or some sort of system to keep track of them while shooting?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

What's your Excuse?

2011-06-08T09:00:00.008-04:00

photo: Corey / Martin

Last night I was browsing through photos in the Wedding Photography group on Flickr when I came across the above portrait. I clicked through to see it larger and was struck by the connection of the subject to the camera. The depth of field is pleasingly shallow without being so razor thin that half her face is out of focus. The lighting is soft yet directional. I would be proud to have taken that shot, which is generally how I measure other people's photography.

Then I glanced over at the exif and couldn't quite believe what I read. I clicked the link and examined it in detail. This was taken with a Canon Rebel T2i (a basic consumer DSLR) and the 18-55 kit lens. A closer analysis of the lighting suggests that she was standing near a window, no flashes or fancy studio tricks.

That's right, an entry level camera with kit lens and a window were all that the photographer needed to make this great portrait.

edit: I'm not 100% sure about the window light anymore, I did some looking through the photographer's stream and he shoots about 50/50 available light/flash. Even if it was a strobe in a softbox, though, you could get the same effect with a window.

It's easy to play the "if only I had this (lens/camera/flash/accessory) I would be a better photographer" game. Heck, I'm guilty, and have been fighting serious gear lust lately. Would I shoot a wedding with a Rebel and a kit lens? Probably not. (There's a reason that the pro's use professional gear.) Am I inspired to take my photos to a new level using only the gear I have? You bet.

What's your excuse?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Just for Fun #5

2011-06-06T09:00:00.001-04:00

I stopped by the local fair grounds on the way home from work one day and took a quick walk before the rain rolled in. I thought the empty fairgrounds with the threatening clouds overhead made a very dramatic subject, almost like a scene from a horror movie. The fair happens at the end of July, so I'll have to get back over there and shoot. Maybe I'll grab a similar shot so I can do a before/after thing.

I don't think I quite nailed the composition on this one, but I liked all the interacting lines here. It was a pretty sunny day, and I liked the natural vignette to the scene.

I was sitting out enjoying my coffee the other afternoon when two groups of students ran into each other and stopped to chat for a bit. I liked the scene and all the lines leading to the subjects, so I grabbed the shot. Mercifully, my camera exposed for the shade and not the sunlit areas. I think black and white is much more forgiving when it comes to blown highlights, and this photo really has a sense of light to it that probably would have been more harsh and unforgiving in color.

Until next time...

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Getting the most out of Flickr

2011-06-02T09:00:00.042-04:00

© Simon Hucko 2011

After declaring that I wasn't going to renew my pro account on Flickr, I had a few conversations with various people about the merits of Flickr in general and if it was worth seeking out a new community to share photos. The common criticisms I see of Flickr are that people post too many mediocre photos (lack of editing) and the relatively worthless comments that people give ("nice shot" "great capture" etc etc). I agree whole heartedly with these complaints, but I've found that there are a few tricks to having a more interactive, constructive experience on Flickr.

First off, how you approach Flickr largely depends on what you're aiming to get out of it. Some people use Flickr as a way to share photos with family and friends. Nothing wrong with that, but everything I say below probably doesn't apply to you. Others use Flickr as a way to get their 15 minutes of fame, and go the extra mile to get as many contacts, comments, views and faves as possible. Again, if that's your thing, nothing wrong with that, but you're probably not concerned with the quality of photos and feedback that you see on the site. I know people who are looking for a place to make some close friends and use Flickr as much for the social aspect as for the photography. A lot of what I say may still apply to you, but who your contacts are will depend on other factors. In any case, you can always create another free account and use it as your "portfolio"/critique account.

Dealing with a lack of editing is really an issue of who you make a contact. The first thing you should do if you haven't already done it is change your preferences to only display 1 photo per contact on your home page (instead of 5). Now you get to see the latest offering from 10 people instead of potentially only 2. Every so often, go through your contact list and get rid of people who you regularly skip over when you see new photos from them. Flickr doesn't notify people when you de-contact them, so there's a pretty good chance they'll never even know. I also am pretty picky about who I add as a contact in the first place and don't automatically "follow back" people who add me. I check out their streams to make sure there's a large percentage of images in there that I'm interested in, and to get an idea for what and how often they post. Even if they take some great photos, if it's of a subject or style I'm not really interested in I'll probably give it a pass. It sounds picky and kind of mean, but this really helps me focus in on the types of photos I'm interested in.

The next step is to be an active commenter on the people whose work you admire. If you like a photo, give it a fave and write a bit about why (not just "great shot," but "I like how the red in the background really helps the yellow subject pop.") Once people see that you a. enjoy their work and b. actually have insightful things to say about it, they'll most likely start returning the favor. Negative critique is a bit more tricky, and is something you'll probably have to build up to. Hopefully you can find a few people to trade honest feedback with this way. (Note, if you expect people to pay attention to your work, you have to limit your uploads to only your best stuff and spread out your posts to 1, maybe 2 a day.)

Another way to get relevant feedback is to put your photos in very specific groups. Follow the same principles as marketing - most people won't care about your photo, but if you find a group that focuses on your subject or location that will help add relevance and you'll get more interest from the members. For example, let's say you take a great photo of a waterfall. You could put it in a "post a cool photo" group, but most likely it'll get lost in the volume and variety of shots being posted. A quick search will lead you to the "waterfalls" group, which is made up of people who are interested in photographing waterfalls. Your photo is immediately more relevant, and your chances of getting views and comments from the group members goes way up. A bit more digging gets you to the "waterfalls of New York" group, where you happened to take your photo, and you're even more likely to get seen. Find out if you have a group for your city or area and join that. Really into close up shots of forks? There's a group for that. Also, look for a critique group. There are plenty on Flickr, some better than others. Read the description, check out the forum, and click on a few photos to see what sort of feedback people are getting. Stay away from those award groups and try to find one that really aims to give constructive critique. I haven't really explored critique groups, so I don't have a good recommendation for you. If anyone knows of some good ones feel free to leave them in the comments and I'll add them here.

So there you go, some of the tips and tricks I've picked up along the way. If you have any others I'd love to hear them, as I'm always looking to get a little more out of my Flickr experience.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Flickr Pro Account

2011-05-27T10:30:00.005-04:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

I got an e-mail the other day saying that my "pro" account on Flickr is set to expire in two weeks. Rather than punch in my credit card and shell out another $25, I decided to take another look at the benefits of a pro account and see what I'd be missing if I didn't renew. Flickr kindly provides a summary of the differences on their FAQ page.

In short, I'd be limited to 300MB of photo uploads a month, would only be able to view my latest 200 photos, and would lose my stats tracking (plus the addition of ads and a few other limitations that aren't really relevant to me). So I made the decision not to renew, and if you're a serious photographer and use Flickr like I do, you can probably drop your pro account too. Here's why:

I use Flickr to share what I consider the "better" photos that I've taken. I generally only upload one or two photos a day (or zero, if I haven't gone shooting recently) and I resize all the photos to 1024p before uploading. A typical resized photo that I upload is 500-600KB, so I can upload 500 photos before hitting my monthly limit. No sweat.

The 200 photo limitation is a bit of a drag, but since I'm not using Flickr as a backup service I don't really care to have my entire photo library online. It is nice to be able to dip back into my older stuff from time to time, so I found a workaround thanks to some helpful folks on Flickr. If you make a group and add all your photos to it, you will be able to access them through the group even if they are no longer available to you on your photo stream. I made one for myself and added all my photos, so when my pro account expires I'll still be able to view them all. I'm not 100% certain what will happen to the photos on my blog here that are hosted on Flickr - I think they should stay active, but if they all break I'll have to find another solution for hosting.

Finally, the stats tracking was a nice feature to have, but not an essential one. It was cool to be able to see how people were finding my photos and to keep track of where they were being posted on the web. I'll have to start checking services like TinEye more often to keep an track of things.

So it seems to me that I'll be just fine without a "pro" account. If I change my mind, upgrading will give me access to everything just like if I had renewed.

Who is the pro account for, then? Seems like the only ones who really need it are the people who dump 1000 unedited vacation photos straight from their camera to Flickr, or use it to share the 300 happy snaps from their latest family gathering with Aunt Betsy. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but I generally use Facebook for that sort of thing.

My account expires June 9th. I'll let you know how things go. What about you, do you have a pro account? Why or why not?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Just for Fun #4

2011-05-23T08:30:00.000-04:00

It rained pretty much the entire week last week. I was searching for things to shoot on my walk one day (I've pretty much covered all the interesting sights and no one was out in the rain), and saw a giant puddle. I liked how most of the detail was lost in the reflection and all you could really see was the silhouette of my umbrella.

I have a thing for shapes and lines, so this was a must-shoot when I saw it. I like how the haphazard blinds contradict the neatly ordered lines around them. I don't like the resulting moiré, but I guess there's not much I can do about that.

Like I said, I've already covered a lot of the interesting sights along my route (although there will always be things that grab my attention that I hadn't noticed before). As such, I'm starting to drift over into street photography a bit. A phone camera (especially when held like a phone and not a camera) makes a super stealthy street shooting machine. Not that I needed the stealth for the above photo, but it could lead to some interesting shots in the future.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Photo Routine

2011-05-18T08:00:00.016-04:00

Recently, as part of my efforts to lose some weight and get back in shape, I've been taking a walk every day to get a cup of coffee. As part of this routine, I've been pulling out my phone and taking at least one photo per day. Most of them make it to Flickr, some of them make my "Just for fun" posts, but even if I wind up deleting whatever I take the physical act of composing a shot and pressing the shutter keeps my creative juices flowing. It's also a chance for me to experiment a little and take the sort of throwaway shots that I don't usually think about when I'm out with a more serious camera. Just looking down at my feet and finding a composition that works can be fun and liberating. Hopefully this will encourage me to experiment a bit more with my regular Photography (capital P).

In other news, my new (old) tripod came in yesterday, so I'm back in business. It's the perfect drizzly grey weather for waterfalls this week, so I have to find a chance to get out and shoot some.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Just for Fun #3

2011-05-16T08:00:00.001-04:00

I liked all of the lines in this scene. The sky was a beautiful blue, and I put my polarized sunglasses over the camera to darken it down even more (a great little trick, sunglasses make a good ND/polarizer in a pinch for your phone or point n shoot).

A bit of a happy accident - the bulldozer came into the frame during the shutter lag. It looks a bit like the backhoe and dozer are fighting.

This one is very "street." I wanted it with just the girl on the left, but the other person walked into the frame while I was shooting. I think it works, not quite as well as it could have, but I like the motion.

More lines. The random mini-fridge totally made this shot, IMO. Exposure is probably a touch dark - that's the ~~pain~~ joy of shooting with an automatic camera.

I'm liking this "just for fun" thing. Thanks again to Kristan for suggesting I make it a more regular deal. What do the rest of you think? Do you like some commentary on each one, or should I just leave them alone?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

TwitPic

2011-05-13T16:13:00.003-04:00

Note: I re-posted this, since it seemed to have disappeared from Blogger yesterday while they were having issues. If you've already read it, go ahead and skip it. Nothing new here.
___________________________________________________________

In case you missed the buzz on twitter yesterday, photo hosting/sharing service TwitPic has just updated their ToS. The important bit is here:

You retain all ownership rights to Content uploaded to Twitpic. However, by submitting Content to Twitpic, you hereby grant Twitpic a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and Twitpic's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in media Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your media from the Service provided that any sub-license by Twitpic to use, reproduce or distribute the Content prior to such termination may be perpetual and irrevocable.

In other words, TwitPic is saying that anything on their service is fair game to them and any subscribers, copyright be damned. This is the result of a few lawsuits from people who's images got taken from their service and used without permission, most notably the iconic image of the flight that went down in the Hudson river. They wash their hands of it, and want no responsibility in protecting your copyright. They could even license (sell) your images to news corporations or other companies if they wanted to, and you couldn't do anything about it under these terms.

My suggestion? Time to switch to yfrog. Their ToS is much more friendly, no rights grabbing, and they will honor any takedown notice you give them.

If you are an Android user, you can change your default picture sharing service in the official twitter app. Go to Settings -> Photo upload service and select "yfrog." I'm not sure about iPhone users, perhaps one of you can comment here with how to make that change. If the iPhone twitter app doesn't offer anything but twitpic, I suggest finding a 3rd party client that does.

I'm not a huge copyright avenger or anything, but this is a pretty big slap in the face to twitpic users. I settled on yfrog, but if you have any other recommended photo sharing services I'd love to hear about them in the comments.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

4x5 at last!

2011-05-11T08:00:00.001-04:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

So, after much talk, planning, gear acquisition, changing bag panic, back strain, missed exposures, a broken tripod and a botched night of developing, I finally have an image to share with you guys from the 4x5. I'm not particularly thrilled with it, but it was the best of the 4 sheets I shot, and I felt like I owed you guys *something* after all the build-up.

Long story short, 4x5 is hard. There are a lot of ways to screw things up, and I managed several of them. But, learning is part of the fun (and the reason I rushed out to shoot a few sheets in less than ideal conditions), and I'm excited to keep trying and get a handle on the process. Once I'm finally competent, the payoff will be amazing. As badly as these shots came out, the level of detail I was able to get in some of the images was stunning. I still have to work out my exposure and development (something I've been struggling with all along this film journey), but once it gets there I expect to make some of my all-time favorite images with this camera.

Unfortunately, I broke my tripod on day 2 of shooting with the beast, so no more photos from it for a while. Double unfortunately, it's prime waterfall season and I'm stuck here without any tripod, so I have to rectify that asap. That seems to be the way of things, though.

Once I have a more solid and reliable workflow in place I'll do a post about the process beginning to end. For now, enjoy my blurry, scratched, low-contrast shot above. Certainly more to come in the future.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Just for Fun #2

2011-05-04T08:00:00.000-04:00

Time for another "just for fun." Again, some snaps I took with my phone just playing with composition.

"Look down"

"Intersection"

"One of those days..."

Finally got everything I needed to shoot and develop 4x5, so look for a post on that coming soon. Here's a teaser shot I took when I was playing around with it a few weeks ago (before I had film for it):

More to come.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

OT - My two cents

2011-05-02T16:21:00.000-04:00

This has nothing to do with photography and everything to do with the US military strike in Pakistan yesterday. If you're tired of reading about it, I don't blame you, feel free to skip this one. I know this is a photography blog and talking about the death of Osama bin Laden is pretty far off topic, but I couldn't help but write about how I feel about the situation. Sorry.

I totally missed the news last night, so this morning I was greeted by a storm of reports in my RSS reader and on twitter/facebook. After I had figured out what happened, I watched President Obama's speech. Say what you want about the man, he is an excellent speaker, and delivered what I believe to be the perfect reaction to this situation: a somber recounting and rememberence of the lives lost, a "yes we can" moment about Americans accomplishing what they set out to do, and a few cautionary words that the war on terror is far from over. No "Mission Accomplished" banner, no gloating, no overtly political agenda.

Listening to him speak dragged up memories of The September 11th. The principal coming on the PA to announce what had happened. The deafening silence through the school. TV's being wheeled out. Watching the second plane crash into the towers in real time. Reports of other planes being hijacked. A smoldering wreck at the Pentagon. The panic and fear that I felt at the time, wondering where and when the next attack would come. Sorrow for those who lost friends or family members in the attacks. Gratitude that I wasn't directly affected.

I remember the silence in the skies that week while all the planes were grounded. When flights resumed, my heart would race a bit every time I heard the sound of a jet engine in the sky. I remember an incredible surge of patriotism, and seeing American flags flying on every porch. I remember George Bush announcing our invasion of Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and put a stop to al Qaeda. I remember a government and a people moving forward as one.

10 years later, the military finally found and killed bin Laden. Am I happy that he's dead? I think so, but I feel like it's a bit of a hollow victory. I'm happy for the closure that it must have brought to people who were affected by the 9/11 attacks, but I know that in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't change anything. I'll still get groped on the way through airport security and have to put my shampoo in a little plastic bottle inside a little plastic bag. Our troops will continue operations overseas, and more Americans will die. Even if we manage to completely disrupt al Qaeda, new terrorist groups will emerge and threaten our people. On top of that, we're still battling our way out of a recession, dealing with violent natural disasters, almost shutting down our government due to political posturing and indecision, and facing a looming energy crisis.

Killing bin Laden is an important and certainly historical event, but I don't feel the urge to celebrate in the streets and yell obscenities about it. I think it's an opportunity to remember those who were lost 10 years ago, and to move forward with determination onto the next issue. And the next one after that. To gain back a bit of that unity and citizenship that we felt 10 years ago. To put aside some of the petty squabbling and focus on the bigger issues.

What do you think?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Test your meter

2011-04-29T08:00:00.005-04:00

One of the few shots that turned out. © 2011 Simon Hucko

Just a quick PSA: if you buy an old film camera with a built in meter, always always check the meter before shooting a whole roll with it, or at least shoot a test roll first of unimportant stuff before shooting something you'll want images from.

I made that mistake last weekend and shot most of a roll on Easter relying on my Canonet's meter. I wasn't paying much attention to what aperture the camera was selecting (it's a shutter priority auto kind of thing), and it's hard to judge light levels indoors anyway, so I wasn't too concerned. A few days later I went for a walk to finish off the roll and realized that the meter was way off. Like 2+ stops off, judging by sunny 16. I knew right then and there that I probably ruined all my Easter photos.

After finishing the roll I did the best I could to salvage the images. I stand developed the negs in Rodinal 1:100 for 90 minutes, which is recommended for a 1-2 stop push. As I had feared, most of the negs were extremely thin with no shadow detail. I probably could have extended the development out to 2 hours, but even then I'm not convinced I would have recovered any more in the shadows (at some point the film just isn't sensitized by light and no matter how much development you give it it'll come out blank).

So, if you buy a film camera and plan on using the meter, make sure you test it against another meter or sunny 16 before shooting a roll through it. That way you won't end up with a roll of blank negatives from your next holiday gathering.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Just for Fun

2011-04-18T08:00:00.007-04:00

I took a walk the other day and went hunting for random compositions with my phone. It was interesting to really look around me and see all the lines and relationships out there. No real meat to this one, just a "look what I did" kinda thing. Sorry things have been a bit light here lately, I'll get back into the swing of things soon.

Two more photos:

That's all for now.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

An Argument for Film Photography

2011-04-06T08:45:00.002-04:00

Fellow film-nut Dan Domme posted a great article over on his blog outlining some of the advantages of film photography over digital. Since I didn't have a post ready for this week, I'm just going to link you to his. Thanks, Dan ;)

"In Which I Counter an Argument: 10 reasons film is superior to digital"

I'm not saying you shouldn't shoot digital (and neither is Dan), but there are a lot of good reasons to give film photography a try and see how you like it. A lot of what Dan says lines up with my motivations for shooting film, and while it's not the best medium for every type of photography (I don't think I could ever bring myself to shoot a wedding all on film), it certainly has a valid place in the photography universe still.

If you like what you read, you should give Dan a follow on twitter (@yeknom) and check out his work on flickr. And of course, his blog.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Traveling with your camera (and film)

2011-03-30T08:00:00.020-04:00

click through to see notes on what everything is

Since I just returned from a quick trip to Florida, I thought I'd talk a little bit about traveling with camera gear and what extra concerns shooting film adds to the situation.

First off, the goal for flying with camera equipment is to carry as much of it on with you as possible. I believe it was Chase Jarvis that said that if you're planning on checking any equipment, you should be 100% comfortable with throwing the bag down a flight of concrete stairs. Things like tripods, light stands and cables can probably be checked no problem, but the rest of it you're going to want to carry on. Camera bags count as your personal item, and you can also sling a camera around your neck and stuff a lens or two into your pockets if you're really crunched for space (anything on your person does not count as extra baggage.) Fortunately (or sadly, depending on your perspective) I don't own nearly enough camera equipment for that to be an issue.

In any case, you're going to want to whittle down your kit to only what you'll need on your trip. I shot a combination of digital and film on this trip, so that meant 2 camera bodies and the relevant accessories. Fortunately my film camera is pretty small and has a fixed lens, so the entire thing fits into one lens slot in my bag. My D70 with kit lens fits very nicely in the middle even with the lens hood on, so there's slot 2. The Lensbaby and my 50 stack on top of each other in the 3rd slot to round out the kit. I could probably have done without the Lensbaby, but it weighs essentially nothing and wasn't competing for space with anything, so it came along for the ride. As far as accessories go, I kept my pretty standard setup. I did ditch my ND filter because I knew I wouldn't need it. The remote stayed, but again it weighs practically nothing and takes up almost no space in the bag, so it didn't make much of a difference. A blower, microfiber cloth and lens pen should be staples in any photographer's bag - if you don't have them, you really should. They're not too expensive, and help you get the best image quality you can. I also brought along my LED flashlight, which is more the Boy Scout in me than anything else (always be prepared). The noise cancelling headphones got added for the flight, since this was my carry on. Any other miscellanea got removed and put into storage for the weekend. Some of it might not make its way back into the bag.

One thing you don't want to skimp on is storage/film and batteries. I had a total of 8 GB of flash cards (enough for 1400 raw files) and 4 rolls of film, two color and two black and white. That's way more than enough to carry me through a long weekend, but if something big happened I'd have extra frames to burn. Extra batteries and/or your charger are key, too. I bought a nice cheap charger off Amazon to replace my Nikon one that I lost in the shuffle of moving - it's super compact and doesn't need a cord, so it can live right in the bag.

A few words about film: There is a chance that film can be affected by the x-ray scanners when going through the airport. Never *ever* put film into your checked luggage, since the x-ray they use on checked baggage is way more powerful than the one used at security screening and will mess up your film. The general rule of thumb is that anything over 400 ISO could be fogged by the scanners at security, too. I brought relatively slow film with me (Kodak Gold 200 and Fuji Acros 100), so I wasn't concerned about the x-ray. If you're shooting faster film, or are going for a paid job or some once in a lifetime event, you can ask to have your film hand inspected. Typically they'll try to talk you into sending it through the scanner anyway, especially if you don't have anything faster than 400 ISO. A trick for that is to carry a roll of 3200 ISO film with you (Ilford makes one), even if you're not planning on shooting it. If you plan on asking for hand inspection, remove all the rolls from the boxes ahead of time and carry it in a separate plastic bag. Let them know as soon as possible that you want a hand check so that you don't have to wait around a long time for it. (If you're travelling with a lot of film, I suggest calling ahead to the airport and letting them know so they can set aside some time to check through it all.) The security agent will look at it all and swab it for explosives. Once the machine is satisfied, you get your film back and are on your way. Back in the day photographers used to put film in a lead bag to protect it from the x-ray and send it through the scanner, no hand inspection needed. You can still buy them, but I don't recommend using one. It's just going to raise red flags to the screener and you'll have to get the film hand inspected anyway (and probably receive closer scrutiny on everything else).

One final word of advice is to neatly roll up and tie off any cables you might have in your bag (USB, chargers, whatever). A big rats nest of wiring and electronic equipment will probably get your baggage (and possibly your person) hand inspected.

________________________________________________________________

I wrote the bulk of this before going on the trip, and now that I'm back I figured I would add a few comments. Did I use everything I packed? Nope. I didn't even shoot as much as I thought, spent most of the weekend living life instead ;) Would I have packed anything differently? No, probably not. There was the potential to need everything I brought with me, and given different weather and/or more shooting I would have used more of what I brought. The important thing is that I had everything I needed and didn't kill myself schlepping it all around. Great weekend.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Don't leave your camera at home

2011-03-23T08:00:00.032-04:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

Went out for the night on Saturday. Grabbed my DSLR, slapped my 50 on it, threw it over my shoulder, and carried it around with me all night. Most of the time the lens was uncapped, with no filter or hood on it.

I bumped it into a few things, spilled a little beer on it, grabbed it with greasy chicken wing hands, and took a lot of photos that I wouldn't have gotten with my phone camera, or even my point n shoot. A quick wipe down with a microfiber cloth and the camera looks no worse for wear.

I'm not saying you should abuse your camera, but it's probably a lot tougher than you give it credit for. Don't be afraid to grab it and bring it along with you. You bought it to take photos with, not to sit in your bag looking pretty.

Oh, and the 50 was definitely the right choice. Plenty fast for me to get a nice motion stopping 1/100th shutter at the bowling alley, plus it was small enough that I didn't have to worry about what it was bumping into. At the bar after, I popped up the flash (gah) and set a nice slow shutter (1/10th) to let a little ambient burn in. That way things didn't look like they were shot in a cave.I did end up getting some weird ghosting on some of them, but for bar snaps they turned out just fine.

Next week: travelling with cameras (and film).

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Lens Rentals Review

2011-03-18T09:50:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, just wanted to let you know that I wrote a review of my experience with Lens Rentals over at Shutter Photo. If you're interested, the review can be found here.

I've already plugged Shutter Photo here, but if you're still not a reader I suggest subscribing to their feed. Travis does a great job balancing out gear, technique and inspiration, and I always enjoy reading his latest posts.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

A leap of faith

2011-03-16T08:00:00.197-04:00

[No image with this, I don't have releases for the students and don't feel comfortable putting it up without permission. Sorry]

This past weekend I had my first experience as a "professional" photographer - I ran a "get your photo taken with Cinderella and the Prince" photo booth at the middle school show my wife directed. I say "professional" in quotes because I wasn't actually paid (I donated my time for the fundraiser), but people were purchasing my photos and expecting good results. And to be honest, part of me was terrified.

OK, as far as high-pressure photoshoots go, grip-and-grins at the local school play aren't really going to make or break my career, but my reputation (and my wife's and the school's) could definitely be affected by this. Worse, I went into it with no practical lighting experience and almost no portrait experience. You might argue that I should have said "no," but I knew I could at least meet the minimum expectations. For a $5 5x7, all I had to do was get the kid in focus next to Cinderella and the prince. Smiles, good lighting and quality prints are all icing on the cake. I've spent enough time over at Strobist to muddle my way through a 2 umbrella setup, and I think the results turned out pretty well - everyone is well-lit with a bit of directionality to it (anything more dramatic wouldn't be appropriate for this type of shoot, anyway). The monolights I rented from LensRentals.com had enough power for me to shoot at f/8 ISO 200 with a minimum amount of tweaking in post required. I ordered prints from Mpix, and while I haven't seen them yet I know the quality will be good, as always.

A few things I learned from the process:

- Having the right gear is key. Renting a lighting setup was the best decision I made, and something I knew I would have to do right from the beginning. I heard several comments about how "professional" things looked, which was important. None of those parents knew I'd never done anything like this before, and because I did my research and looked the part, they never will. (Unless they read my blog, of course.) I also made sure to dress nicely so that parents would take me seriously and not have any qualms about me photographing their children: it's always better to over-dress for a shoot than to under-dress.

- Some kids just don't want their picture taken. Parents who stand to the side and yell at the kid don't help, either. ("Look at the camera!" "Smile!" Meanwhile, the kid looks right at their parent who is yelling and gets nervous. Duh.) A crowded lobby is far from ideal for a portrait session, especially with stressed out little kids in costume. (Have you ever met royalty before? It's pretty nerve-wracking.) I did the best I could, but a few just wouldn't have it and ran away in tears. I'd like to think I had nothing to do with that.

- Watch the eyes, and always take multiple photos. This goes back to the parents on the sidelines: the nervous kids kept looking at them for assurance. Not a problem, just make sure you're aware of it so you don't get them looking the wrong way. I always pointed to the lens and said "look right here" before taking a picture, that seemed to work pretty well. I took at least 2 photos of every kid to make sure I got a good one (more if I knew there were issues), which was a good policy. More is better, obviously, but we had a lot of kids to get through. Watch out for people taking photos over your shoulder, as the kids won't know what camera to look at. I didn't mind them grabbing a shot (hey, they already paid for the print, a snapshot for Facebook is ok by me), but more than one and I'd ask them to stop so I could get the photo they paid for. Everyone was understanding about that. If I do something like this again I'll make sure to collect e-mail addresses so I can send a low-res jpeg with my signature on it for web use, that way we can enforce "no photography" and cut down on some of the distraction.

- Good help makes things go a lot more smoothly. Cinderella and the Prince were great with the kids, and spent a minute talking to them before each photo. This helped them relax, and I didn't even speak up until the kid looked more comfortable. Things were a little crazy on the paperwork end. We had kids run up to get a photo before their parent had even started filling out a form, which I didn't anticipate. Fortunately we got it all worked out in the end, but next time I will go in with a much more systematic approach where I look at each order form before taking a photo. Shame on me for not running things better, but this is how we learn.

So, in the end, I'm glad I took a little bit of a risk and stepped outside my comfort zone for this one. With my growing reputation as "the photographer" among family and friends (and now at my wife's school), I'm sure this won't be the last of these types of events that I'll be asked to do. Now that I've gotten one under my belt, I feel a lot more comfortable saying yes and taking more on. I'm not suggesting that you agree to do things you really aren't prepared for, but you can handle more than you think. (Start small, work your way up, and always do your research.) Even if things don't run 100% smoothly (they never do), you can learn from the experience and be that much better the next time. As long as you show up and act the part, people won't question your ability. You might feel like a duck (calm on the surface, paddling furiously under the water), but you'll make it through.

Any of you have a similar experience? Would love to hear about it in the comments.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Don't be Sentimental

2011-03-09T08:00:00.000-05:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

If you've been shooting for any length of time you've probably had the experience where you share an image that you're really proud of and are a bit miffed that it doesn't get more feedback and attention. Similarly, sometimes photos that you consider a "grab shot" get rave reviews from others. It's a bit of a humbling experience, but I think it teaches us a valuable lesson: just because you worked hard to make a photo doesn't mean that it's a great photo.

It's so easy to get attached to photos that we worked hard to make, but in the end the image has to stand on its own to the viewer. That's not to say that context isn't important sometimes, but in general I feel like if you have to explain why your photo is so "great" then you probably missed the mark.

This is mostly relevant when deciding what to present as a portfolio or some other representation of your work. Go through and select a pool of what you feel is your best work, then open it up to others to make your final selection. The most valuable feedback will probably come from other photographers who have a similar style to you - they know what you're trying to achieve with your images and can cut through the BS pretty quickly.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't work hard to make great images, just learn be honest with yourself about the quality of your work and let the bad or mediocre stuff go no matter how long or hard you worked to take it. On the flip side, always take a second for that "grab shot" when something catches your attention, it may be the easiest portfolio shot you've ever taken ;)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Think Abstract

2011-03-02T11:00:00.000-05:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

Most of the time, I encourage people to try to tell a story with their photography. However, sometimes it's fun to break things down to basic shapes and textures and look for more abstract images.

That's not to say that you can throw all the rules of composition out the window. The image above works because of the strong "rule of thirds" placement of the snow covered rock. That rock anchors the rest of the image, which is just the texture of a stream flowing by with a 2 second exposure.

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Geometric shapes make good subjects for abstract photography, too. Triangle (above) was the result of seeing a shape in a stream. I chose to focus on that shape and the texture of the stream in lieu of a more traditional subject.

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Textures on their own can make for a compelling image. The combination of the peeling paint with the slightly out of focus wood grain give the above photo a lot to hold the viewer's interest.

If you're bored of the usual subjects and are looking for a way to stretch your creative muscles, give abstracts a try. You can learn to see things in an entirely different way, and end up with some cool images that would make great wall art.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Shutter Photo Anniversary Competition

2011-03-01T09:30:00.000-05:00

Travis over at Shutter Photo is holding a black and white photo competition to celebrate their third anniversary, with some pretty kick ass prizes for the winner. I highly encourage you to head over to the contest page and check it out. No rights grab, just a straight up contest. And, as an added bonus, I was asked to be a judge. (Sorry, no bonus points for being a [tob] reader.)

Submission deadline is March 18th. Go! Do!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Film Buying Guide

2011-02-23T08:00:00.236-05:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

Last week I talked about buying a film camera. This week I'm going to talk a bit about the different types of film that are available and how to choose what to shoot. If you're just looking for my recommendations, skip down to the bottom.

Digital camera sensors are designed to respond to light in a flat, uniform way. No matter what ISO you choose, most RAW images look pretty much the same, give or take some noise - linear light response, low contrast, flat colors. This gives you a pretty uniform starting point for post processing, and lets you create the look you want after the fact (punch up the color, convert to black and white, add contrast, desaturate a bit, etc.). You don't really have to think about the final look of a shot when you take it (although you should at least have some idea of where it's going to set the best lighting and exposure), and you can create multiple versions of an image after the fact with different looks.

With film, on the other hand, what film you choose to load into your camera (and how you choose to shoot and develop it) has a big impact on how the final image will look, so you have to give it some thought ahead of time. The biggest difference from shooting digital is that you can't change your ISO on the fly, so you have to choose an ISO and stick to it for the whole roll. Much like with digital shooting, higher ISO films will have a more pronounced grain than "slower" films, and tend to be higher contrast and show less detail. If you plan on shooting handheld in a range of conditions (sunny to indoor), 400 speed is probably a safe bet. If you don't have to worry about low light there are a lot of nice films from 100-200 ISO. If you're shooting a concert at a dimly lit bar, you might have to push your film to 1600 or higher to get usable shots.

Once you have an idea of what conditions you'll be shooting in, your next big decision is color or black and white. There are two types of color film, color negative (also called color print film, C-41 process) and slide film (also called color positive, reversal, transparency, and E6 process). As the names suggest, color negative films give you a negative image that is suitable for traditional optical printing, whereas slide films give you a positive image that can be projected or viewed on a lightbox.

C-41 is the most common type of film, and film and processing is readily available at drug stores and places like Target, Costco, WalMart, etc. Color negative is probably the easiest way to shoot film, since you can drop off a roll for developing and often times get the lab to scan it for you (generally low quality unless you use a professional lab, but good enough for Flickr). If you have a scanner, most labs will do development only if you ask (although you may get some strange looks and questions this way). This is generally much more cost effective and lets you control how your images are scanned (better color and quality), but means more work on your end before you can share your photos. Color negative film also tends to be the most forgiving with exposure, and you can typically miss by a stop or two in either direction and still get a good image. In that sense, color negative film is similar to shooting RAW in digital - you have more dynamic range and wiggle room with your final images. Unlike digital, underexposure of color negative film tends to block up the shadows and gives a purplish color cast to the image, so it's generally better to err on the side of overexposure unless you're looking for that effect.

E6 (slide film) is more specialized and is just about impossible to find in a store. Most slide films range from 50-100 ISO, so they're not practical for indoor or low light shooting without a flash. The dynamic range of slide film is also much smaller than color negative, and because it's a positive process you have to be careful not to blow your highlights (much like with digital), or you lose the information. In this respect, slide films are kind of like the JPEG of the film world. E6 films tend to be very sharp with vivid colors, and are best viewed in person through projection or on a lightbox with a loupe.

You can also process slide film in C-41 chemistry (commonly known as "cross-processing" or "x-pro"), which gives you a negative image on the film. This tends to give higher saturation and color casts, especially when treated as color negative film during scanning or printing. Color negative film comes on an orange backing whereas slide film has a clear base, so scanning on the "color negative" setting adjusts for the orange and will give your cross-processed image a green cast. This is what you'll typically see when looking at cross-processed images, and is what your hipster camera app tries to simulate. You can also scan them as a color positive and invert using Photoshop, which gives a more normal looking image with only slight changes in color and saturation.

Finally, black and white film. There are a lot of different black and white films available, ranging from ISO 25 to ISO 3200. Different black and white films have different grain and tonal range characteristics, generally following the "higher ISO films have larger grain, less fine detail and more contrast" rule. Unlike shooting color, where every film is run through the same chemicals for the same time and temperature, black and white film developing times vary based on what film it is and what developer you're using. This means that if you send your black and white film into a lab, they're going to have to manually process it, which gets very expensive very quickly. Processing black and white at home is easy and pretty inexpensive, so if you're planning on shooting film I highly recommend developing your own black and white a few times just for the experience. (And who knows, you might even like it! I'll write more about home developing in the future.) Whatever you do, *do not* let someone run your black and white film through a C-41 machine, you'll end up getting back blank negatives due to a bleaching step in the process. Skip the drugstore on this one, or you'll be sorry.

Where to buy? Freestyle Photo is my new favorite place for all things film. Sometimes Adorama or B&H have better prices (and shipping from them is much faster since I live on the east coast), but Freestyle definitely has the best selection. I advocate buying fresh film from a retail distributor whenever possible, since it lets retailers and manufacturers know that people are still interested in shooting film. If you really can't afford it or plan on shooting a *huge* amount of film, then buying on eBay is a good way to go. Plenty of professional photographers have freezers full of film that they're looking to get rid of. Look for "cold stored" in the listing - even if the film is expired, if it has been stored in a fridge or freezer it should be ok to use.

I keep saying "freezer" - film is happiest being stored frozen, just make sure you take it out and let it thaw a day or so before loading. Putting it in the fridge is better than nothing, so if you have an old dorm fridge lying around you can divide it between film and beer. I generally zip mine into a plastic bag just to keep it separate from the food, but that's not really necessary. If you have to store it at room temp, find the coolest place possible (preferably in a drawer or cupboard out of the sun). Heat will break down the emulsion on a film, and lead to faded colors, more grain and possibly other signs of damage. C-41 film is especially susceptible to bad storage, so take extra care if you buy expired color film online.

So there ya go, a pretty basic overview of film. There's a lot more to talk about (especially with black and white), so I'll write up more in the future. To close, though, I'm going to give a few recommendations of what film to shoot. I haven't shot with all of these, so some of them are based on what I've seen on Flickr, but they're on my list for the future. (Click on the links to pull up a Flickr search for images tagged with the film name.)

E6: Don't bother, just shoot digital. For serious. (If you can argue with me about why you should shoot E6, you're probably beyond my skill level with this stuff anyway.) If you want to try cross processing, find the cheapest stuff on eBay (probably expired) and use that. No sense paying for good film that you're just going to intentionally mess up.

C-41: I like Kodak Gold (100, 200, 400, it's all good), and that's probably the only "consumer" film that I'd recommend. The new Kodak Portra 400 is supposed to be a fantastic emulsion, and has a huge exposure latitude. Once I burn through the Gold in my freezer, that's probably what I'll switch to for color.

Black and White: It's hard to go wrong with Kodak Tri-X, a classic 400 speed film and a great one to start with when developing your own (very forgiving). Lately I've become enamored with the look of Fuji Neopan 100 Acros, and have a few rolls waiting their turn in the freezer.

I don't have a whole lot of experience with different film stocks, so if you have one that you like please share in the comments. As always, questions or comments are appreciated :)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Film Camera Buying Guide

2011-02-17T08:00:00.149-05:00

© 2009 Simon Hucko

I keep talking about film here on the blog, and some of you might be interested in taking the plunge but aren't quite sure where to start. I thought I would throw together a few tips and tricks about buying into and starting to shoot film, from the perspective of someone who got started on photography with digital.

If you've never shot a roll of film, I highly recommend getting a 35mm SLR with a built-in meter. This will be the most familiar to you coming from a DSLR. If you're a Nikon shooter, you're in luck - Nikon hasn't changed its lens mount in 65 years or whatever, so you can share lenses between your digital and film body. For an experience almost identical to your DSLR without the image review window, check out something like the F80 (this will even take those G lenses as long as they're full frame). If you want more of a manual camera, the FE or F3 are both great options. It's hard to go wrong with any of the manual bodies, though, and since the F mount hasn't changed you can share lenses with your digital body just fine, as long as they are AI, AI'd, AI-S, AF, AF-D or AF-S and have an aperture ring. For you Canon users, I think any EOS body will work with EF mount glass (including the Rebel line). Canon changed their mount not too long ago, so the older manual Canon bodies won't work with modern lenses. There are two other SLR's I can recommend - the Canon A-1 (FD mount) and the Pentax K-1000 (K mount). Neither one is compatible with modern lenses, but they're both well built manual cameras and are the recommended "first SLR" that I see a lot on the film forums. Since the lenses aren't compatible with modern cameras, they tend to be less expensive, so if you don't already have a large lens collection that might be a good way to get the most bang for your buck.

Once you decide on a camera, you have to figure out where to buy it. Very few 35mm film cameras are still being manufactured new, so you're going to have to dive into the used market. Buying used gear can be a bit tricky, as it's much more of a free-for-all than new in the box equipment from a store. There are three sources I can recommend: KEH, eBay, and Craigslist. Each has their own pros and cons.

KEH.com is the closest to a retail experience that you're going to get with used gear. They have a pretty big selection, and their prices are fixed (no bidding or haggling). All of their gear is inspected and graded before being listed, and from what I've heard they tend to be pretty generous with their grading (ie something listed as "bargain" can actually be in pretty good shape with just a few dings). KEH is definitely the "safe" option, as they know what they're doing and will offer customer support and a return policy that you don't get elsewhere. You do pay a bit of a premium for that, but their prices are pretty fair. You certainly can get stuff for less on eBay or Craigslist, but it's a bit more risky. I always check KEH to get an upper-limit idea of how much to pay for something, even if I'm planning on buying it elsewhere. Think of it as the "blue book" value for used camera equipment.

eBay is probably where most film equipment gets bought and sold. There can be some great deals to be had, but there are also a lot of overinflated prices and bad quality thrown into the mix. "Buy it now" prices are usually a good bit higher than what winning bids go for on the same items, so unless you're all about convenience I would pass on that. Look for good seller ratings and listings with photos of the actual item for sale. Check the description for comments like "film tested, no light leaks, shutter speeds are good," and other wording that shows that the seller has some knowledge of the camera and what condition it's in. "Recently CLA'd" is great, it means that the camera was recently serviced and should be in good operating condition. (CLA stands for Clean, Lubricate and Adjust, and typically involves replacing light seals, making sure that the shutter is accurate, and cleaning any gunk on the camera, especially any optical surfaces.) Watch out for "I don't know anything about cameras" or the wording "as is" - it's not a no go, but usually a bit of a red flag that the seller either hasn't tested the equipment or is trying to hide some defect. Sometimes these turn out to be the best deals, because other buyers get scared off, but there's also a good chance that you're going to purchase an overpriced paperweight. It all depends on how much of a gambler you are. Don't get sucked into bidding wars - set a top price you'd be willing to pay for an item given what it is and what condition it's in, and then walk away. If you're persistent, you will eventually get what you want at a reasonable price. If you're hasty or emotional, you're likely to wind up overpaying for something.

Finally, depending on where you live, Craigslist can be a great source of deals. Craigslist is sort of like fishing - you just have to cast a line out there and see what turns up. It's not the place to go if you're looking for something specific. I recommend adding the photo/video listings to your RSS feed so that you can keep an eye on what's out there. There are typically three types of seller on Craigslist. One is the old photographer who is finally switching to digital or is retiring and wants to sell their film gear. You probably won't get any great deals from them, but they'll know a lot about the condition of their equipment and will likely have a lot of good quality stuff available for sale, including darkroom setups. The next type is the "I bought this camera for a film class a year ago" listing, where the person took a black and white photography class and was required to buy a SLR for it. From what I've seen, they're usually a bit over-optimistic when setting a price ("but I just paid X dollars for it a year ago!"), and the equipment tends to be lower quality (more modern plastic bodies with kit zooms.) You might be able to talk them down on price, but know that this camera probably won't give you that lifetime of use that a metal, more professional SLR will. Third, you have the people who inherited a box of camera stuff and have no idea how much it's worth. Prices from them can be all over the place, but these are usually where the best deals can be had. Listings are usually vague ("I have a box of camera stuff"), so definitely set up a time to look at what they have and talk pricing. It's more effort, but you might be able to get your setup for a steal.

If you get the chance to handle a camera before buying, do a few quick checks to make sure everything works well. Open the back of the camera (typically done by pulling up on the rewind lever) and look at the light seals (foam, felt or string around where the back and the body meet). Run a finger over them - they should have a little give and not flake off all over the place. If they do, you're going to need new light seals (not difficult, but a messy job that will cost you some time and materials). Fire the shutter a few times at different speeds. Of course you can't time them exactly, but 1/125th should be noticeably faster than 1/30th, and you know what 1 second should sound like. Check the meter - point it at something light, then something dark, and make sure it changes. You can reality check it with Sunny 16 if you're outside or near a window. If the battery is dead, check the battery compartment for corrosion (flaky white crystals). If it's there, there's a chance the wiring is fried and the meter won't work even with a fresh battery. Make sure all the mechanicals work smoothly, on both the camera and any lenses. Check the optics for mold - dirt and grime will clean off no problem, but mold can ruin a lens. Little scratches in the coating are ok, but big dings could cause flare. "Pretty" doesn't really matter - as long as the camera is light tight and the mechanics function well a little brassing, scuffing or dents won't hurt anything.

Most SLRs come with a 50mm prime attached, usually in the f/1.4-f/2 range. I recommend sticking with just that lens for a bit as you learn more about the camera and about shooting film in general. If you feel the need to diversify you can add two more inexpensive primes, a 24/28/35mm on the wide end and an 85/105 on the tele end, typically around f/2.8. That triplet of primes (maybe 4, I understand wanting a 24 and a 35 on the wide end) should cover you for just about everything you'll want to shoot. I highly recommend staying away from older zoom lenses, as they tend to be of lower quality (it took a while for the engineering and coating to get to where it is today). It also defeats the purpose of shooting film, IMO - I shoot film to slow down and put more thought and effort into my photos. If I want speed and convenience I'll grab my DSLR.

So there ya have it. I'll write a bit about choosing film in the future. Any questions or comments are always appreciated :)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Nikon F3 Giveaway

2011-02-14T08:00:00.018-05:00

This post stands as my entry for a Nikon F3 giveaway over at Rob Boyer's blog RB|Design. I'm new to Rob's blog, but it seems to be a great resource for Aperture users, and he talks a good bit about film and photography in general, so it was an easy add to my RSS reader.

If you're at all interested in shooting film, I highly recommend entering this contest. It will only take a few minutes, and the prize (a F3 body, possibly with lens) will set you up for shooting 35mm film for the rest of your life, if you so choose. Nikon pro bodies are built like a tank, and the F3 has a reputation for being solid and reliable. It has manual film advance and rewind, which is a large part of the tactile fun when shooting film, and has a built in center-weighted meter for shooting in manual or aperture-priority mode. If you have a Nikon DSLR, you can share lenses between the two bodies (as long as they have an aperture ring on them), meaning you won't have to add the expense and weight of another set of glass. That's the main reason that I'm entering this giveaway - I had a N2000 that let me do the same thing, but that died on me over Christmas.

I'm not usually a Ken Rockwell fan, but he has a good overview of the F3 at his site. Just make sure to take his opinions with a grain of salt, especially if you go digging around to other articles. This one is pretty straightforward without any of the usual KR BS, because it's mostly tech specs.

If you enter and don't win, there are still plenty of easy ways to get into 35mm. I'll have a post up later this week about buying film equipment.

Good luck!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

It's ok to take bad photos

2011-02-09T09:45:00.003-05:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

Well, it's been a little over 3 weeks since my last post, and in that time I've taken maybe 10 frames. Not starting the year off well here. I think it's time to man up and start working on my laundromat project, because it's far too cold to do much of anything outside at the moment. I do plan on getting out for some more winter stuff, but when it's 15 degrees (F) and gray like it is here today it's hard to get motivated...

This week's tip is partially a reminder to myself as well as some advice for anyone else going through the winter blahs right now: It's ok to take bad photos. Not every frame you take is going to be a work of Art. Just the act of picking up a camera and making yourself point it at something and press the shutter can begin to rekindle the creative process, and you may end up with something you like by the end of it. And if you don't, no big loss, just format your card and try again next time. This is where having a project can help - you already did your creative thinking and just have to execute on a theme. It doesn't have to be a large project, either. Something like the classic "lock yourself in a room and take 50 different photos" exercise is perfect for a cold winter day when you're looking for things to shoot.

So that's it, just a quick tip this week. Trying to get back in the saddle with photography and blogging. What do you do when you're in a bit of a funk? Would love to hear about it in the comments.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Rangefinder Cameras

2011-01-17T08:00:00.005-05:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

In keeping with my goal to shoot more film this year, I used some Christmas money to buy a Canonet QL17 G-III rangefinder. The Canonet falls into the category of compact 35mm rangefinders which were popular during the 70's. Most of these cameras can be found on eBay for around $40. Beware that at that price you may have to do some maintenance to the camera (especially changing old light seals and cleaning the rangefinder). Not terribly difficult, but if you don't trust yourself you can pay more for a CLA'd model that should work great for you. (CLA = Clean Lubricate and Adjust, standard parlance for a camera tune-up.) After some research on the different cameras available, I settled on the Canonet as the best bang for the buck.

So why a rangefinder? The main reason is that I was curious. There's a lot of talk about rangefinders, especially in the street photography crowd (Leica being the ultimate "street" camera), so I wanted to give it a try and see how they differed from a SLR. I figured it would be a good fit for my laundromat documentary project, as that will probably have a bit of a "street" vibe to it. Another big reason I got the Canonet is the compact size and all-mechanical operation. This will be a very easy camera to carry around anywhere, and the nice fast 40mm f/1.7 lens means it will be great for indoor gatherings (parties, family dinners, nights out at the bar). The Canonet is basically my 35mm point n shoot - while I do have to make a few decisions and focus manually, it's quite quick and easy to operate and should hold up better than the plastic pieces of crap that litter Goodwill sales bins all across the country.

Last week I loaded a test roll of Kodak Gold 200 into it and blew through 24 frames during a walk around campus. While using the camera and after seeing the results, I realized that there was going to be a bit of a learning curve for me. Rangefinder focusing isn't intuitive for me yet, so it would take me a second to process what I was looking at and focus. That should get better with a little practice. The lens is also fairly wide (40mm), and after looking through my photos I realized that I wasn't nearly close enough when trying to photograph people. This should be easier when shooting friends and family, but it's something I will have to come to terms with if I want to shoot strangers. It was also a weird experience to be so disconnected from the lens, and I found that my framing suffered several times because of it. Finally, scanning 35mm film (especially color) is not so easy. I had a hard time getting good color from my scans, and the sharpness and detail of the scan sucked. Scanning is something I have very little experience with, so I have a long way to go there.

My next roll through the Canonet will be black and white. Looking forward to processing that myself. Hopefully the scanning will go better, too. I'll try to document the process and write about it here.

I found this video that talks a bit about rangefinders and simulates focusing with one. The guy even has a Canonet. It's a little weird, especially toward the end, but it should give you an idea of what handling and using one of these cameras is like.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: the year in review

2011-01-10T08:00:00.000-05:00

Now that the 52 weeks project is finished, I thought I'd share a few thoughts on how it all went and pick a few of my favorite submissions from our top contributers.

Big props to irv_b for his 41 photos, earning him the #2 spot behind me. Irv didn't start his project until February, so it looks like he'll make it to 52 on his own. One of my favorites from him was "femme mosaic," a pop-art style collage:

Coming in 3rd for number of submissions was [Adam_Baker]. Even though he may not have always submitted on time, I always enjoy Adam's photography. If I had to pick a favorite, it would be "Outer Light":

Next up is chofler. Catherine shared a lot of great food shots, but I think my favorite from her was "Golden Gate":

Finally, rounding out the top 5 is q-pix. Andrew had a lot of great photos, with plenty of black and white. My pick from him is "Chess":

Just realized all my picks were black and white, but hey, them's the breaks. Thanks to everyone who participated this year, I hope it helped you grow your photography even a tiny bit, or at least to meet some new photographers whose work you enjoy.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 52 wrapup

2011-01-04T08:00:00.001-05:00

© 2011 Simon Hucko

Week 52 is here at last! I actually managed a semi-decent photo this week, too, and on time. Good way to end the series.

I was inspired by all the wonderful holiday photos last week, so I took this (rather unoriginal) photo of our Christmas tree. I liked the relationship of the ornaments to one-another, and the feeling of depth in the photo. It always feels nice to put the 50 on the camera, a very different mindset from the "frame it with the zoom and blast away" that I get with my kit lens. Not that I don't like my zoom, I've made some great shots with it, but the 50 just has so much more character. I've been jonesing for something a little wider, too, perhaps a 35 f/2 is in my future at some point...

My pick this week is "Amplitude" by [Adam_Baker]:

It's a bit of a cheat, considering this was taken in October, but I think it's a nice way to start the new year. Click through the photo for Adam's description and a link to "theft size," where you can really see the textures and different colors coming together. A 1/4 second shutter leaves some great texture in the water, similar to my triangle photo. I'm definitely going to play more with those middle shutter speeds this year, as they can give some very interesting results. Thanks for sharing this with us, Adam.

So that's it! 52 weeks! Amazing how time flies. We've had some great photos this year, so next week I'll do a wrapup for the year and pull a few of my favorites. As I said in my resolutions post yesterday, I'm not doing another 52 weeks project this year. I'll probably leave the group open and running if you guys are interested in continuing (or if you know people who want to do a project). If someone wants to step up as a leader I'd be happy to give them moderator rights to the group, and as always anyone is free to post on the discussion board there. I'm glad I did the project, but I'm looking forward to taking my photography in a different direction this year. Thanks to everyone who participated.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Goals for 2011

2011-01-03T08:00:00.005-05:00

With the arrival of the new year, I thought I'd lay out some goals for myself for 2011:

First of all, no 52 weeks or 365 projects. The 52 weeks thing went pretty well for me last year, but there were times when I was in a bit of a rut with my photography, and forcing myself to come up with an image every week had more of a negative effect on my creativity than I thought it would. Rather than set a quantity of photos to take this year, my goal is to improve the quality of my photography. I hope to do this by putting more planning and forethought into my images, looking ahead a few months at a time to decide when and where I want to go shoot. I didn't capture nearly as many fall photos as I had wanted this year, and a big part of that was the lack of planning on my part - the leaves changed, and I went "OMG I have to shoot!" but didn't know where to start.

I would like to start (and hopefully finish) a documentary project that I've been kicking around for about a year now. I plan on going to the local laundromat and photographing/interviewing people there, and hopefully compiling it into a book of some sort. I expect that I'll get some interesting stories and conversations out of it, and hopefully some good photos to go with it. This also falls into the "get over your fear of photographing strangers" category, I'm hoping that the boredom of waiting for laundry will make people more amenable to me.

I plan on shooting my laundromat project on film, which is another goal for the year. I've been slowly collecting the necessary equipment to develop my own black and white (thanks in large part to my dad giving me his entire darkroom setup), so I plan on doing that somewhat regularly this year. I'm also liberating a 4x5 view camera from my dad's closet, so I'll be learning how to use that. I plan on blogging about the 4x5, and I'll probably do a few posts on shooting and developing your own black and white.

My biggest project this year will be National Photo Essay Month (aka NaPhoEMo) during November. A play on NaNoWriMo, the idea is to do the photographic equivalent of 50,000 words of a novel. Since a picture is worth 1,000 words, that translates into a 50 image photo essay. 50 images is a *lot* for a photo essay, so the scope will have to be large enough to avoid redundancy and filler. I may set myself up for success by cutting that number in half (25 photos), at least for the first year. I'll be blogging more about that and trying to drum up a group of people for the project as it gets closer, so start thinking about a photo project that you've been interested in.

What are your goals for 2011? Do you have any projects in mind? Where do you want your photography to go this year?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 51 wrapup

2010-12-29T14:44:00.001-05:00

No photo for me this week. I took a bunch of photos of family around Christmas, but nothing for sharing on Flickr. I also don't have access to my iMac, so I don't have a way to process RAW images. Probably could have grabbed a cell phone shot to share, but I didn't. Them's the breaks. I guess I can have one week off...

Thanks to all of you who *did* post a photo this week. Rather than pick a favorite, I'm going to share all the wonderful holiday shots here.

"Cardinal" by kristanhoffman:

"Xmas dec" by irv_b:

"Xmas 2010" by DebPaul2010:

"Shooting star" by chofler:

Thanks for sharing your holiday with us. Have a happy new year! Last week of the project, let's see what you've got :)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Best of 2010

2010-12-27T08:00:00.004-05:00

With the year almost at a close, I thought I would carry on the tradition of posting some of my favorite photos from the year. I think it's good to look back on your work and be inspired by it from time to time. So, in no particular order, here we go:

"Buttermilk 3"

If I had to pick a favorite, this would probably be it. I love the circular lines in this one, and I think the exposure and framing are spot on. I'm very happy with the black and white conversion on this one, too. I like the tall crop, but it would work well as an 8x10, and is on my list to print.

"Photographer at Work"

Big props to Adam Baker for showing me around the falls here. (If you haven't noticed, I like to photograph waterfalls now and then.) Here he is pictured on one of our outings, doing his thing. Fortunately he decided not to move for the 1.6 second exposure, probably in the middle of a 20 second exposure of his own. It's a fairly accurate portrayal of waterfall photography - standing still in the middle of a stream for ridiculous amounts of time as your toes go numb, hunting motion and cursing the sunlight.

"Triangle"

Last waterfall in the bunch. Found this little six inch drop just past a dam. For whatever reason, the little rapid past the falls made a triangle shape in the stream. I'm all about moving water, geometry, and black and white, so I couldn't help myself. The relatively short (1/2 second) exposure left some interesting texture in the spray, resulting in an almost painterly abstract. This is definitely on the "to print" list.

"Too Close!"

Technically I took this on December 29, 2009, but as it was too late to make it to last year's "best of," I'm including it here. My blog, my rules.

This photo breaks a lot of rules, and I think that's what makes it so interesting. My favorite part is the sharp focus and detail on the wing, with the rest of the bird blurring away into the background. The chopped off wing and lack of leading space leave a lot of tension and a good dynamic feel to the frame. Who knew that a pissed off seagull would be one of my favorite subjects :)

"State Street"

In the spirit of breaking rules, I give you this out-of-focus offering. I wasn't sure about it at the time (see my comment on the photo on the Flickr page), but I think it works. I like how the few isolated lights pop off the blurred background. My 50mm f1.8 has straight aperture blades which leads to those little polygons instead of round bokeh, and I like that. Those heptagons become the subject against the blurred impression of a street corner at dusk.

"Fall in Monochrome"

Speaking of blur, I love the depth and texture that the lensbaby gave to this fall shot. (And yes, I am the type of person who converts fall photos into black and white.) I wasn't planning the black and white at the time, but the color didn't pop as much as I had hoped, and after a quick click on the "black and white" button I realized that was the way to go. I almost always do a quick b/w conversion with my photos to see if I like them better or not that way. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised by the results.

"Cactichoke"

Reverse 50mm macro is a lot of fun to play with, especially when you're in a greenhouse full of exotic cacti. The fine detail on these plants is amazing, and I like the smooth blur combined with the sharp spines on the cactus.

"Buzz"

I like this one because it reminds me of summer every time I look at it. The slightly warm and desaturated treatment feels like a hazy summer day.

That's it for the year. Interesting to see what I've been shooting. 4 of the 8 are square crop (no real surprise). 3 of the 8 are of waterfalls. 3 of the 8 are in black and white (surprised it's not more). 8 of the 8 resonate with me in some way beyond being a "pretty picture." I am a bit biased, though. Would love to hear your thoughts :)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 50 wrapup

2010-12-21T08:00:00.002-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Been in a real photo rut lately. I blame the weather and general holiday craziness. Hopefully things will settle down a bit in January and I can get back into the groove with my photography. I'm not doing a 52 weeks or 365 project next year, but have some other short- and long-term projects in mind that I'll discuss more in an upcoming blog post.

My photo this week was a quick product shot to accompany my Chrome OS review. When I say quick, I mean it took me about 10 minutes from opening the camera bag to uploading the photo. These little product shots are pretty easy, and are good to be able to do when you're listing photo equipment for sale. (How many bad or non-existent photos have you seen on craigslist or eBay?) Or, in my case, they add a nice personal touch to a blog post about gear. A few tips to taking photos like this:

- Find a clean surface to set your item on. I used the floor. Tables work well, cutting boards, desks, paper, whatever, as long as there isn't any clutter on it.
- Make sure the background is free of distractions. A blank wall works. I used a piece of foam that we had lying around. Posterboard or foamcore work great, too.
- Light your item. I grabbed a work light, a desk lamp can work here. (Or any other light, the brighter the better.) I used some tissue paper for diffusion, but printer paper works pretty well in a pinch (you lose more light, though).
- Compose, focus, shoot, edit. You might need a tripod if your light isn't that bright. Editing should be fairly simple if you did the first three steps. I used the foam to set white balance.

Easy as that.

My pick this week is "snowfall" by irv_b:

Along with being the *only* photo this week, Irv captured the new snow very nicely. Exposure is right on. I like the layered composition, lots of texture to hold me in the image. The only thing I might have done differently was crop in on the left to remove the trunk at the edge of the frame. Nice balance between the two main trees. Thanks for sharing your wintry wonderland with us, Irv.

2 weeks left. Would love a strong finish here from everyone :)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Chrome OS and the Cr-48

2010-12-15T09:00:00.010-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko. Please do not use without permission

I was somehow lucky enough to be selected for Google's Chrome OS pilot program. Since this is like winning the geek lottery, I thought I would share my experience here on the blog for anyone who's interested. I'll try to tie it into photography as I go, but there will be plenty of non-photo geeking out, so if that's not your cup of tea feel free to skip through these.

I applied for the pilot program during Google's announcement last Tuesday (along with everyone else in the world). Friday night I came home from work and found an anonymous package on our porch. I opened it up and found my sleek black Cr-48 notebook complete with Chrome OS, Google's new operating system. After a bit of jumping up and down like a little schoolgirl (not my finest moment...) I popped the battery in and began using it.

The beauty of Chrome OS is that if you're a Googlephile like me, most of the setup is already done. It really works just like the demo - open the machine, connect to the internet, log into your Google account, take a photo for your user account (optional), and less than a minute later you're up and browsing. I use Chrome as my regular browser, and have my bookmarks and everything synced, so all that was ported to the computer within minutes of logging on. (Yeah, minutes. I'm surprised it didn't happen faster, but once it did it's been pretty seamless. Might have been a software update thing.) The experience is pretty much exactly like using Chrome on any other machine, which is the point I suppose. Things seemed a bit laggy and slow at the beginning, but after a software update, a bit of use and a restart or two it's humming along nicely.

An all-web experience means that the machine is really only as good as its internet connection. So far I've only had it on the wifi at home, so it's been cranking along. The Cr-48 has a built in 3G receiver and 100mb/month free data from Verizon (along with some paid options for more data), but I haven't tried that yet. At the moment there really aren't any offline options, but I know that's something that Google is working on and trying to push developers to do as well. The Chrome "web store" (which currently is more of a "link store") should help with this.

As far as photography is concerned, the machine is surprisingly usable, as long as you shoot jpeg and have access to wifi. You can connect a card reader or put an SD card into the built in slot, upload your images to a web photo editor like Picnic or Aviary, then post them to Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa, etc. Where it starts to break down is if you have a lot of images that you want to offload and store, like when you're travelling. At the moment, Chrome OS has no real file browser to speak of. You can get into a file structure when uploading images to the web, but there's no way to take images off a card and store them locally on the SSD (without going through some complicated ritual like uploading them to the web then downloading them again). I know that the point of Chrome OS is to do everything web-based, but it's a real pain to upload *every* photo to a web editor just to see if it's worth keeping. And, if you shoot raw, your only real option is to use a service like dropbox or e-mail the images to yourself so that you can open them on your photo editing computer back home. Google did say during their announcement that they know people want to connect things like cameras to their machine, so I'm hoping that means a Chrome OS version of Picasa is on its way that will let you manage photos locally and sync them to your online Picasa account. Picasa has some basic raw compatibility, too, so that would be a great solution and make it infinitely more usable as a backup when travelling. This is, of course, just speculation on my part, but if they're looking to target the consumer market at all that would be a highly desirable feature.

© 2010 Simon Hucko. Please do not use without permission

Just to be clear, the Cr-48 is bare bones demo hardware. It's merely a vehicle to deliver Chrome OS. Google is giving out 60,000 for free, so they're not going to be putting top-of-the-line hardware into it (see the specs here). It will never be for sale, except maybe on Ebay. The notebook isn't what they want us testing, the operating system is.

That having been said, and because I know people are curious, the Cr-48 is a pretty nice machine. It's sort of like a spy laptop - the all-matte-black finish and lack of any logos or stickers complements a nice clean design and makes me want to wear a tux and drink a dry martini (shaken, not stirred). It's not ultra-thin or super light (just shy of 4 pounds), but it's small enough to easily slap closed and carry with you anywhere. Boot-up time is measured in seconds, and if you just put it to sleep by closing the lid it resumes instantly (meaning you can close it, carry it, open it, and be right back where you were with no waiting). Battery life seems pretty good - I haven't pushed it to the advertised 8 hours of use, 8 days of standby, but it seems like it would be pretty close to that. The full sized keyboard is quiet and nice to type on (feels a lot like an Apple keyboard, actually). The trackpad is large, and works well to mouse around the screen. I'm a bit of a lazy typer, though, so I find myself bumping it with my palms sometimes, sending me to another part of the screen. Scrolling is done with two fingers, and is a bit rough (it'll randomly jump around, causing me to blow by whatever I was scrolling to). Call me old-fashioned, but I like using the edge of the pad to scroll. There's no horizontal scrolling yet, either, which is a bit of a pain. But, multi-touch support is good, and hopefully my difficulties are just hardware related. It's a bit underpowered when it comes to multi-media. Youtube videos and flash games seemed to run just fine, but I've noticed some issues with video from other sites (Vimeo especially). This can probably be helped with better hardware acceleration support, but will be a limiting factor on this device. I expect the commercial products coming out next year to handle this better.

As it stands right now, a Chrome OS notebook is definitely a second machine. You're still going to want something running a more robust operating system for things like photo/video editing and storage, gaming, and other stand alone apps that you use. However, it's a great solution for a second machine, especially with multiple users. My wife and I each have an account set up on it, and we just leave it on the coffee table. Pop it open for some browsing and e-mail, pop it closed and set it back down until you need it again. Sure, we each have Android phones, but it's so much nicer to work on a bigger screen with a real keyboard. I also see this as a great travel computer. Again, it's a nice step up from the smartphone in terms of usability, and the built in 3G can be a nice feature on the road. It also has great battery life, which means you can bring it for a few days and not worry about the charger (as long as you don't plan on using it heavily). Once the photo thing gets worked out a bit better this would be an excellent backup solution for photographers who are travelling - use the laptop as a local backup and put the keepers up on the cloud to make sure they don't get lost.

Since Chrome OS is still in early beta, I look forward to growing with it and seeing what it becomes. As it stands, there's a lot of potential there, and with the right set of software and features this could be an "only" machine for some people (think about your parents or grandparents who don't do much more than check e-mail and look at your Facebook photos). I'll post updates as things change, especially as some of the hybrid web/offline applications become available. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'll answer as best I can. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm happy to share my impressions and opinions.

For even more info, check out the nice in-depth review over at Engadget

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 49 wrapup

2010-12-14T08:00:00.000-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

This week's photo started as just a test shot for exposure on a short walk I took the other day. I never trust my meter in the snow, so after adjusting up a little I grabbed this shot to make sure I was where I wanted to be. The highlights on the snow just clipped on my camera, which meant they would be there in post, and I had good shadow detail in the trees. When I popped this open on my computer, I found that I liked the rule-of-thirds framing and the contrast between the textured trees and the mostly blank snow. I desaturated the image a bit to help put the focus on the texture.

My pick this week is Artisan by slithy-toves:

I like the lines and shapes in this shot. It has sort of a disjointed geometric feel to it that comes together into an interesting composition. The animal head and the colorful sculpture add points of interest, and help anchor me while I'm following the lines around. The bit of reflection on the frame is a nice added detail. Nice find, Stacey.

3 weeks to go...

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Big Building, Tiny People

2010-12-13T08:00:00.004-05:00

I dropped a little gem in my ramblings about last week's 52 weeks wrapup, and thought it deserved its own blog post. Often times (especially on vacation) we want to take a photo of people in front of a building or other landmark. The problem is one of scale - the landmark is typically much larger than the people you want to photograph. How do you compensate for this?

Pretty easily, actually. Use a moderately wide-angle lens, frame your photo so that the landmark/building fills the frame (or however you decide you want it), then have your subjects move toward the camera until you get the framing you want on them (full length, 3/4 shot, head and shoulders, or in the extreme example above just the face). Make sure the people aren't blocking too much of the background - adjust your framing and position of necessary. Stop down your lens to a relatively narrow aperture if possible (f/11-f/16) to ensure enough depth of field to keep the people and the landmark in focus (the wide angle helps with this, too). Setting your focus to the hyperfocal distance will max out your depth of field and make this process easier, but if you don't have that figured out (or don't have a distance scale on your lens) you can pick a focus point about 1/3 of the way into your scene, that should cover it. If you can't use a narrow aperture, focus on the people and let the background go a little soft.

Just for comparison's sake, here's a shot without my big mug in the foreground:

You can see how small the people get as they get closer to the arch. If I had stood right next to the thing, I would have been about 5 pixels high in the photo. Not very memorable.

I think that most people sort of figure this out when they're at big landmarks on vacation (if for no other reason than it's easier to get a non-crowded shot when you're farther away), but knowing why it works lets you apply the same technique to more every-day type shots, like the photo of my wife and me in front of our house. It's a good thing to have tucked away in your photographic bag of tricks.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 48 wrapup

2010-12-08T10:00:00.000-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Only a day late this week. Phew. This was the *only* photo I took last week. I thought about cheating and putting something up that I took earlier, because frankly this is pretty much a snapshot, but oh well. They can't all be winners.

Self shots like this are pretty easy to set up, especially if you have a remote (which I highly recommend). I set exposure manually and checked the histogram before popping the camera on the tripod. I guesstimated the hyperfocal distance and set that manually, too, so that everything would be in focus. The trick for these wide angle "people standing in front of stuff" shots is for the people to get as close as possible to the camera so that they fill more of the frame. If we had stood on the porch, we probably would have been about half the size, and our faces wouldn't have shown up very well in the photo. I raised the tripod up pretty high to eliminate some of the perspective distortion, so that the top of the house didn't converge too much. (I corrected it even further in Lightroom to help get rid of that "wide angle" look.) The 2 second timer on the remote let me get my hand back in my pocket after tripping the shutter. 6 shots later, we were done. Quick edit for contrast in color, then off to my parents for their Christmas newsletter. All told, it took less than 20 minutes from getting out the camera to clicking "send" on the e-mail. It's not award winning art, but it's a nice photo of my wife and me with our new house, and is something we'll be glad to have years down the line.

My pick this week is "Big skies over Manhattan" by chofler:

I really like where she placed the skyline in the image - the low horizon and wide angle really show off the clouds. There's an interesting play of light and shadow on the buildings, too, I'm guessing as a result from the scattered clouds. I think this would have even more impact printed large, as you lose a bit of detail at web res.

4 weeks to go!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Winter/Holiday Roundup

2010-12-06T09:20:00.002-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I don't have anything fresh for the blog this week, so it's time for a few winter/holiday related links! (Sort of like the dreaded clip-show on TV, only hopefully a little more rewarding.)

- The thermometer is plunging, and you might be worried about taking your camera out in the cold. Don't be.

- Around here, cold weather means snow. Learn how to keep it from fooling your camera meter.

- Shh! Here's the secret to shooting Christmas lights.

- Getting together with friends and/or family? Here's a few tips for capturing the event.

- Finally, if you're lucky enough to be getting away on a vacation, I have some thoughts on managing your vacation photos.

Enjoy!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 47 wrapup

2010-12-03T08:00:00.000-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Suuuuper late this week, sorry everyone! I think Thanksgiving threw me for a bit of a loop. I should be back on track for the rest of the month.

My photo this week was one of the very few I took on Thanksgiving. The light was bad (ie there wasn't much of it), so between that and the food/wine/family, I decided to keep the camera in the bag most of the day. It happens. I manged to grab this shot of everyone being entertained by the Wii. Nothing amazing, but it was a moment, and I think I captured it pretty well. Picking a white balance was a little tough, as it was mixed incandescent lamps and cool cloudy sunlight through the windows. I think I ended up somewhere between incandescent and daylight so that neither one was too far out of whack. It still looks mixed, but your brain expects it to, so it works. (I think. If you disagree, feel free to say so.)

This week's pick is "Hofler family Thanksgiving" by chofler:

This goes with my non-official Thanksgiving theme for the week ;) The title and description say it all - this is how her family does Thanksgiving. This is why I love phone cameras: it's so easy to share part of your life with everyone else. That voyeuristic (for lack of a better word) look into how other people see the world is very intriguing to me. Thanks for the glimpse of your holiday, Catherine. Looks like quite a feast

We're into the final month of the year. Hard to believe that 52 weeks is almost over - only 5 more to go! Let's finish strong :)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 46 wrapup

2010-11-23T08:00:00.001-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

We got some rain here last week. On the way into work one morning I noticed that the creeks had some good flow going, so I made a quick trip over to Ithaca Falls. I apparently underestimated just *how much* rain we got, because the falls were almost up to spring volume. Thanks to an up-stream breeze, I was able to get pretty close before getting blasted with spray. I set up the shot, shielded the camera, waited for a break in the wind (which never really came), and took the shot. I like the black and white on this one, but I definitely overdid it with the vignette. Sorry. If I ever print this (probably won't) I'll make sure to dial that way down first.

My pick this week is "Candid" by irv_b:

I think the best word to describe this photo is "tension." Instead of giving the subject "room to move" in the frame, he placed his face up against the left edge. The man's glance back over his shoulder adds some good mystery to the shot, and makes me wonder what caught his eye. The gritty black and white treatment completes the effect, giving us an image with a lot of intrigue. Nicely captured, Irv.

Thanksgiving this week here in the states - plenty of chances for you to take candids, portraits, and even food shots. Give yourself a little assignment for the weekend and see what you come up with.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Calendar

2010-11-22T08:00:00.005-05:00

It's about time to start thinking about calendars for next year. Calendars are a great, functional way to get your work printed and hanging on the wall. My wife and I typically do a "family" calendar with photos of us and our family/friends throughout the year. It's nice to have some family photos up on the wall/fridge that otherwise just sit on the internet or in a photobook on the shelf. We usually get these printed through Shutterfly, and they're not that expensive (around $20 plus shipping). The print quality is pretty decent, comparable to their books, and turn around is usually pretty quick.

I'm also going to throw together a "fine art" calendar with some of my favorite photos from the year. I did one this past year for myself and it was nice to have it hanging in the office - sort of like an 8x10 print that changes every month. I'm also planning on giving a few away as gifts, and might even run some sort of contest for one here on the blog. I'm going to give Mpix a try and see how they stack up to Shutterfly. The prices are actually basically the same (until Shutterfly runs a sale on theirs), so if the quality turns out to be better that may be the way we go for calendars from now on. I'm guessing it won't differ too much, but it never hurts to try.

If you're going for full-bleed photos (images covering the entire page with no border), do yourself a favor and crop them ahead of time. Even if I'm using a vertical image or two on a page, I'll be laying it all out to 11"x8.5" (landscape) in Photoshop and filling any blank space so that I won't have to mess with the online layout and cropping tools. Probably not necessary, but it gives me more control over formatting without being locked into one of their templates.

As usual, I don't get paid for my recommendations or reviews (but wouldn't that be nice?), so no pressure to use Shutterfly or Mpix. If you have another printer that you like feel free to share it in the comments.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 45 wrapup

2010-11-16T08:00:00.030-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

My photo this week was a fun find on one of my lunchtime walks (yes, I carry around my huge effing tripod - you never know). The little 6 inch fall of water was nothing spectacular, but for whatever reason the wake (?) off the bottom formed a big triangle in the creek. I got this detail shot and then took a wider one showing the whole thing, but I think the close shot was a much better photo (the wider one looked more like a snapshot to me). The 1/2 second exposure left some interesting detail in the water. I usually drag the shutter out and blur the crap out of these types of shots, but it looks like I'll have to do some experimenting with shorter exposures. (Not sure why I chose 1/2" here...)

My pick this week is "Femme Mosaic" by irv_b:

I'm not usually a selective color fan, but I really like it here. The mosaic and different coloration of each frame gives it a somewhat pop-art feel (a la Andy Warhol), but the gritty subject matter and the hard lighting definitely speak to the film noir theme he was going for. I suggest viewing it large to see all the subtle variations. Very nice, Irv.

I think I'm going to drop the themes for the rest of the year, as I'm running out of ideas. Any photo will do - show us what you've got!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Life in Lomo?

2010-11-15T08:00:00.000-05:00

Just a few thoughts for those of you who use programs like Hipstamatic et al to add lomo effects to photos taken on your phone. The vintage lomo "film" look is in right now, and these photos add a bit of grunge and randomness to the sterile, predictable world of digital photography. It's also a good way to mask the shortcomings of the average phone camera, although they are getting better.

The danger of processing every photo you take like this is that, a few years from now, all of your memories are going to be green and grainy with a heavy vignette. Not exactly how you want to look back on Christmas 2010... There are a couple ways around this. Vignette, the camera app I use on Android, lets you automatically save the original photo along with the edited version. I shoot everything 2 for 1 this way, and just delete the originals that have no future value. Every so often I'll back them up to my computer. If your camera app doesn't let you save the original, some let you edit photos that you've already taken on your phone. You can shoot with the normal camera app and then re-edit the photos later before sharing them. This is a bit of a pain, but at least you'll have a "clean" copy of your photos.

I bring this up because I find myself relying on my phone more and more as my point n shoot camera. A lot of times I'll choose to leave the camera bag at home, knowing my phone can capture a decent image if I need it to. I like playing with the different processing effects, but it's nice to know I have a version I can edit normally and print or hang on to for the future.

Do you use your phone as a point n shoot? Do you process everything with a camera app and share from your phone, or do you take photos and put them on your computer?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Photographers are like Golfers

2010-11-11T08:00:00.010-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I'm writing this post to expand on something I said in the comments of Monday's article ("Gotta Shoot Something"). If you haven't read the previous article, I suggest clicking through and having a go before you continue here.

If I had to compare photography to a sport, I'd say that golf serves as a good analogy. Golfers carry heavy bags full of gear, half of which is probably unnecessary. (If you golf, when's the last time you used your 4 iron? 6 iron? 3 wood?) Golfers are notorious for blaming their gear for bad performance, and will try anything (extra-long tee's, super-flight balls with some crazy new synthetic core, different gloves, "enhanced sweet spot" drivers, etc.) to shave a stroke or two off of their handicap. Weekend warriors are more than willing to open their wallets for a "magic" fix - something that will improve their game overnight, just in time for their Saturday morning skins game. The sad truth is that most golfers aren't nearly good enough to notice a real difference between an "ok" club and a top of the line custom-fit titanium behemoth. Sure, they might hit the ball a little farther, but with no consistency or control that extra bit of distance doesn't really matter. That's not to say that the gear is trivial - the pro golfers use the latest and greatest equipment in order to stay competitive. But the pro's also spend hours a day on the driving range, around the practice green, in the gym, studying their swing, analyzing the next course they will play, etc. All that extra work is what separates a professional from the average country club chump.

Let's bring this back to photography. The latest and greatest gear won't make your images any better, in the same way that a new golf club can't fix your swing. What makes the biggest difference to your photography is the time you spend practicing. Taking a photo walk with one lens is like going to the driving range with a bucket of balls and just your 7 iron - by the time you're done, you have a better feel for that lens and the images you can make with it. Spend time analyzing your images and study the work of others to develop your style and sense of composition. The photo above was basically a "grab shot" as I was walking around one day, but gave me a chance to work on my post processing. Shoot regularly to exercise your craft and your creative eye, even if you don't think you will be making amazing images. Practice processing your images to get different looks, so that you can apply them in a subject-motivated way in the future. Don't be afraid to make mistakes - even the top ranked professional golfers don't hit it down the middle of the fairway every time. Learn how to work through and overcome those mistakes, then move on to the next shot.

That's it for the "gear isn't everything" rants for now. I hope I didn't lose too many of you with the golf analogy... Got some good feedback on Monday's post, and would love to hear more from you :) Back to your regularly scheduled blog next week.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 44 wrapup

2010-11-09T08:00:00.024-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I'm not thrilled with my photo this week, but I was actually excited to take it, so I consider that a win. I've been getting more and more interested in long exposures, and am strongly considering a 10 stop ND filter. This photo has some issues (a bucket in the middle of the dam, blown spots in the sky from the setting sun poking through the clouds), but I think there's a lot of nice movement between the water and the clouds. If the weather around here continues to produce low, fast-moving clouds like this I may have found my saving grace to tide me over until the snow starts. Things are continuing to improve this week photo-wise, so I'm happy to be done with this fall flop (at least for now).

My pick this week comes from DebPaul2010:

First, I'd like to say welcome to Debbie - she found us a week or so ago. Always happy to have new members, and even though the project is almost done for the year, I'm looking forward to seeing what she has to post. I chose this image for the lighting. Because the scene is back-lit with warm sunlight, there is an interesting play between the golden sun and the cool shadows. Despite being back-lit, the exposure is well balanced and gives a lot of nice detail and color on everything in the shot. The cemetery is an interesting take on the theme of "time." Nice shot, Deb.

No theme this week, just get out and shoot something :)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Gotta Shoot Something

2010-11-08T08:00:00.018-05:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

[Eek, snow! I was digging through my photos for a shot of me with my camera, and this is the best I could find. Perhaps it's time for some more mirror portraits...]

I tagged this post with "gear," but it's more an anti-gear kind of discussion. I'll start with a story.

I was walking around campus the other day and wound up seeing another photographer. We made the usual exchange - smiled at each other, and then checked out what gear the other was using (sort of like dogs sniffing each other's butt). He saw my camera and said "argh, Nikon?!" I shrugged and responded "gotta shoot something." I didn't really give much thought to that statement before making it, but reflecting on it later I realized that it's actually a rather profound thought.

Photography is an interesting art because it relies heavily on technology and gear in addition to artistry and creativity. It takes a lot of stuff to make a photograph, especially a digital one - at the very least you need a camera, a lens, a memory card, a computer, photo editing software, and a photo sharing site. Because the art relies so much on the gear, people tend to associate the gear with the images that they get. How many of you have thought "I'd be a better photographer if only I had a [insert new lens/camera/accessory here]?" I'll admit it, I spend my fair share of time keeping up with the latest and greatest, and I've even caught myself thinking that my photos might get better if I had a newer camera. The sad reality is that they won't. (The only legitimate excuse I have there is needing higher clean ISO and/or faster zoom lenses for theater photography.)

Since photography gear is relatively expensive, the decision to buy into a particular brand is not trivial. Once people sink a few hundred dollars into something, they start develop a sense of loyalty to it. According to a psych class I took in college, people feel the need to justify their decisions, and will actually feel more positively about something after investing time/money/emotions in it (see cognitive dissonance). This unfortunately starts to breed fan boys - people who believe that their brand is the best, and that you'd have to be a fool to use anything else. People like the photographer that I had my brief exchange with. I think he was just joking a bit and making conversation, but the sentiment is definitely out there.

My point here is not that gear isn't good (hey, if the gear didn't matter then the pro's wouldn't spend $5k+ on a DSLR), but that it isn't everything. This post was inspired by David duChemin who recently announced that he would be transitioning over from Canon to Nikon (see his post here). To quote David, "Gear is Good. Vision is Better." It's not what you shoot with, it's what you shoot with it that counts. You have to choose a camera to take photos with - whether it's a $10 disposable film camera or a $30,000 digital medium format camera will depend on your budget and your vision. Cameras are just tools, and you should use the tools that will help you best realize the image that you want.

Worry less about the gear, and more about the jaw-dropping, inspiring photos that you make with it ;)

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

NaPhoEMo

2010-11-02T11:27:00.000-04:00

As you may or may not know, November is National Novel Writing Month (or NaNoWriMo). The goal of NaNoWriMo is to write 50,000 words of a novel between November 1st and 30th. That works out to something like 1,667 words/day, which is no small task (especially if you're not usually a writer). I am not much of a writer, and I don't really have any interest in writing a novel, but I like the spirit of the challenge. It's similar to the 365 projects that photographers take on in that it forces you to be productive every day, even if you're not feeling particularly creative or inspired.

When I saw the NaNoWriMo tags popping up on twitter again, I started thinking about a good photography project to go along with it. I finally had my "ah hah!" moment. If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then the photographic equivalent of NaNoWriMo is 50 images that come together to tell a story (50 images x 1,000 words each = 50,000 words). This means that November is now also National Photo Essay Month, or NaPhoEMo (doesn't have quite the same flow as NaNoWriMo, but I think it works).

Sadly, this brilliant epiphany came to me a little late for me to execute it within the month. 50 images in a photo essay is a lot, and for each of them to be meaningful will require a lot of planning and editing. I'm writing about it here to get the idea down for next year, and to hopefully inspire a few of you in the process. I'll make a much bigger deal about it leading up to November 2011, and maybe we can get a little group going.

What do you think? Is NaPhoEMo the next big thing?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 43 wrapup

2010-11-02T08:00:00.006-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I had every intention of posting a nicely balanced photo of our lit pumpkins on the porch this week, but I missed the deadline. We didn't carve our pumpkins until Sunday, and by the time the light was right the trick-or-treaters were out in force. I still plan on grabbing the shot sometime this week - better late than never, right?

Instead, I give you this dreary and bleak outlook on the death of fall. I feel like I dropped the ball a bit on autumn photos this year, and so when I saw this scene last week I just had to stop and capture it. I think it pretty well sums up my feelings about the weather right now - moody and depressing. Trying to get over it and find things to photograph to carry me through the end of the year.

This week's pick is "Flasher" by slithy-toves:

Very apropos for the Halloween theme, especially with the little flecks of orange in the photo (some weird sort of flare?). The lensbaby adds a nice creepy blur to it, which is very fitting of the subject. Spooky stuff :)

In honor of daylight savings time ending this weekend here in the states, this week's theme will be "time." Show me what you got.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Beware of Cheap Tripods

2010-11-01T08:00:00.015-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

One of the biggest pitfalls for new photographers is choosing a tripod. Most photographers don't even buy a tripod to start out with, but eventually we all get to a point where the idea of a tripod is appealing - self portraits, the family Christmas photo, panoramas, long exposures, HDR bracketing, macro photography, etc. You hop online and look for some tripod recommendations, but everything you come across seems pretty expensive ($200+ for a tripod?), so you head over to the local Best Buy or Ritz and fork over 40 bucks for a cheap aluminum and plastic model. It has 3 legs, a camera mount, and is nice and light and compact. What more could you need? You chuckle with self-satisfaction at the people who are shelling out big money for expensive tripods. Suckers.

Then you start using your tripod. The second or third time you set up the legs and tighten them down on the center column the plastic screw snaps. Oh well, you always set them up wide open anyway, no need for a screw. You start keeping the tripod in your car so you can grab it when you need it. A few weeks later you re-adjust your seat and hear a crunch as you chip the plastic clamps on one of the legs (you forgot the tripod was on the floor behind your seat). No biggie, just a little scarring, and you can bend the leg back into shape so that it'll slide right. A month or so after that you're out on some rocks photographing a sunset. The tripod isn't perfectly level, and a gust of wind comes along and almost topples your camera over (good thing you were there to catch it). OK, you'll just stay within arm's reach of the tripod at all times. Finally, a year later, you pull your tripod out of the car again and notice that one of the feet has broken clean off. Game over.

This is pretty much what I went through with my first tripod (pictured above). I was never really happy with it, and regretted the purchase almost immediately after I started using it. The general rule for tripods is:

Lightweight, Sturdy, Inexpensive - pick two.

Fortunately, before my POS big box special finally broke, I picked up a used tripod on Craigslist. It's an old Bogen monster with a heavy duty 3-way head on it (I don't remember the model numbers). I got it for $60 (super inexpensive) and it's rock solid, but also weighs about 15 pounds (see the rule above) and is only 2 sections so it's about 3 feet long when collapsed. Despite the amount of hiking I do, I can live with that for now - it's easy enough to throw it over a shoulder. Some day I'll get a fancy carbon fiber tripod with a nice light ball head (light and sturdy, and definitely not inexpensive), but that'll have to wait.

If you're just starting out and haven't bought a tripod yet, I suggest saving yourself the agony of the cheap tripod. Even if you don't see yourself using a tripod that often, spending $100 once on a tripod that will last for a lifetime of light use and that you don't have to worry about breaking or knocking over is a much better idea than spending $40 several times on cheap tripods that could lead to other gear damage. Notice I said "light use" - if you want something serious and sturdy, spend the same $100 on a rock solid used tripod. It may be heavy, but you can beat it up and place it down just about anywhere (on rocks, in creeks, in a tornado, whatever) without worry. If you have the money, spending a few hundred on light weight sticks and a few hundred more on a silky smooth ball head will make your life a lot easier and more enjoyable. Hey, no one ever said this stuff was cheap. Think about it as buying another lens.

Have you fallen victim to the cheap tripod? I read a story the other day about a photographer whose camera fell down a cliff because of an unsteady tripod (don't believe the "protective filter" BS, that UV filter did nothing for the lens). Share your horror stories in the comments!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 42 wrapup

2010-10-26T11:56:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

This week was a pretty blah week for me photographically. The weather was blah, the leaves are mostly gone in the places I usually shoot, I was busy with life and didn't have much time for photography, etc. So, the best I could do this week was a cell phone shot of some dead corn against a slate gray sky. Enjoy ;) I'm going to make every effort to take some photos that I'm proud of this week. Hopefully that'll pan out.

My pick this week is "Splash" by irv_b:

For best effect, click here to see it larger. Really digging how the droplets were frozen by a fast shutter speed. The exposure is spot on, too - plenty of detail in the white feathers of the bird. And, for the icing on the cake, the bird is looking directly at the lens. Excellent capture, Irv.

The theme this week is "Halloween." Plenty of options here. 10 weeks left, folks, hop back in and finish strong!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Branding and Watermarks

2010-10-25T08:00:00.003-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

You may have noticed the little signature that has started showing up on all of my photos. Notice I call it a signature and not a watermark. What's the difference? Glad you asked.

Traditionally, a watermark is a security measure designed to authenticate a particular document. In the case of photography, a watermark is generally used by a photographer to prevent image theft. This can be a real concern - if you make your money selling images, what's to prevent anyone from scraping an image off your website and using it for their own means without paying you for it? The honest answer is: nothing. Even embedding images into a flash slideshow doesn't prevent someone from doing a screen capture and having a perfectly good web-res image to use. So by watermarking an image, at least you'll get credit for it when it gets scraped and you can use that as ammo to get paid (or at least get the image taken down), right?

Not necessarily. Turns out anyone with a copy of photoshop can pretty effectively scrub your little watermark right out of the image (even more so with the new content-aware fill in CS5, which is truly an amazing thing to behold). Some photographers counter this by placing a rather large watermark right in an important part of the image, making it extremely difficult to crop or clone out. (Remember, nothing is impossible...) The net result to the viewer is something like this:

image courtesy of Matt Beaty

This sort of big watermark, even if it's mostly transparent, is an immediate deal-breaker to me. Why would you share your image if you're going to throw something huge and distracting right in the middle of it? Makes no sense.

"OK Simon, so if your little signature isn't protecting your photos, why is it there?" Branding. Most of my photos are up on flickr with a Creative Commons license, which basically says that people are welcome to use my images for non-commercial purposes as long as I get credit for them. My images do make it onto people's blogs from time to time, so having my signature on the image helps to identify it as mine. (It would probably be better if you could actually read my signature, but that's not how I roll.) Because it's not distracting from the image, people are much more likely to leave it there rather than trying to crop or clone it away. It also means that people who are familiar with my work will recognize the signature when they see it, helping to build the brand that is Simon Hucko. It's not a very big deal at the moment, but it's laying the groundwork for future growth (ie if I have images in a gallery, send a bill, sign a book, print a calendar, hand out business cards, etc).

What are your thoughts on the situation? Should photographers watermark their images? Is my signature still too distracting and/or pointless? Should I be doing more to prevent image theft? Comment and let me know.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 41 wrapup

2010-10-19T08:00:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Well, we managed a few more photos this week, so I guess I'll continue. I know there are some lurkers out there who haven't been posting lately, and I encourage you guys to jump back on. 11 weeks left - you can do it! Plus, with fall here and the holidays coming, there are plenty of photo opportunities, so it shouldn't be hard to shoot something every week. Even a quick photo with a cell phone is better than no photo as long as it speaks to you in some way.

My photo this week is of a scene that I pass every day on the way to work. I love this field with the horses in it, and so often it screams out to me "take a photo!" I don't usually stop (mostly because I don't have a long enough lens to do it justice), but the other day the horses were closer to the road and right up against the changing trees. The power lines are a bit of a bummer (and another reason that I don't photograph this field much), but I can live with it.

My pick this week is "norwich cathedral" by irv_b:

There are so many great things going on with this photo, starting with the great use of framing. From the description: "...I added a bit of flash to lift the details from inside the arches." Great idea, I like the extra bit of detail that you get in the foreground this way. I also like the lighting on the building - sunlight on the subject with moody clouds in the background is one of my favorite things. Great photo of a lovely spot.

This week's theme is "Fall." For the seasonally challenged, you can always tackle a different meaning of the word ;) And, as always, the theme is just a suggestion to get your creative juices flowing. Feel free to post any photo that you want. I hope we'll get a few more of you to come back into the fold this week.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Gear Review: Lensbaby 2.0

2010-10-18T08:00:00.008-04:00

I had the opportunity to make a few photo-related purchases for my birthday recently. Something that I've had my eye on for a while is a Lensbaby. Rather than drop $200+ on one of the new ones that I may end up not liking and never using, I opted for a used copy of the last generation of Lensbaby (Lensbaby 2.0). It's basically a Lensbaby Muse with a double glass optic built in, which I figured was a good (and inexpensive) way to get started with the whole Lensbaby thing.

First off, I will say there is a bit of a learning curve. From a technical standpoint, all Lensbabies are manual exposure only, so if you're not comfortable with that you may want to steer clear (the point is to be inspired, not frustrated). Focusing accurately can also be a little tough, and I wound up shooting multiples of most subjects until I got what I was after (image review is helpful for this). From a creative standpoint, there are certain shots and effects that work better than others with this lens, so it takes a bit to get a handle on how to best use it. Of course, there's no *wrong* way to use it (that's kinda the point), but certain looks were more appealing to me than others.

Rather than give a technical review, I'm going to go through a series of shots I took showing the different looks I was able to get from the lens, and you can draw your own conclusions from that. I think that's more meaningful, anyway.

The classic Lensbaby look:

Focus in one part of the frame, everything else is blurring away from it. Because the blur is directional it takes on more of a zoom quality than an out of focus quality. This can be very effective in putting the emphasis on your subject. It also gets pretty old, pretty quickly (in my opinion, anyway), so I started looking for other ways to use the lens.

Tilt-Shift:

A Lensbaby is a pseudo-tilt/shift lens, but the field curvature of the optics messes with that and gives you a round sweet spot instead of a plane of focus. However, judicious framing and cropping can give you that tilt-shift look at the expense of some pixels. This is something I have to explore more.

Shallow Depth of Field:

Just glancing at this photo, it looks like a standard shallow depth of field image. Closer inspection of what is and isn't in focus reveals that there is indeed some Lensbaberie going on, but it's a different feel from the standard Lensbaby look. This is entirely composition and subject dependent - you need to find the right situation to make this work.

Lomo:

This is the look I see myself using most often - a reasonably sharp center blurring away at the edges. The square crop and vignette complete the illusion, and bingo bango - digital Holga. Seems to work best with mostly flat subjects at far distances.

Portrait:

This lens has some good potential as a portrait lens. It certainly puts the focus on your subject's face, and leads to a nice blur in the rest of the photo. I don't do a lot of portrait shots, but I'll have to play with this more. Maybe I'll do a family portrait series over the holidays with it. (Maybe.)

Overall I'm pretty happy with my purchase. Like any specialty lens, it's not something I'll use every day, but it's small and light enough to have earned a permanent spot in my bag. I think it will be a great cure for the blahs that settle in from time to time, and just might save my sanity this winter when the world gets gray and ugly. It also will be fun to pull out for some "different" shots at things like weddings, or on vacation at those touresty areas. And if nothing else, it's a good talking piece with other photographers.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Book Review: Examples by Ansel Adams

2010-10-14T08:00:00.000-04:00

Since I'm reading through it for the second time, I figured I would write a little review about "Examples: The making of 40 photographs" by Ansel Adams. (Amazon). Ansel Adams is probably the most well-known American photographer, and is most famous for his stunning black and white images of Yosemite (and black and white landscapes in general). If you aren't aware of his work, I highly recommend checking him out (wikipedia, Ansel Adams gallery).

The reason that I love "Examples" so much is that it's almost like having a conversation with Adams while flipping through his portfolio. Each photo is printed and then followed by 2-3 pages of discussion by Adams about the image. He includes as much as the technical information as he can remember (camera, lens, filter, film, exposure, etc), but also goes beyond the "how" into the "why" - why he was motivated to take this image, what the circumstances surrounding it were, how his feelings about the image have changed over time. He also randomly includes his thoughts about the art and craft of photography (at one point he even mentions how he is excited for the development of digital image capture). While the technical information is interesting to me, it's these little nuggets that really make the book a must-read.

Best of all, it's not that expensive to buy (currently $26.39 on Amazon). It would cost you more to buy postcards of the 40 photos in the book. If nothing else, this would be a good one to add to your holiday wishlist.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 40 wrapup

2010-10-12T08:00:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I finally bit the bullet and used some of my birthday money to get a Lensbaby. I have a review coming soon, so I won't talk too much about it here. Suffice to say, those things are super fun to play with. I went exploring with it the day it arrived, and came up with some good stuff. This shot really takes advantage of the Lensbaby blur to focus in on the subject. The black and white should come as no surprise to anyone. Keep an eye on my photostream this week for some more shots, and on the blog here for the review.

My pick this week is "angles" by irv_b:

Great abstract image here. I like the curve set against all the hard lines and angles, it makes for an interesting composition and keeps my eye bouncing around the frame. Nice find, and well captured.

No theme this week. I may be discontinuing these wrap up posts here and on the flickr group unless people start submitting more, as it makes no sense for me to make a "pick" out of the one or two submissions for the week. If you want to see this continue, submit an image. If not, we can part ways on this project. It's in your hands, guys.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Put your camera away

2010-10-11T08:00:00.003-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I realize that's a pretty strange title for a post on a photography blog, but sometimes it's good to just put your camera away. I took a trip to Boston with my wife last weekend to visit her sister and see the sites (and most importantly, eat the seafood). I of course brought my camera, and it came with me everywhere we went, but it spent most of the time safely tucked away in my camera bag. That's not to say that I couldn't access it quickly if I wanted to - it takes a matter of seconds for me to get the camera out and ready to shoot - but by not having it hanging around my shoulder or in my hands I didn't feel the compulsive need to take a photo of every semi-interesting thing that passed by. The net result was a great in-the-moment weekend and a high keeper ratio (I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think I shot around 75 frames, 29 of which will make their way to facebook). Most of the deleted shots were part of the short bursts I was shooting in the science museum to battle camera shake and subject movement ('twas dark in there).

The moral of the story is that you don't need to spend every minute of a vacation or event with a camera glued to your face. I'm not saying that you shouldn't bring a camera, but consider keeping it put away and only pulling it out for photo-worthy moments. Sure, you might miss a few quick grab shots, but the payoff is not having to go through your photos after the fact to find out if you had a good time or not.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 39 wrapup

2010-10-05T09:30:00.001-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

It's the most wonderful time of year if you're a nature photographer. Everyone loves fall foliage, and with plenty of overcast rainy days I've been chomping at the bit to get out and shoot some waterfalls. We're still a little off-peak here, but it's coming on fast and strong, and the next couple weeks are going to be amazing. I'm also hoping for a few clear fall days so that I can capture some leafy landscapes at golden hour. Nothing says autumn like a crisp blue sky. A polarizer is super helpful for knocking down the sky a bit and cutting reflections on the leaves, leaving you with a nicely saturated scene.

My photo this week was the product of a rainy expedition last Monday. This was the only photo I ended up keeping in color, the rest were better served in black and white (mostly due to the green leaves farther down the creek). The giant log is smack in the middle of the best series of falls on the stream and has been cursed many times over by local photographers. I decided to use it as part of my composition, and from this angle it makes a nice leading line up the stream.

This week's pick is "Autumn Trickle" by [Adam_Baker]:

© Adam Baker

Adam wound up shooting the same stream this week, but he headed up the other way and captured a part I haven't seen yet. I really like the series of little cascades, so this is on my list of places to check out and photograph before winter. The title says it all - the water was pretty low last week, so a lot of the falls on this stream were at the trickle stage. Given the hurricane and other rain we've had since, I'm guessing things are back to normal, so this particular shot no longer exists. Waterfalls can change daily, so it's fun to go back to a spot several times a year and see the changes. Nice shot, Adam.

(Adam is currently out on an epic fall photo trip through the Adirondacks and parts of New Hampshire, so now would be a good time to start following him on flickr so that you can enjoy all the autumny goodness when he gets back.)

This week's theme is "exploration." Show me what you got!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Waterfalls 101

2010-10-04T09:45:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

It looks like waterfalls are becoming my favorite subject to shoot. Photographing waterfalls is a very zen-like "back to nature" experience for me, and it touches on a lot of the reasons I enjoy photography. True, long exposure waterfall shots are nothing super new or creative, but when done right there's still a bit of magic to the cottony plumes of spray. (For what it's worth, my only photo ever to make explore on flickr is a waterfall shot.) My goal this fall is to capture the falls and foliage around here, so I thought I'd talk a bit about the process.

The first task is finding the falls to shoot. There are literally hundreds of waterfalls in upstate NY, so that's not too difficult here, but you may not be so lucky. This is where the flickr map can come in handy - you can search by keyword or tag in a specific location. Find your home town, zoom out to an acceptable driving radius, and search for waterfall. If nothing comes up, you still might be in luck (not everyone geotags their photos). Try google or ask some local photographers (especially landscape shooters) if they know of any.

The next consideration is flow. Different times of the year mean different flow rates over the falls. Creeks are usually at their highest after the spring thaw, and at their lowest around late summer/early fall (especially after a long dry spell). Waterfalls can look very different under these different flow conditions, from a roaring cascade to a quiet trickle. The ideal time for photos is usually somewhere in the middle, but the best practice is probably to visit the falls several times through the year. The same waterfall may take on a completely different character but still be highly photogenic, so there's no hard and fast rule here, just something to be aware of. Don't forget about winter - iced over falls and snow can make for some stunning shots.

Weather is also an important factor to good waterfall photos. Heavily overcast or even slightly rainy days are the best times to go shoot. Waterfalls are typically found in a gorge in shadow, but the trees and sky above the falls are often lit by the sun. If you go shoot on a sunny day, you'll have a lot of dynamic range to contend with, and you'll have to do some wizardry (ND grad or HDR) to even things out. Dark cloudy days also help to extend your exposure times, making it easier to get the silky smooth shots you're after. And, as a bonus, cloudy rainy days tend to discourage hikers so you won't have to contend with people walking into your shots. (Although that's not always a bad thing, right Adam?) Your camera is more weatherproof than you might imagine, just keep wiping it dry as water collects on it with a towel or microfiber cloth. Try to avoid getting water on your lens or filters, though, as it's very hard to get them dry again in the field and image quality will suffer because of it. I find that a lens hood is an excellent rain blocker, just make sure your lens is horizontal or pointing downward at all times.

Now for the actual photography part. The one absolutely essential piece of kit is a sturdy tripod. For a nice blur of the water you're looking at exposures in the seconds range, so you're going to need something rock solid to keep the rest of the scene sharp. If you can swing it, a nice carbon fiber tripod is probably the best for hiking in and out, but it's better to buy an old heavy monstrosity than a cheap aluminum tripod from a big box store. (It's not ideal for hiking, but a sore shoulder is better than soft photos.) E-bay and craigslist are good resources for this sort of thing. Consider putting a "want to buy" ad on your local craigslist, you never know what photographers have lying around that they'd be willing to part with on the cheap. Make sure whatever you buy is durable enough to get banged around a bit, and sturdy enough to be set up in moving water without worry of it washing away down the stream. More on that in a bit.

Another essential bit of gear is a polarizing filter. Water and wet leaves are very reflective, and it's nice to be able to cut those reflections to boost colors in your photo. This also produces an interesting effect where the falls drop into the stream and quickly disappear. A polarizer also serves as a roughly 2 stop ND filter, which can be enough on a cloudy day to get the exposures you're after without stacking filters.

An ND filter is probably a good thing to have as well, especially if you're caught out shooting on a less than ideal (ie sunny) day. I have a 3 stop ND that I stack on my polarizer. This leads to a bit of vignetting at wide angles, so I prefer not to use the ND filter if I don't have to, but it's better than nothing.

I generally find a wide to normal zoom lens to be the best for this sort of work. Access to the falls varies based on where you go, so while an ultra-wide can produce some interesting photos you can't always get that close. Filter vignetting is also an issue the wider you get, so that can be a bit of a limiting factor. I aim for exposures in the several seconds range (2-8ish), so the lowest ISO setting and a stopped down aperture (f/11-f/22, depending on conditions) are a must. Use your histogram or blinkies so that you're not blowing out the falls, you'll be sorry later if you do. With these multi-second exposures I haven't noticed a difference between using a remote release and just pressing the shutter, so I've given to working without a remote (it's just easier). This will vary based on how stable your tripod is and your shutter squeezing technique, so you may opt for a remote if you're not getting the sharpness you think you should be.

Waterfalls tend to lend themselves to vertical compositions, so that's how I shoot most of the time. Keep an eye out for horizontal shots, though, they're certainly out there. Often the best vantage point is in the middle of the creek, so don't be afraid to get wet. (I've been seriously considering purchasing a pair of hip waders for this type of work.) I recommend planting your tripod without the camera on it first to test depth/stability. Look for interesting foreground elements like rocks or leaves or smaller cascades to add depth to your shot. This is where that wide angle lens will shine. Also be on the look out for motion in the stream - over several seconds the bubbles or leaves may travel in an interesting pattern that you can use to add interest to your shot. Watch out for spray from the falls: like I said before, it's very difficult to get a lens properly dry and clean again when you're standing in the middle of a creek. If it does get wet, the best thing to do is walk away for a bit, wipe it with a microfiber cloth, let it dry, then clean it with some lens tissue or a lenspen to get any stream gunk off. If you really want the shot, keep your lens covered with a cloth until right before you make your exposure to help minimize spray.

Cloudy conditions are great for getting the exposures you want, but they tend to lead to somewhat flat photographs. My main edits are locking in white balance (you want the falls to be neutral or slightly cool) and boosting contrast. I find that I prefer converting to black and white for most shots, in which case I use color filtering to darken the stream even more (a blue/green filter removes the yellow/red/brown of the rock, making it darker - see below). Note: go easy on this effect in the fall, as the leaves will also get darkened down and it can look flat and unnatural.

That's about all I got, I guess. Questions/Comments? I'd love to hear 'em.

~S

© 2009 Simon Hucko

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 38 wrapup

2010-09-28T08:00:00.012-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

My photo this week was an image I found as part of my normal routine. It has sort of a "still life" feel to it, although I didn't position anything myself. This is probably my favorite thing about phone photography, the ability to capture an interesting image in the everyday. People see the world around them differently, and I'm always intrigued by these little slices of vision. As I've said all along here, camera phones are just fine for your weekly photo. What matters is the image and the vision behind it, not the gear you use to take it.

My pick this week is "Stifling Love" by slithy-toves:

I really like the juxtaposition of the soft heart-shaped leaves and the barbed wire - great find! I also like the lines here, and the way the one vine cuts across the wires. Very interesting and thought-provoking photo, thanks Stacey!

This week's theme will be "change." For those of you in northern climates, Fall is definitely on its way in, and leaves are starting to give up their green and show their true colors, so to speak. Don't feel limited to leaves, though, there are a lot of different ways to express "change" in a photo. Happy hunting!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Pop Quiz - How well do you know your camera?

2010-09-27T08:00:00.064-04:00

© 2009 Simon Hucko

Pop quiz time. Hope you all play along...

Where's your camera? You should know this without having to think about it, and ideally it should be close by. Go grab it, I'll wait.

Got your camera? Ok, without looking at it, turn it on. (We're going to do a lot of this "without looking" stuff, no cheating!) Before you look, what are the camera settings right now? (Shooting mode, focus mode, set aperture/ISO/shutter speed, image size and quality, etc.) Check to see how you did - at this point the camera should be on and at the settings you thought it was at.

Now to play a bit. Put the camera in an appropriate shooting mode for where you are right now (you can look for this one). Bring the camera up to your eye, frame an image, and fire off a shot. Now, without taking your eye away from the viewfinder, increase the exposure by 2 stops however you want and take another photo. Bring the exposure back to normal and adjust the ISO down a stop (if you're at the lowest setting, put it up a stop), take another photo. Zoom your lens to its widest setting, then all the way to the telephoto end. (Prime? attaboy.) Set the white balance to fluorescent. Switch to manual focus, find a new subject, focus on it and take a photo. Turn the flash on, take a shot. Change the flash exposure compensation down one stop, take another shot. Bring up one of the images on your review screen. View the histogram for that image. Change it so that it displays blown highlights (blinkies). Find the EXIF data and see what shutter speed the photo was taken at. Delete the image. Format your card (only if you don't have anything valuable on there!) Bring your camera back to its normal settings, shut it off, and put it away.

How did it go? Could you do everything without hunting for the controls? Even if you have to menu dive for some things, do you know how to quickly access those menus and make the necessary changes? If you can't easily make these adjustments while shooting, you need to spend more time with your camera. There's nothing worse than missing "the shot" because you were fiddling around with the gear. Spend an hour or two some day walking around your house shooting, adjusting these things as you go. If you have to hunt for a setting, spend some time changing it back and forth to commit it to memory. The less you have to look at your camera, the better.

So how about it? I'm interested to hear how you did. I'll be honest, I had to glance down at my camera for ISO and white balance. Something for me to work on.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 37 wrapup

2010-09-21T10:00:00.003-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I'll admit, I cheated again. I already had this shot in the can when I picked the theme for the week, complete with all it's delicious flare. Last Monday was an awesome evening weather-wise. We had bands of showers rolling through, and the sun kept poking out in between, leading to many a double-rainbow around town. More importantly, when the sun started going down, we had the most beautiful golden hour light I've ever seen. This shot was a bit of a grab shot on the way back to the car - I saw the couple standing by the lake back-lit by the sun and thought it would make a nice image. Luckily for me she leaned in to him right as I picked up my camera, allowing me to capture this great moment. I fired off a few frames, dropped my bag back in the car, and turned around to get their e-mail to send them a shot but they were already gone. Life waits for no one, I suppose... Sure, it has a trendy "engagement session" feel to it, but it totally does the evening justice light-wise.

My pick this week is "Gauangelloch" by djhucko:

© Dan Hucko

No flare here, but a beautiful sunrise capture. I like the framing he chose, putting the fog line on the lower third instead of the visible horizon. This puts the rising sun right at the classical "rule of thirds" placement for the subject, and it gets balanced out nicely by the tree in the lower right. I think this would make a very nice print, too. Excellent capture.

This week's theme is Camera Phone shots. The beautiful thing about your camera phone is that it's always with you. Find a little slice of your world to share with us this week, giving some insight into how you see things around you. Don't worry about resolution or fancy camera apps, a straight up camera phone shot is fine (and you can always pull it into your photo software and tweak it a bit there.) Looking forward to seeing what you guys post!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Pixels Aren't Really Free

2010-09-20T08:00:00.010-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Practice makes perfect, and photography is no exception to that rule. One of the best things about the digital photography era is the ability to shoot a nearly unlimited number of photos without worrying about additional cost. Now anyone can burn through 100+ frames experimenting with lighting or a new technique or a different subject, whereas the expense associated with such an exercise 10 years ago limited things like that to film school and driven amateurs with a large slush fund. Not only can you shoot as much as you want, there's no delay between pressing the shutter and seeing the image. No waiting to finish off the roll and sending it off for processing (or spending a few hours in the darkroom yourself developing and printing) to find out that you missed the focus or exposure on an otherwise great shot. This, along with the ease of sharing and getting feedback on your work, makes digital photography an incredible learning tool.

It also makes you sloppy.

It doesn't matter if you get it right the first time. Or the second. Or even the tenth. Just keep plugging away until you get something good enough to rescue in your software editing package of choice. Who cares, it's all free, right? Not exactly. What about the time you spend taking multiple photos of one thing until you get it right? How about the time spent in post processing fixing stuff that you could have gotten in camera. And then there's storage, if you're one of those digital pack rats who can't delete a photo you're going to be snapping up hard drives and bogging down your computer with giant photo libraries.

But there's another hidden cost in there - you stop learning your craft. Why spend time on making the perfect exposure when you can correct for it with a slider in post? If you miss on composition a little you can always crop down on the image. (Hey, 12 million pixels have got to be good for something, right?) Horizon a little crooked? No biggie, just straighten it as you go. And sure, these are just little fixes that take almost no time at your computer, but they add up (especially when you're doing them for those 327 frames you snapped on burst mode). On top of that, you're losing resolution and image quality along the way. It's nice to have these tools available, but you shouldn't be relying on them for every shot.

I think this is why so many photographers who started on digital are "discovering" film (myself included). Suddenly every shutter press costs something (from a few cents to a few dollars depending on the film, format and processing). There's no image review with histogram on the back of the camera, so you have to get exposure right the first time. If you take a shot and then walk a few feet and discover a better angle, you've wasted that first shot. You're stuck with whatever ISO film you have loaded in your camera, so you have to make sure you bring the right stuff for the type of shooting you'll be doing. Every film has its own look, too (especially color film), so that needs to be factored in to your final result. The net effect of this is that shooting film is much more patient and deliberate than shooting digital. That clunk of the shutter is like an emphatic period at the end of a long sentence: film choice, composition, lighting, metering, aperture and shutter speed, focus, timing, shutter. Unless your budget allows for unlimited shots, you'll quickly become more selective about what and how you shoot.

What's my point? If you've never done so, shoot some film. Find an old 35mm film camera on ebay or craigslist for cheap (bonus points if it's all manual) with a 50mm lens. Buy a roll or two of film from somewhere that still carries it (CVS around here happens to have a surprisingly decent supply and they still process in-house). Find a way to meter if your camera doesn't - you can use your DSLR for this, or even sunny 16 (ie the force), and make every single one of those 24/36 frames count. Get some 4x6 proofs printed and see how you did. Scan them and share them here or on Flickr. I bet you'll be back for more. Not only that, but it will change the way you look at digital photography - you will simultaneously be incredibly grateful for the ease and speed, and learn to slow down a little and make your images count more.

Note: Getting addicted to film is a dangerous game. You start with a bargain 35mm camera, and before you know it you're processing large format sheet film in your makeshift darkroom in the basement. Don't say I didn't warn you...

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 36 wrapup

2010-09-14T10:01:00.001-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

My photo this week is a little experiment that I did with some dry ice. It's not a very interesting photo, more of a proof of concept, and I was hoping for something better to share for the week but it didn't work out that way. There are a lot of photos of dry ice on Flickr (mostly as a bubbly smoky liquid in a glass of some sort), but I wanted a different effect. I figured if a long exposure can be used to smooth out moving water, it should have a similar effect on dry ice fog. And it did. 4 second exposure lit by my trusty LED flashlight, which I think is getting close to deserving its own post. Maybe I'll do a "what's in your bag?" thing sometime soon.

This week's pick is "Big Skies over Mendon" by maryshelby:

© Mary Shelby

Big skies indeed. The wide angle really helps capture the big fluffy clouds and gives the photo a nice sense of depth. I like the little red bush (?) in the foreground, too, it adds a nice layer of interest to the photo.

This week's theme is "flare" - point your camera at a light source and let it go wild. An open aperture will give you large blobs of flare across your photo, stopping down reduces these and gives you a starburst effect around the light source(s). Try both and see what you like best.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Aspect Ratio

2010-09-13T11:15:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I've mentioned aspect ratio in passing several times here, but I thought I'd dedicate a post to it, especially since it's something I've been working on lately.

The aspect ratio of an image is the proportion of the photo's dimensions (ie how wide it is compared with how tall). Common aspect ratios for photography are 3:2 (4x6 prints), 4:3, 5:4 (8x10 prints), 1:1 (square), and increasingly 16:9 (widescreen HD). Technically you can crop a digital image to any aspect ratio that you want, but it's much easier to print or display your photos if you stick to the normal formats.

So why so many formats? Why don't we all shoot the same thing? It would make printing and photo site design much easier, as you wouldn't have to worry about differently sized photos popping up. There are two answers to this question, a technical one and a creative one.

The technical answer has to do with legacy film formats. 35mm film has a 3:2 aspect ratio, which is why most DSLR cameras are 3:2 as well. Common medium format aspect ratios were 6x4.5 (4:3), 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. Large format (sheet film) comes in 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14. I'm assuming this is where those standard print sizes stem from, as 35mm never really translates well to any of them... 4:3 and 16:9 are also display formats (normal and wide screen TV), so they make sense for digital photo viewing as well. (I'm guessing this is why just about every point n shoot camera is 4:3.)

The creative reason (which may have driven the technical development mentioned above) is that every format has a slightly different feel to it. Square format photos have a very static well defined feel to them. As you deviate from square, photos start to feel wider or taller, imparting somewhat of a dynamic feel even before considering the subject. As an example, I took to photos of essentially the same subject last weekend. The first is a square shot -

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Despite the movement in the water it's a pretty static and calm shot. Compare that with the same scene framed in 2:1 -

© 2010 Simon Hucko - click to see it large

Note that the vertical captured is about the same for the two (from just above the bridge to the bottom of the second little waterfall). This time, however, we're capturing a larger part of the scene. The bridge goes from being a static and self contained subject to part of a sweeping image. (Note also that I bucked those formats I talked about and went with 2:1. If I were to print this at some point I'd have to get it printed in a less wide format like 3:2 and trim it down, then custom mat and frame it. A bit of work, but worth it for wider stuff like this.)

So how do you decide what format to use? Well, that's up to you. As I already mentioned, more square formats tend to feel more static and complete, where wider (or taller) formats can give the feeling of movement. Sometimes the subject dictates what format to use, where the interesting compositional elements are contained in a certain layout and you crop out the rest. Sometimes you have more freedom to choose a format, in which case it's worth experimenting with a few options and seeing what you like.

Often times when I approach a subject I'll have some idea of what I want the final format to be. Certain scenes just look square to me, and certain ones benefit from a bit of extra width. I then compose my shot with the crop in mind, making sure I fit all the elements into the space that I'll wind up using.

If you approach a scene and aren't sure what format you want, my advice is to compose a little loosely so that you'll have more options while editing. Make sure all of the key elements of a scene are in your photo, and then back up or zoom out a little to leave yourself a cushion for cropping. There's nothing worse than going for a square crop and coming up just short of including the entire subject (trust me, I've been there, and 4x5 just isn't the same...)

The right crop can elevate a good photo to greatness. So much of photography is eliminating objects from the frame and only including the ones that add to your story. I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with the effects of different aspect ratios on your photography. If you have a photo with a good subject that still feels a little unfocused to you, try cropping out different parts of the image and see if you can increase its impact.

I've been getting more and more into square format lately, as a stroll through my photostream will quickly show. I still shoot a lot in 3:2 (the native ratio for my camera) since that's what I compose in. I also like the super wide 16:9 (or 2:1) for certain scenes. I've been on the lookout for vertical 1:2 images as well, but those are hard to come by (if you want a challenge, spend a day shooting for that crop).

What's your favorite aspect ratio?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Shutterfly

2010-09-10T07:45:00.003-04:00

A quick plug for Shutterfly. If you're not a member, I encourage you to go sign up for an account. I believe you get something like 50 4x6" prints just for joining.

The reason that I'm mentioning it here is that they have sales on their photobooks every few months. Occasionally, they'll even give one away for free. They were running a free book promotion at the end of the summer, so I threw together a small collection of phone photos and had it printed up for less than $9 after tax and shipping. Their print quality isn't great by any means, but it's plenty good enough for personal stuff. My wife and I have replaced doing photo albums with ordering these books: every time a sale comes around we'll pull photos from recent events and order one. Sure, it's probably cheaper to keep albums of 4x6 prints, but the space saving and convenience is worth the extra cost (and in the long run I think that extra cost is very minimal once you consider album and print cost and the time it takes to put all the photos in the sleeves). It's nice to be able to design layouts and add text, too, although I went for full bleed with these photos to be artsy (or something like that).

If you've never printed a photo book, I suggest giving it a try. It's pretty cool to get a hard copy of your work that you can pass around to friends and family.

Note: I'm not affiliated with Shutterfly in any way, other than being a customer. I'm certainly not making any money off of this post.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 35 wrapup

2010-09-08T08:00:00.001-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

So "square" as a theme is almost cheating for me: I'd say a good third of my work these days ends up as a square crop. I probably could have stretched myself a bit to find a square subject, but I didn't have any time to shoot this weekend so I had to go with something from earlier in the week. This spot is at the end of a small lake downstream from the local reservoir and is apparently quite a popular swimming hole. There were some kids jumping off a cliff, and then this group that swam over to the dam. I was on the cliff above them and grabbed the shot. There was actually a fourth swimmer in the frame behind these three, but I cropped him out when going to square (3 subjects is much more visually pleasing than 4).

My pick this week is "River Severn - Ironbridge" by q-pix

© q-pix

Lovely black and white landscape. However he did the black and white is very nice, lots of texture and detail across the image. Nice use of the river as a leading line to bring the viewers into the frame, too.

This week's challenge is to use the widest angle lens you've got and make a compelling photo with it (no cropping allowed!). Don't just default to a wide landscape, either, there are a lot of interesting things you can do with a wide angle perspective (people, places, objects, the sky's the limit!). Flip your landscape to vertical and capture an interesting detail in the foreground. Give some great context to your environmental portraits. Surprise me, or give me something simple but excellent.

I'd also like to see a few people who are hovering around at the fringe come back to the fold and start posting again. We miss you guys! Thanks to the core group who's been keeping up with me here, it's nice to have your photos every week :)

Go shoot!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

The Human Eye - way more than a camera

2010-09-07T08:00:00.123-04:00

© 2008 Simon Hucko

When talking about photography, the comparison between a camera and the human eye inevitably gets discussed. Lately this discussion usually centers around dynamic range, and getting a scene to look more "natural" through HDR imaging. Sure, we're able to see a lot more detail than our camera sensors, but there's a lot of half-truths and misinformation floating around out there.

Let's start with some basic anatomy (mostly referenced from wikipedia). The human eye is indeed set up somewhat like a camera. We have a lens, an aperture (your pupil, which is actually located in front of the lens), and a sensor (optic disk). The optic disk actually has two types of light sensing receptors, rods and cones. Rods cannot perceive color but are very sensitive to light and give us our low light and peripheral vision. Cones are the color receptors and make up what we think of as our normal vision. Our pupils have an aperture range of roughly f/2-f/8. We have an approximately 170 degree wide by 120 degree vertical field of view (which is huge, like fisheye huge!), but the actual sweet spot of your vision is much smaller (sorry, don't have a number for you). As far as resolution goes, I've seen numbers all over the board. You have about 5 million cones in your eye, so you get 5MP of color resolution. But then you have another 100 million rods that give b/w contrast, which adds another 100MP. On top of that, we have two eyes, and we're able to sweep them around the scene and soak up more detail, so some people estimate our resolution around 500MP or more! But I'm not sure our vision is good enough to actually resolve all this (worse for some than others), and the dynamic aspect of our vision and the crazy processing that goes on in our brain makes resolution somewhat pointless to talk about. Suffice to say that what we resolve and what we actually need to see an image are two different things.

On to the dynamic range can of worms. Your eyes have a static contrast ratio of about 100:1, or about 6 1/2 stops. Seems kinda low, doesn't it? Static contrast ratio means what you're able to see without any adjustments. Add in allowances for pupil dilation and chemical adjustment of your photo receptors (sort of like changing the ISO on your camera) and you get to a dynamic contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, or about 20 stops. (Note, dynamic contrast is a term often thrown around by TV manufacturers, too, and is a bit of handwaving to get themselves a bigger number. Shop by static contrast ratio whenever possible). So, when scanning around a scene, you're able to see those shadow details and the bright highlights because your eyes are adjusting as you go. Try looking at something bright for a second and then quickly turning to something dark and you'll notice that it takes a bit for you to adjust and fully see what's happening (think driving into a tunnel or walking out into a sunny day from a relatively dark building). Therefore, your camera isn't really doing that bad a job (most digital cameras capture 5-9 stops of light), it just doesn't have the ability to adjust across a scene the way our eyes do.

So what do we do? Bracketing shots for HDR makes sense, because we're doing the same thing our eyes do - adjusting the sensitivity to resolve detail in different parts of the scene. What doesn't make sense is viewing these images at 500p on the web. No wonder HDR looks so fake, we don't actually see all 20 stops of information at once normally. For HDR to work, I think you'd have to view it at a large enough size that you can't see the whole image at once. Actually, for HDR to truly be effective, we need to replicate the scene in the way that our eyes see it - a large image of around 6 stops of dynamic range that adjusts which 6 stops it shows you based on where your eyes are. Sounds kind of sci-fi, but retina tracking is very real, and I imagine something like this isn't out of the question (although not easy and certainly not something that's going to be built into every display out there). That or we need a display with a bright enough light source and an actual contrast ratio of 20 stops so that our eyes can do what they do best. That might be a more reasonable approach.

HDR aside, there are other things that our eyes and brain do naturally which influence photography and post processing. Let's start with vignetting. Why does a vignette on a photo work? Because our vision is the same way. Take a second to examine your peripheral vision. It's a bit darker, kind of oval shaped, right? So looking at a photo with a bit of vignetting gives us the impression of standing there looking at the scene. (Note that I said a bit of vignetting, you can definitely go overboard here.) You can take it a step farther and slightly desaturate and blur the edges of the photo along with the vignette, giving a much more true-to-life view. This is partially why I love larger format film photos taken with older cameras, they seem to produce this effect naturally and wonderfully.

Black and white works because we have so many more receptors for light and contrast than we do color, so we're visually attuned to that anyway. In fact, when you're stumbling around in a dark room, you're getting very little color information from your eyes. So, even though black and white was initially a chemical and technological limitation, it also relates to how we see the world on some level.

Color temperature and white balance are such a pain because we don't normally think about it. Our brains are incredible at adjusting and adapting to color temperature, and even mixed lighting can look normal and right in our mind. However, if you've ever tried to photograph a room with fluorescent, tungsten and daylight you've probably gone insane trying to balance them all out. I'm not sure why our brains don't balance this information in an image like they do with real life, possibly an image on a screen or wall is lacking the context that we get in real life and the references for color as they pass through different lighting. The important thing here is to learn to see these color differences before pressing the shutter so that you can adjust for them (gels, custom white balance, turning off the fluorescents all together, etc).

Finally, your brain is an incredible processing engine, and it constantly lies to you. There's a difference between what your eyes see and what your brain sees - a lot of things get processed out and ignored (because if the 500MP guys are right, that's just way too much information to handle on a constant streaming basis). You're physically attuned to filter out distractions and familiar objects, focusing on what's changing or where your interest lies. This filter never shuts off, so when you're composing a shot through your viewfinder it's easy to overlook things like branches, telephone wires, and other distractions that will later become glaringly obvious in the photo. With some practice it's possible to turn this filter off and really see what's there in front of you, which will help greatly in processing. (Let's face it, cloning stuff out that you could have fixed on site sucks.) This is also why some images just don't come out as strongly as you hoped - all of the context that you had when you were there and taking the photo doesn't get represented in the image, just whatever was in the frame. It's up to you to take that frame and place it around the important elements of a scene, capturing what you feel in a small 2D slice of time. Sometimes that's not even possible, and recognizing what won't work as a photo is part of the battle. Hey, no one ever said photography was easy.

I hope this was somewhat informative and that it gives some insight into why your eyes and your camera see the world differently. Spending a few minutes thinking about the difference can save you from a lot of trial and error with your camera. And please, for the love of god, no more sloppy, tiny, halo ridden, gray HDR - there's nothing natural about it.

Note: most of the information in this article comes from wikipedia, other random googling, and my own reasoning and experiences. If I missed something or got something wrong, please let me know in the comments and I'll correct it.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Vault Photography

2010-09-02T20:50:00.002-04:00

Huge thanks to Matt Beaty for picking me for the comment of the month contest he's running on his blog (Vault Photography Blog).

Matt is working his way through photo school at Northern Arizona University, and talks a lot on his blog about his experience as a photo student, along with his other photographic endeavors. He takes some excellent portraits, and shares his experiments on the blog (including what didn't work, which can be more worthwhile than what did sometimes). I enjoy his somewhat irreverent view on photo school and photography in general, and always like seeing a new post pop up in the reader. Please head over and give it a read, and consider adding it to your RSS reader too.

Matt also asked me to write a guest post for him some time, and I'm hoping he'll trade with me one week so that I can host him here.

You can find Matt in the following places:

Vault Photography Blog
Twitter (give him a follow)
Flickr
Vault Photography

~S [title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 34 wrapup

2010-08-31T08:00:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

The theme this week was "lines." True to form, I didn't exactly stick to the theme, but there are definitely some implied/less-obvious lines in my composition this week. When I look at the photo I find myself starting at the top with the bridge, which leads me to the stone wall. The wall leads me down to the water, which flows down toward the bottom left of the frame. These lines give the image a natural progression, which helps the viewer connect with the different details of the photo. The 25 second exposure is probably way overkill, but you can't argue with the smoothness of the water. I got up before dawn that day and hiked down into the gorge by flashlight. I was hoping that sunrise would find its way onto this scene so I could get some golden morning light, but despite facing east the gorge blocked out the sun. The lighting is a touch flat, I tried to punch it up a little in post, but there's a lot of detail in the trees and under the bridge that would get lost in more direct light. Later that day we hiked back down and the gorge was packed with people splashing through the stream and harsh overhead sunlight. If you're into shooting landscapes and naturey stuff like this, you're going to have to learn to love your pre-dawn alarm clock.

My pick this week is "Slug Trails 2" by djhucko:

© Dan Hucko

Talk about lines! Much like last week's sunflower photo, this image gives some wonderful insight into a world I had never even really thought about. I've seen slugs oozing across a deck or sidewalk, but I never realized how lackadaisical they are in their wanderings. The paw prints add another layer of interest, and the fact that the two slugs are in the frame gives the photo a nice concrete subject to return to after roaming around the squiggles. Very nice.

Since this weekend is Labor Day, I'll be extending the deadline to Monday 9/6 at midnight. This week's theme will be "square." Square crop or square subject (or both), I leave that up to you. With the holiday this weekend, you should all have no trouble taking one photo to post, so I hope to see a lot of submissions this week!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Shoot the Moonlight

2010-08-30T09:05:00.001-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

After the sun goes down, you're probably not thinking about going out to photograph landscapes. However, the moon puts off a surprising amount of light, especially when it's close to full. You're still looking at several minute exposures, but you can get some interesting lighting (and some surprisingly blue skies) if you have a tripod and the patience to explore.

Another nice side effect of shooting at night is that it's much easier to add your own light to a scene. Something as simple as a flashlight can help you define important parts of your landscape. This technique is known as light painting. The idea is to use light selectively on portions of the image during a long exposure.

The photo above was just shy of 2 minutes at f/8, ISO 800. I used a LED flashlight to paint in the waterfall, ensuring that it would show in the photo with the relatively brighter moonlit rocks in the foreground. The high ISO and long exposure led to a bunch of noise (including some magenta fringing in one corner of the sensor). Some creative cropping, noise reduction and some selective desaturation resulted in a very usable image. If I did it again I would have opened the aperture up a stop or two and used a shorter exposure. This would have made my little flashlight effectively brighter (more on that some other time), helping the waterfall pop.

If you don't have one, I really recommend a little LED flashlight for your bag. They're cheap, bright, more or less daylight balanced (generally a little cooler), and can be used for many different things (light painting, finding your way/gear in the dark, focusing in low light when using flash, etc.)

Light painting was fun. It's probably not a technique I'll use often, but it was interesting to experiment with. What new techniques have you tried lately?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 33 wrapup

2010-08-24T09:55:00.001-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

So apparently I haven't been very good about sticking to the theme lately. I have ideas when I choose them, and often they just don't work out. I figured green would be easy with all the summer greenness, and then it rained all week. Fortunately I had a few other photographic opportunities this past week. My photo was taken at a local minor league game. If you're looking to brush up on your baseball shooting skills, this is definitely the way to go - there was maybe one official photographer there, and they didn't even look twice at my camera bag when I walked in with it. I bet if you asked nicely it'd be easy to get yourself a "press pass" to something like this, and while you may not be able to use the images for anything other than posting on Flickr, it would be great practice. Thanks to my wife for letting me borrow her 55-200.

My pick this week is "Opening up to the Possibilities" by maryshelby:

© Mary Shelby

When I think "green" I don't usually think about sunflowers, but she nailed this one. The title is perfect, and definitely sets the tone for the photo. A wonderful capture of something that happens every day but most people never see. My only suggestion would be to get up a foot or so higher so that the tree line in the background disappears and you get a nice uniform green/yellow backdrop, but that's just nitpicking on my part.

This week's theme will be lines. Find a way to work lines into your composition to lead your viewer where you want them to go. And go shoot! We keep dwindling down here, I'd really like to see some people rejoin us for the rest of the year. If you've been busy this summer, now's the time to dust off your camera and jump back in. No excuses necessary, we'd love to have you back!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Make History with Slide Film

2010-08-23T08:00:00.009-04:00

© 2009 Simon Hucko

I read a comment in a forum somewhere in the past week that really got me thinking. Unfortunately, I have no idea where I read it so I can't give it proper credit, but it definitely inspired this post. Thanks, anonymous photographer, for your insight.

For Christmas this past year, my dad was able to grab two rolls of Kodachrome for me. I immediately stuck them in the fridge and began plotting what to do with those 72 precious frames. The Photographer (capital P) in me called out for beautifully lit, color rich photos that will fully take advantage of this legendary film. I've been hoarding the shots, and to date have only taken 9 frames or so that I felt were "worthy" of this mighty emulsion.

Then I read something that has completely changed my perspective on what to do with this film. I'm still saving it for special shots, but my definition of special has been tweaked a little. First, some background:

If you're not aware, Kodachome is slide film. Unlike regular film, which produces a negative when developed, slide film gets processed into a positive image. The beauty of this is that the image is entirely self-contained. Anyone, anywhere, any time can pick up a slide and see what was documented there, no computer or fancy equipment necessary (although a loupe is helpful). Combine that with Kodachrome's long lasting dye process, and you have an archival image that will stand the test of time.

Let me put it this way: in 100 years, someone can pull out a box of slides and see grandma and grandpa standing in front of their first house. No hard drives that can't be plugged in, no ancient image formats to decode, just a pure analog image of something that might otherwise be lost forever.

With that in mind, I've decided to re-purpose my Kodachrome into a photographic time capsule. The remaining 63 frames will be of people, places and things that are important to me. Once I get the mounted slides back from the lab, I'm going to sit and write the important who/what/when/where/why on every slide in archival ink, and store them in an appropriate container with a loupe. If I can find a nice enough container, maybe my wife will even let me keep them out on the coffee table ;) I hope to pass these slides on to my children some day, and for them to become a sort of family history from the year 2010 (a very firm deadline, since the only lab that still processes Kodachrome is shutting down the machine at the end of December). It's a somewhat weighty and ambitious plan, but I think it's a good project and a good historical use for my photography. There will be plenty of other opportunities for "pretty shots."

Unfortunately, Kodachrome is pretty much non-existent these days. You might be able to find some for ridiculous prices on ebay still, but I don't recommend it. If you're interested in a project like this, any slide film will do. Modern emulsions and processes don't have the staying power that Kodachome does, but they should last long enough for a few generations to enjoy. You don't even need a fancy camera for it - since your goal is more documentary in nature you don't have to worry about nailing exposure every time or super shallow depth of field. Find a used 35mm point n shoot if you have to and use that. Subject and composition are king, and if you concentrate on that you can't go wrong. Of course, if you have any interest in film, buying a film SLR that will take the same lenses as your DSLR isn't a bad idea... Ebay and Craigslist are great places to snap up old 35mm gear, or you can hit up a few garage/yard/estate sales for a real steal.

If you're just not into film, you can do a similar project with prints. Make sure you get archival quality prints and find a good way to store and present them that will last for a while. A lot of printers now offer special coatings that are supposed to resist fingerprints and extend the life of the image, which might be worth looking into.

So what do you think? Is this a project you're going to do? Or am I just being sentimental and a bit of a film nut? Your thoughts, questions, comments and concerns are always appreciated.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 32 wrapup

2010-08-17T09:45:00.002-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I tried out a few "circle" concepts this week, but nothing came out well. So instead I give you this shot of some summer flowers. I noticed the bees buzzing around, so I camped out by an attractive group of flowers and waited for one to land. Notice that there are three flowers in the main subject group: people tend to find photos of an odd number of things more pleasing than an even number. Don't know why, but it seems to work. I was planning on this being a square shot when I took it, although I didn't quite leave enough room for all the flowers. This is where having multiple aspect ratio guides in the viewfinder would be really handy, but I guess I'll just have to learn the hard way. I've been on a desaturation kick lately, I guess it gives things more of a "film" look which I've been ~~obsessed with~~ interested in as of late.

My pick this week is "summertime" by irv_b:

© irv_b

I love the story of this photo. Shooting in the rain is a big pain in the butt, but it definitely pays off if you do it right. Great street shot!

This week's theme is "green" - take that how you will. It would be nice to see a few people come back to regular posting, you know who you are. We miss you guys!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Perseid Meteor Shower

2010-08-12T09:55:00.005-04:00

If you're interested in shooting some stars (or in some shooting stars), my dad left a nice bit of info in the comments from this week's wrapup:

"For all of you "star shooters" out there, tonight is the peak night for the annual Perseid meteor shower, one of the greatest shows in the night sky. As the earth travels through the debris trail of comet 109P Swift/Tuttle, you might see 60 to 75 meteor streaks per hour.

If you want to witness this magnificent spectacle, go out after midnight and find a dark hilltop. Face the north east (use that compass you keep in your photo bag) and watch the show. If you want to find the peak time to watch in your area, check out the Fluximator, an interactive tool that calculates the number of meteors you could expect to see at your location and when the best viewing will be. Check it out here

This year's display will be above average, due to more debris in the sky and the fact that the new moon will set early tonight-leaving the sky dark.

Go out and check out the show and shoot some star and meteor trails. Of course if it's cloudy, then go to bed."

Unfortunately it looks like rain all night here, so I won't be able to partake, but if your forecast is more favorable I suggest checking it out. Thanks again for the tip!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 31 wrapup

2010-08-10T08:00:00.048-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I have to admit that I pick the weekly theme based on my photography goals/plans for the week. This week I knew that I was headed up to a party at my friend's and that I'd have plenty of chances for people shots. But hey, my blog, I get to make the rules. I'm glad that people aren't feeling constrained by the themes, and from the two responses I got it seems that they're somewhat helpful, so I'll keep throwing them out there every week.

My photo this week was a grab while we were riding around the lake on the boat. I took a ton of shots off the back while people were skiing/wakeboarding/tubing, which was a blast (and a lot harder than I anticipated). I've been on a "shoot wide open" kick lately, so I slapped my polarizer on there to darken the sky, cut some glare off the water, and to knock everything down so I could use the wide aperture. "Wide open" on my zoom is f/4.5, so we're not talking super shallow depth of field, but I like the effect - just enough blur on the background to help your subjects pop while still giving some context to the shot. I may have overdone it a bit with the polarizer and the vignette, but oh well. Black sky is fun sometimes.

My pick this week is "Stars swirl over Beech Hill Pond" by chofler:

© chofler

I've been wanting to take a star trail shot like this for a while and never seem to make it happen. I love the placement of the north star in the frame, I think it's very well balanced. Apparently this was a bit of an accident, which is partially why I picked this photo. First, happy accidents are a big part of photography. There is certainly some luck involved with creating images, and it goes both ways (good and bad). The trick is only sharing the good ;) Second, I left a little tip as a comment on the image, but I thought I'd share it here too: go buy a cheap compass and keep it in your camera bag. Not only can this help you locate things like the north star, it's also useful in figuring out where the sun will rise and set and how it will fall on a scene at different parts of the day/year. If you have one of them smart phones it probably has an electronic compass built in, which can do the same thing. If you're lucky enough to have an Android phone, download "Google Sky Map" (link) for an augmented reality view of where the stars are. (It's also really good for showing off your sweet phone, as it has a certain "holy crap how do they do that" factor). Great shot, and thanks for the teachable moment :)

This week's theme is circles. Show me what you got.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Some Thoughts on Lenses

2010-08-09T08:00:00.012-04:00

© 2009 Simon Hucko

I've already said my piece about buying a camera (point n shoot or DSLR). Time to focus on lenses (pun intended, sorry).

One of the main reasons to buy a DSLR is the ability to change lenses. With a compact camera, you're stuck with one lens that has to do everything you want it to. While it may be convenient to have a 20x zoom with "macro" focusing built into your camera, the quality of said lens is often rather terrible (especially out at the super-zoom range). Think "Jack of all trades, master of none." Having interchangeable lenses allows you to tailor the performance of your lens to the task at hand, resulting in much better quality. Like everything else in photography, lens design involves a series of trade-offs. I'll touch on a few of the major classes of lenses and some of the trade-offs that are made when designing and buying a lens.

Kit Zoom - These are the lenses that get bundled with consumer level DSLR's, typically 18-55mm. I also consider the 55-200mm lenses in this category. These lenses typically have mediocre optical performance coupled with cheap build quality and slow variable max apertures. Everyone starts here, but if you're serious about photography you'll quickly outgrow these lenses.

Super-zoom - Similar to the huge zoom range point n shoots, these lenses offer a one-stop solution to all of your photography needs. A common range here is 18-200mm for crop sensor cameras, or 28-300mm for full frame. Some go even more extreme, I've seen 18-270mm or 18-300mm from some of the 3rd party lens makers. Advantages: a good "travel" or "walk around" lens, it'll cover all the focal lengths you could need without having to switch lenses. This makes packing for a trip or strolling around the neighborhood easy, and you'll never be caught with the wrong lens on your camera. Disadvantages: Optical quality is often lackluster at best. Expect major distortion at both ends of the zoom range, vignetting, soft images, and slow apertures. Probably not something you're going to want to make 20x30 prints from.

Fast Prime - I've talked about these ad nauseum. I love 'em. See my first post about it here. Advantages: Relatively inexpensive, small, and light. Super fast apertures compared to zooms. Very sharp and distortion free, especially when using full frame glass on a crop sensor. Disadvantages: Price per extra stop of aperture skyrockets, primes also get more expensive the farther you get away from 50mm, optics are often somewhat soft wide open, very shallow depth of field when working wide open.

Fast, Fixed Aperture Zoom - These are the workhorses of the professional world, they typically come in 3 flavors from each manufacturer: a wide zoom (14-24mm f/2.8), a standard zoom (24-70mm f/2.8), and a telephoto zoom (70-200mm f/2.8). There's also a crop sensor equivalent of the standard zoom, usually somewhere around 17-50mm f/2.8. Advantages: Nice fast fixed aperture allowing for better working shutter speeds and more control over depth of field. Generally built like a tank, definitely designed for professional use. Optically some of the best lenses on the market. Disadvantages: Price is the major drawback here, with these lenses typically coming in around $1500-$2000, maybe even more. 3rd party manufacturers offer these lenses at lower prices, but the build quality is nowhere near as good. Weight and size are also drawbacks, as these lenses tend to be much larger than others with similar focal lengths due to the fast fixed aperture.

Macro - This is a popular specialty lens, as they're not too pricey and open up a whole new world of photography. A true macro lens will give you 1:1 or better, meaning the image on the sensor when focused in all the way will be the same size as the object in real life. Advantages: These lenses focus super close, and are designed to be super sharp when doing it. The only way to go if you're into close-up photography. Disadvantages: They're all prime lenses, meaning this is truly a specialty lens. Depending on the focal length it can also function as a portrait lens, but often they're slow to focus because they have such a huge focus range to move through. Also, they tend to have smaller maximum apertures than other primes in the same range (f/2.8-f/3.5), so it's not going to function as a "fast prime" in your kit. Finally, if you get into macro you're going to wind up with a big bulky tripod and some focusing rails to do it properly, so be prepared for the extra gear and expense. Note: Beware of zooms that promise "macro" focusing, they typically only get you 1:3 magnification or less. Sure, it's nice to have a close focusing zoom, but don't expect a true macro experience.

Super-Telephoto - If you're into wildlife photography, you can never have a lens that's too long (we're talking 400-600mm here). These lenses come in both zooms and primes, with the primes typically being faster and better quality. Advantages: There's no substitute for optical reach. If you want to photograph tiny objects far away, these are the lenses for you. They're also some of the sharpest lenses on the market. Disadvantages: Size and price. These lenses are huge, heavy, expensive, and require beefy tripods with specialized heads on them to handle the weight. Not something you're going to grab and go for a walk with, and you may need to take out a second mortgage on your house just to afford one.

Ultra-Wide - One of the initial drawbacks to crop sensor cameras was that it was hard to find a truly wide angle lens for them. This gap has been filled in the last year or so, and so there are a lot of wide angle zooms in the 10-20mm range. These lenses produce a very specific look, and definitely have some "wow" factor when used correctly. Advantages: Get some crazy perspectives with the huge field of view. Cover sweeping landscapes without the need to stitch together a panorama. Wide angle lenses also have greater depth of field, so it's easy to get more in focus. Disadvantages: Some serious perspective distortion possible, especially when shooting people: it'll probably take some work to figure out how to properly use this lens. Barrel distortion is prevalent, meaning you'll get a pseudo-fisheye look sometimes. This can be corrected in software, but is good to be aware of.

Fisheye - Definitely a specialty lens. Projects a 180 degree view onto your sensor with wildly distorted lines. Images can be "de-fished" in post, making these lenses ideal for quick and dirty panoramas (you can cover a 360 degree field of view in three shots). Advantages: Uber depth of field and field of view meaning you can pack a lot into your shot. Distortion effects can be used artistically. Disadvantages: The fisheye look can get old, quickly. This isn't a lens you'll be shooting all of your work with (hopefully), so it's up to you if you want to spend the money on a lens that will only get used occasionally.
_____________________________________________________

In the end, lens choices come down to a trade-off between zoom range, optical quality, size/weight, build quality, and price. You can often find excellent optical quality from the third party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) for 1/2-1/3 the price of the Nikon/Canon equivalent. The downside there is that they typically skimp on build quality and generally have worse quality control than the major manufacturers, meaning you're more likely to get a lemon. Always do your research before buying a lens so you know what you're getting. I recommend the following sites for more information:

photozone.de has some excellent lens reviews. Unfortunately, they're a bit sparse when it comes to 3rd party lenses.
dpreview.com has only recently gotten into the lens review game, but they also do an excellent job with the limited selection available.
lensrentals.com gives some good real-world information with each lens. If they have the lens available for rent, that typically means it meets some minimum quality standard. They seem to be pretty honest with their reviews, and will note any major drawbacks to a particular lens.
amazon.com is a good place to get a general idea of what the lens is and how people feel about it. You won't get super specific lens testing (sharpness, etc), but you can get a general feel for the quality of the lens.
flickr.com is great because there's a group for just about every lens ever made. There you can read people's questions and problems with a lens and see images shot with it.

Hope that helps. Some day soon I'll write up a "which lens should I buy?" article, as the answer is a lot longer than you might think and this will serve as a nice reference for it. What's your favorite lens?

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 30 wrapup

2010-08-03T12:00:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

My photo this week is less about texture than I had planned, but I still think there's some interesting texture on the concrete so I guess it qualifies. I finally had a good week of photography last week, managed to get out twice and got a few photos that I'm happy with. Hopefully I can continue the trend this week, despite the scattered thunderstorms all week...

This week's pick is "hay" by irv_b:

© irv_b

I asked for texture, and boy did I get it. The detail on the hay bale is great, and the sky has a wonderful stormy texture as well. I also like that the background is slightly out of focus, it puts more emphasis on the subject but still gives clear context for the shot. I think this would look great printed large and framed (although I'd probably brighten it up just a tad before printing). Nicely done.

Now that we're a few weeks into it, what do you think about the themes? Are they helping, hurting, or not very useful? We can continue like this for the rest of the year, I can drop it entirely, or we can go to something like a monthly theme/contest. Let me know what you think here in the comments or over on flickr. Thanks guys!

This week's theme will be people. Find a person or group (or crowd) of people to take a photo of. Doesn't have to be a posed portrait, candid or street-type shots are more than welcome.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Summer Processing

2010-08-02T08:00:00.015-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I finally got out for a walk or two this week with my camera, and grabbed some photos I'm happy with. I've been in a bit of a rut lately for whatever reason, so it was nice to finally get some decent shots.

I also decided to try something new when processing these photos. I've been having fun mutilating photos taken with my phone camera, and thought I'd start being more aggressive with editing photos on my computer. I wanted to go for a "summery" look, given the heat lately and the bit of haze on the days I was shooting.

The first step was to warm the photos up a bit by changing the white balance, 'cause hey, summer is warm, right? I did this in post (one of the best parts of shooting RAW), but you could even do it in camera by selecting the "cloudy" or "shade" white balance option. I then knocked the saturation down to about 70%. This gives it a slightly washed-out look, which you experience in real life on those humid hazy days. You may have to go a bit farther, my starting point is already a little muted due to the RAW processing. I bumped the contrast a bit and added sharpening as part of my normal RAW workflow. The end result has a sort of washed-out film look to it that just says "summer" to me.

In the spirit of continuing to expand my processing prowess, I plan on trying out a few more looks and posting how I did it. I'm also going to try to explain why I did it. I think the motivation behind processing is important. If you're just applying some photoshop plugin because you think it looks cool and can't relate it back to the image, it doesn't really advance your art.

So what do you think? Did I get the "summer" look right? Any other looks you've seen and want me to take on? Comment!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 29 wrapup

2010-07-27T10:41:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I had every intention of sticking to the shadow theme this week, but it's been so rainy here that we haven't really had any shadows to speak of. Instead, I captured the view from my car before walking into work one morning. Case and point. I always enjoy shots like these - water on a window is like nature's photoshop, you can get some crazy effects. There wasn't much color anyway, but the black and white helped put the focus solely on the texture of the shot.

My pick this week comes from q-pix:

© q-pix

I like the lines of the boats here, especially when distorted by the reflection in the water. Awesome sky, too, very moody.

This week's theme is "texture" - the world is full of interesting textures, use light and your framing to show them off. Side-lighting is good for bringing out texture, as the shadows that you get will add a more 3D effect to the image.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Shoot what you know

2010-07-26T08:00:00.067-04:00

© 2009 Simon Hucko

This week's post goes a bit deeper into something I touched on in the 52 weeks wrapup last week.

A lot of times people equate great photographs with exotic and exciting locations, and feel trapped and limited by where they are geographically. I'll admit I fall into this trap from time to time ("oh man, if I could only go to ______, my photos would be awesome!"). Sure, it's easier to get that "wow" factor when shooting somewhere foreign, but some of the best photographers in history have made their mark capturing what was in their own backyard.

A good example of this is Ansel Adams. Ansel is probably most famous for his photographs of Yosemite National Park. Along with his mastery of black and white photography (the man was a true genius with his craft, I suggest reading some of his books if you haven't yet), he knew that park like his backyard. In fact, he lived in the park for a few years while working at the visitor's center. This intimate knowledge of the area and his long-term access let him pick and choose his vantage points, time of year, time of day, and even weather to get the image that he wanted.

Granted, we don't all live in Yosemite, but there are plenty of interesting things in your area to take photos of. I don't just mean beautiful landscapes, either. You are in a unique position to get to know your locale and the people in it better than any other photographer out there. Get outside your normal routine a little and explore what's around you. A 5 minute walk or drive can reveal a completely different world and help you get out of the hometown creative rut. If you want to photograph people, find a local event or group and see if you can document it in some way for them. A lot of organizations can benefit from photography, and if you approach them you can probably gain access or even make a sale if that's your thing.

My point is, don't feel limited by your lack of a travel budget. There are plenty of great images waiting for you out there if you look for them.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 28 wrapup

2010-07-20T09:30:00.001-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

My photo this week was taken about 5 minutes from our home. A lot of people think they have to go to exotic locations to get great photographs, but often times there are plenty of fantastic images right around the corner. Finding these spots gives you the advantage of being able to go back whenever the weather and lighting are the best. That's a whole blog post on its own, I'll write it up for next week.

This week's pick is from q-pix:

© q-pix

Interesting setup, I like the framing with the wrenches. Nice black and white, too, it really brings out the texture on the background.

Next week's theme is shadow. Photography is all about light, but shadows are what define that light. Find a way to show this in your photo this week.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 27 wrapup

2010-07-13T08:00:00.002-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I had every intention of sticking to the theme (symmetry) this week and had a few other shots planned, but life got in the way and so this photo of Radames will have to do. I'm happy with this shot except for the white balance - it came out a little magenta, so I'll have to go back and tweak it a bit. I used his white fur to set the white point, and apparently his white fur is actually a little green? Just goes to show, if you're looking for accurate color there's just no substitution for a neutral gray card.

My pick this week is "Lemond - 6" by djhucko:

© Dan Hucko

I figured my dad would hop on the symmetry theme, as we both share that aesthetic in our photography. I like the use of grass as a background, it adds some nice texture to the shot. I'm digging the square crop, too (of course). The photo brings me back a bit to my pick from week one. My only criticism here is the smeary flare around the highlight on the fork. It might just be a product of shooting that lens wide open, and there's probably not much you can do about it.

That's it for this week. Next week's theme is black and white. Show me what you got.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Shoot your pets (the SPCA approved way)

2010-07-12T09:20:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

My wife and I brought home a kitten last week from the shelter, and as you might expect I've been taking plenty of photos of the little guy. Sensationalist title aside, I figured I would take this chance to talk a bit about how to get the best photos of your pets. (Incidentally, these tips work pretty well with little kids too.)

- The first and most important thing is to get down to their level. Crawl on the floor if you have to. I'm assuming most of you are much taller than your pets. A photo from standing height is just not very interesting. Even if you zoom in on your pet, you're getting the same boring perspective that you see every day. Get your lens down to your pet's eye level, and suddenly you see the world as they see it. This is true for people as well, we connect much better to the subject if we're at eye level.

- If you want a static portrait of your pet, your best bet is to get them right before or right after they take a nap (especially if they're still young and rambunctious). They're much more likely to stay still during that quiet period between play and sleep, and if you time it right they'll still be alert enough to look at you and the camera. I got this photo of Radames right before he nodded off for a nap on the kitchen floor (and yes, I was lying on the ground):

© 2010 Simon Hucko

- If you're trying to get a more active shot, your best bet is to shoot a lot. You're going to miss a lot of shots due to focus, timing, or motion blur. Shoot plenty, and then you can pick the ones that worked later. Don't spend all your time staring at your LCD screen, either, or you'll miss moments. Once I get my exposure locked in, I stop checking the shots and just shoot. You can also work on pre-framing and pre-focusing your shots, waiting for the pet to come to you and grabbing the frame. That's what I wound up doing for this one:

- If you're taking photos indoors, I recommend using your fast prime. Wider apertures and higher ISOs let you get a shorter shutter speed, which can help capture your pet as they run around and play. However, the extra speed comes at the price of depth of field, and with moving subjects a shallow DOF leads to more missed shots. See my point above about shooting a lot.

- Check your backgrounds. There's a lot of clutter and distracting backgrounds in your house. Shoot toward a wall or other plain vertical surface and you won't have to worry about your dirty dishes showing up in the frame. The other option is to open that fast prime up and blur out the mess.

- Avoid your built in flash. Nuked out photos of your pet on a dark background aren't the most flattering in the world, and chances are they're not going to sit there and let you blast a flash into their sensitive eyes more than once or twice. Again, open your aperture and boost your ISO. Window light helps, too - try to grab shots while they're looking into the world "out there."

- Shoot low, close and wide. The bigger the pet, the wider you can go. These make great "action" shots, and tend to have a nice dynamic feel to them. I've talked about this a bit before.

Hope that helps. If you've got another tip for pet photography, please share in the comments!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 26 wrapup

2010-07-06T13:30:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

26 weeks means we're halfway there! Participation is still kinda low, but we did get a bunch of "blue" themed photos this week, which I was happy to see. Again, don't feel forced into sticking to the theme, it's optional and is only there to help you. If you have a great shot that isn't in line with the theme, post it anyway! The theme for this coming week will be "symmetry" - another favorite of mine. Humans love symmetry, and if you start looking you'll find it all around you (buildings especially).

My photo this week was a quick grab during the BBQ-ing festivities. Rather than correct for shade, I left the white balance at daylight giving the flag and pole a very blue cast. I did warm up the shadows just a touch to contrast all the blue, it's probably most noticeable in the tree.

My pick this week is "Sitting on the dock of a lake" by chofler:

© chofler

She captured some great sunset tones here, I really like all of the colors in the sky. I also like how the boats and people are almost in silhouette. A very calming summer photo.

That's it for this week, folks. Hard to believe the year is halfway over already! Get out there and get shooting, symmetry or no, and post something. You can do it!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 25 wrapup

2010-06-29T08:00:00.003-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

As you may or may not know, I am now posting a weekly theme/assignment to go along with this project. The theme is optional, but is supposed to help jumpstart your creativity and get you shooting. If you're struggling to get a photo one week, check out the assignment and take 15 minutes to grab a shot for it. I'll try to keep them pretty general and open so that you won't have to hunt too hard for a subject.

This week's theme was "doors", which is a personal favorite of mine. However, I think I'm the only one who took a door photo this week... Maybe next week's will be more popular. For my shot this week, I re-visited a photo I had taken with my phone. I like going back and improving some of my old favorites from time to time, and I couldn't resist this shot. The shadow above the door was a bit of an added bonus - I had taken the previous shot later in the day so I didn't realize it would do that. Black and white helps emphasize the shapes and textures, and also the different levels of light and shadow.

I actually have two picks this week. The first is "the longest day" by [Adam_Baker]:

© Adam Baker

I love the 3D feel of this photo, and the colors are just mind-blowing. I like the square crop, too, gives it a very balanced feeling. Finally, the composition is great, with the rock in the foreground echoing the sunburst on the horizon. And those clouds! Lots of goodness going on here.

My other pick is "The Mill, Ipswich" by q-pix:

© q-pix

I picked this one because of the cool effect with the light trails coming away from the windows. ~~I don't think I'd always want my lens giving me flare like that, but in this case it really adds a lot to the photo.~~ edit: I've been corrected. Apparently the light trails were visible in person. Excellent capture, then :)

Ok, that's it for this week. Next week's assignment will be "Blue." Looking forward to seeing your photos.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Fireworks

2010-06-28T09:31:00.000-04:00

With the 4th of July coming up here in the States, I thought I'd link you to my favorite fireworks tutorial:

How to Photograph Fireworks (Digital Photography School)

Short version:
- Tripod (required)
- Remote Trigger (highly recommended)
- Manual Exposure (stop freaking out. Set it to your lowest ISO, f/8-ish and 5 seconds exposure to start. Adjust exposure time and aperture as necessary)
- Manual Focus (set it to infinity or focus on a street light far away and turn off auto-focus)
- Location/Composition (include something interesting in the foreground to give context and add interest to your shot)

Can't wait to see 'em!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Weekly Assignments

2010-06-23T10:08:00.001-04:00

I've been thinking about what I wrote in the wrapup this week, and decided that I'll try giving out weekly assignments. These are optional, but if you're looking for some inspiration it'll help get your creative juices flowing. I'll post the next week's assignment in my weekly wrapup, as a discussion thread in the flickr group, and as part of the group name.

You can handle these assignments in two ways. They're great for a photo walk, especially if you're walking somewhere you've been before - it gives you something to focus on rather than wandering aimlessly, and can help you see interesting images that you may not have considered before. You can also use them as a little muse in the back of your mind during the week, and whenever you see a good example of it pull out whatever camera you have with you and capture the image.

This week's assignment is one of my favorites: doors. Find an interesting door and share it with us! This is a good way to work on perspective, too - try to center your camera with the door and hold everything level and perpendicular to get nice straight lines (maybe even break out the tripod). Or don't, if that's not your thing.

Go shoot!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 24 wrapup

2010-06-22T10:00:00.001-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Another low turnout this week. What can I do to help you guys get out there? Would a theme or an assignment help? Monthly? Weekly? Let me know what I can do to help inspire your photography, here in the comments or over on twitter.

My shot this week was another experiment with freelensing. I think I could have improved on it by having the entire flower in focus (instead of letting the left side go soft), using a smaller aperture or less of a tilt. I'm still feeling out this freelensing thing, and that's part of the fun - learning by trial and error. Pixels are cheap and plentiful, and it's fun to stretch my craft a bit.

This week's pick is "Flippin Burgers" by djhucko:

© Dan Hucko

I like the effect of the plastic window in front - it softens everything in the image and gives it more of an abstract feel. The focus isn't so much on the man flipping burgers, but the experience of being at a festival at night eating street food. The exposure reinforces this, holding the lights and letting the man's face stay in shadow. I like the touch of motion blur on his tongs, too, it gives it a nice dynamic feel. The only thing I might have changed would be to crop in a bit on the right to remove the edge of the window. Great street shot.

Go shoot! Do it! Seriously, just do it! No excuses!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

What Matters in a Camera, Point n Shoot edition

2010-06-21T08:00:00.070-04:00

Inspired by my megapixel rant, I decided to weigh in on what I thought *was* important when buying a camera. I covered DSLRs in my last post, so now I'll tackle the world of point n shoots. Here's what I think you should look for when purchasing a new point n shoot camera:

Price. Again, you probably have a budget. The nice thing about point n shoots is that there are very few accessories that you will feel a need to buy, so you can spend most of your cash on the actual camera. I do recommend some sort of small tripod (like a Gorillapod), a simple carrying case, and an extra memory card or two, but you probably won't ever need much more than that. Also, don't be afraid to buy an older model. Point n shoots get refreshed yearly (sometimes more) with minor "upgrades," so you're really not missing that much if you go back a generation or two.

Purpose. How do you see yourself using this camera? Will it be your only camera? Or is it a smaller backup/carry around camera to go with your DSLR? Perhaps you want something more rugged and splash proof to take to the beach and not worry about? Figure out exactly how you will be using the camera and decide what features you need from there.

Size. Point n shoots range in size from super slim pocket friendly versions to something just shy of a consumer DSLR with a kit lens. If this is going to be your only camera you may want to opt for something larger, but in general I'd say go with something small enough for you to easily put it in a pocket and carry it with you. Otherwise, you're likely to leave it behind for convenience sake, and that defeats the whole purpose of having the camera. When I'm on vacation, my point n shoot lives in my front pocket (instead of the keys I usually keep there) so that I can pull it out and grab a photo any time I want.

Lens. This is an often overlooked part of a point n shoot, but the lens is critical to the quality of photos you're going to get from your little camera. There are basically two classes of point n shoot, some which sport around a 3x zoom (something like a 28-105mm equivalent), and some which proclaim ridiculous zoom ranges of 15-20x. My advice? Stick to the smaller zooms. Sure, it's convenient to zoom in on your kid's face from half a football field away, but you make a lot of compromises with that sort of lens. They're generally much slower (f/stop), especially at the long end. Superzooms are also given to large amounts of distortion, barreling at the wide end and pincushion at the tele. And really, they're just not all that sharp. There may be a "sweet spot" for the lens, but in general you're going to be looking at fuzzy images. (14 bazillion pixels not withstanding.) Look for a fast lens (f/2.8 is common on the wide end, I've even seen f/2) to help gather more light for the sensor (remember the crappy high-ISO performance). Optical image stabilization is basically a given these days, but check for it anyway. "Macro" focusing at the wide end is also a fun feature, which I think is also fairly common but I could be mistaken.

Sensor size. If possible, find out how large the sensor is. You'll be looking at between 1/4" and 2/3". In general, bigger is better, but it usually translates into a larger camera with a bigger lens (see my point about size). This is where you'll have to make a compromise, and what you choose depends on what your needs are. If you just want to document something and plan on saving the serious shooting for your DSLR, a tiny sensor is probably fine. If you're looking for something a little more high quality to show off online or even print, you probably want to suck it up and get the bigger camera.

Shutter lag. This is probably the *worst* feature of digital point n shoots: it takes an incredibly long time for the camera to take a photo once the shutter is pressed. Things have been getting better over time, but there's still a bit of a lag. Looking up shutter lag times is good, actually trying the camera is better. Also check how fast the camera can shoot (FPS). Some newer cameras have better recycle time, or can at least shoot a small burst at a decent speed. If you plan on capturing candids, this stat should be high on your list.

Video. Most point n shoots take some form of video these days. In my opinion, HD isn't really necessary for a little pocket cam, but it can't really hurt. Just know you're probably not getting true 720p resolution between the optics and the compression/upscaling. (1080p? Forget it.) I wouldn't buy one of these things to try to shoot a film on, but little documentary movies are great to have (and make fun facebook/youtube fodder). Make sure it's easy to get into and out of video mode (usually some sort of dial) so that you'll actually use it. If you have to dive through menus to turn it on, chances are you won't bother (or you'll miss the moment).

RAW. Some of the high end point n shoots will capture RAW images. RAW will give you the best dynamic range possible out of your sensor, and offer you the white balance and exposure flexibility that you get with the DSLRs. If this is going to be your only camera and you want to get the most out of it, go for it. Otherwise, it's probably not worth the hassle.

Buttons and controls. On the one hand, a point n shoot camera is beautiful in its simplicity - just point, and shoot. Buuuut if you're into photography at all, you're going to want to change certain things. Not having some control over exposure drives me crazy, and it's nice to be able to get to the other settings pretty quickly (white balance, ISO, "scene modes" - yes, I do use them sometimes). Touch screens sound cool in theory and look great in the showroom, but outside in bright sunlight (especially once they're smeared up from your fingers) you're going to have a hard time seeing what you're doing. Just skip it for now.

Memory card format. Basically, SD is the way to go. Don't buy a Sony camera that takes their memory stick unless you own other Sony devices that can share it. SD cards are inexpensive and plentiful and you have a much better chance of borrowing one if yours runs out of space or crashes at an event. (If you have other cameras that take SD cards, you may not even need to buy another one, provided you still have a backup or two for each camera.)

Other features. Ok, rather vague, but the market is so diverse it's hard for me to cover it all. There are a few cameras that will shoot time-lapse, which is very cool. Some cameras are extra rugged and may even be waterproof to 10 feet or so, perfect if you spend time at the beach (or have little kids who like to take photos). Some cameras have flip out screens, which is a handy feature for taking self-shots or shooting up high/down low. Just make sure you're not paying for features you don't really need. Often times there will be multiple versions of essentially the same camera (same lens and sensor), with the more expensive ones having additional features added or turned on in the firmware. If you don't need the features, save the bucks and get the less expensive one.

CHDK. Some of the Canon cameras are "hackable" - you can install a different firmware that will give you much more control over the camera. The beauty of this is that you can buy an older used camera and add a bunch of interesting features to it (time-lapse, manual control, RAW, live histogram, bracketing). It's rather clunky, though, and somewhat defeats the purpose of having a "point n shoot." But, if you're the kind of person who likes tinkering, it might be worth buying one of the cameras on that list so that you have the option of playing with CHDK. CHDK site here

That's all I've got. Feel free to add your own insight to the comments. Hope this helps.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

What Matters in a Camera, DSLR edition

2010-06-17T08:00:00.016-04:00

This is a follow up to my rant about megapixels. After ragging on sensor resolution, I thought I should provide some insight into what does matter when choosing a camera. I'll split this into two posts, one for DSLR's, one for point n shoots, since they're pretty different animals.

First off, let me say that choosing a camera is a very personal decision. There is no one camera out there for everyone, as you can tell by the huge lineup of cameras available on the market. People with different styles of shooting require different things from their camera, so some of this might not apply to what you do (and I might miss some things that you think are very important). So, in no particular order, here's my take on various camera features:

Price. This is probably the most important consideration, since all the amazing features in the world won't matter if you can't afford them. Establish a budget and try to stick to it. In general, the camera manufacturers have 4 tiers of camera - entry level (around $500), consumer ($800-1100), prosumer ($1300-2500), and professional ($4k+). You can generally tell what tier a camera falls into by the price, which helps you cut through the often confusing numbering scheme. Remember that there are additional costs involved with buying a camera, especially a DSLR - accessories like memory cards, bags, tripods, lenses, filters, etc. Look for gently used or refurbished gear to save some money. Go back a generation or two of camera to get some top tier features at a middle tier price.

Ergonomics/controls. If you can, go to a store and pick up the camera you're interested in buying. How does it feel in your hand? Are the menus easy to access and intuitive? Are there a lot of dials and buttons on the body to quickly change camera settings? The important ones should be easily accessible without moving your hands from the shooting position. Size also matters. If you have big hands, a small entry-level DSLR may feel overly light and cramped to you. Go back a generation and get a bigger camera, you'll be much happier holding it in your hand and that will motivate you to shoot more. (The converse is also true, obviously).

Video. The latest batch of DSLRs can all record HD video. If video is something that interests you, it might be worth stepping down a tier so that you'll have money left over for the needed accessories (lighting, tripod/fluid head, some sort of shoulder rig, audio recording, microphones, large capacity memory cards, etc).

High ISO performance. This is especially important if you do a lot of shooting indoors (weddings, events, theater, indoor sports). An extra stop or two of usable ISO can be the difference between a sharp shot and a blurry shot, or allow you to handhold instead of lugging a tripod or monopod around with you.

Frames-per-second (FPS). If you shoot a lot of bursts (sports shooters, I'm looking at you), you'll want to consider a camera with a higher FPS and a bigger buffer for longer bursts (the two usually go hand in hand). Most consumer DSLRs shoot around 3FPS, but the pro bodies top out around 8-9FPS. Some prosumer level cameras have a frame rate boost when you add a battery grip, so make sure to check that option before buying.

Lenses. Here is where the true magic happens. It's better to skimp a bit on the body and put the money toward better glass, because the optics are what truly make your images (and the technology will last decades rather than a few years before being outdated). A fast prime or two and a fixed aperture zoom will bring that extra wow factor to your shots, and cut down on the amount of processing necessary to make your images pop. Plus, having wider apertures available gives you more creative tools (shallower depth of field). Like I said, a good lens will last you a long time, and will hold its resale value well if you ever decide to upgrade.

Exposure bracketing. If you're into HDR images, you're going to want a camera that will do exposure bracketing for you. Some cameras allow you to bracket from 3-7 shots, usually at up to 2 stop intervals. I believe that the Nikon cameras have more bracketing options than Canon at the moment, at least from the grumbling that I've read on the interwebs, so keep that in mind.

What your friends/family shoot. This may seem like a strange one, but it's important, especially when you're first starting out. If you have family or friends that own a DSLR, seriously consider sticking with the same brand they have. That way they can help you learn the layout of the camera, and you can swap lenses and other accessories.

Hope this helps somewhat. The point n shoot edition should be out soon.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 23 wrapup

2010-06-15T08:00:00.004-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Only 4 entries this week... Where did everyone go? Even if you can't get out for a "serious photoshoot," try to keep a camera near at hand and capture those little everyday moments. If you're anything like me, you see photos all around you all the time. Make the extra effort to carry a camera with you and stop at least once a day when you see one of those photos. You can do it!

Life has been crazy busy for me lately, so I'm happy to have my camera phone to fall back on. It's very freeing to walk around with my phone armed with a slew of lomo processing filters capturing interesting sights around me. This week's photo is the result of looking up. I'm always amazed at what I see when I look up at the world above me, and the fresh perspective and subject matter usually lends itself to good photos. This week's photo also takes advantage of leading lines, since the strong lines from the building and fire escape lead you right into the middle of the photo.

My pick this week is "Yellowed" by slithy-toves:

© slithy-toves

Technically it's cheating, since she didn't take the photo last week, but I'm going to let it slide. I love the result from the redscale film here - the yellow/orange/red tones are just fantastic. I like the heavy vignette and the contrasty shadows that she got here, too, and the way the trees reach in at the top and frame the sun. My absolute favorite part of the image, though, is the lighting on the picnic table. I'm not sure what it is, but it really grabs me - the perfect little detail.

That's it for this week. Go take some photos!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

The Megapixel Marketing Myth

2010-06-14T08:00:00.004-04:00

Watch out, I'm climbing up on my soap box for a bit...

Walk into any consumer electronics store (or even visit their website) and go to the camera section. Now look at the information by each camera. First on the list is the number of megapixels. Look at your camera phone or your point n shoot. I guarantee it has the number of megapixels stamped on it somewhere. Ask your (non-photographer) friend why they chose the last camera that they did, and I bet number of megapixels is near the top of the list (usually right after price). Why is this? My guess is that megapixels is a convenient number for the marketing department to hype, and more is obviously better, right? Wrong.

(Just to be sure we're all on the same page, the number of megapixels a camera has refers to its resolution - namely, how many pixels are on the camera's sensor. One megapixel = 1 million pixels. When consumer digicams were first released, they clocked in around 1MP. Now, most point n shoots are in the 12-16MP range. More on this in a minute.)

So how many megapixels do we really need? That depends on what you use them for. A surprising number of people use their camera as their main way to share photos. That means that their 14MP images are being shown off at less than 1MP. Talk about overkill. Let's say they do download them to the computer and share them on Facebook (or some other photo sharing site). Facebook recently increased the size of displayed photos to 720p on the long side. Even if you upload a square photo (720x720) for the maximum display size, you're still coming in at 518,400 - just over half a megapixel. Say you show off some vacation photos on the family's big HDTV. 1080p = 1920x1080 pixels, which comes in at 2.07 megapixels. 16:9 is a bit wide for a still camera, so let's take that to a more common 3:2 format - 1920x1280, or just shy of 2.5MP. I'll even agree to a bit of extra so that you can straighten photos or cop in a bit, so let's call it an even 3MP. What about printing, you say? The guidelines I've seen for printing suggest 100-300 dpi, depending on your printer, print size, viewing distance, etc. Taking 100 dpi as a minimum (and it makes a very acceptable print), even 8x10's only require 800 x 1,000 pixels (just shy of 1MP). 3MP is therefore plenty for any consumer camera. 6MP is enough to print 20x30 inch prints at 100 dpi, so even most professionals don't need more than that.

So what's wrong with packing in the megapixels? It can't hurt to have more room to crop in on photos, right? Like with everything else in photography, getting more resolution comes as a trade off. Despite the increase in pixels, sensors in point n shoots are still the same size (about the size of your pinkey fingernail). This means that the actual photo sites (the electronics that make up a "pixel") have to keep getting smaller. Smaller photo sites mean less light is able to enter each pixel. This cuts down on sensitivity, resulting in a lower dynamic range and more noise at higher ISO settings. Despite advances in noise reduction technology and image processing, small cameras just don't handle low light very well. Which means that anyone taking photos indoors winds up nuking the scene with the tiny built in flash, and we all know how flattering those photos are.

At the other extreme, consider the Nikon D3s, which has the best low light high ISO performance of any camera on the market at the moment. How do they do it? They spread a mere 12 megapixels over the relatively vast space of a full frame sensor. Each photo site is therefore nice and large, increasing the dynamic range and sensitivity of the camera. For reference, here's a diagram comparing the different sensor sizes. Most point n shoots have 1/3" or 1/2" chips:

So why doesn't Nikon release a 3MP point n shoot camera that takes great photos in low light without a flash? Mostly because no one would buy it, especially sitting on the shelf next to other cameras that boast 15+ megapixels. It would require re-educating consumers and taking a huge risk, and I just don't see it happening in the near future.

Here are my recommendations (for whatever they're worth) for good resolutions:

- Cell phone cameras: 1080p HD, and no more. Even that is overkill, but I think the benefit of having that image size (and more importantly, that video size) outweighs the disadvantages.

- Point n shoots - 3MP. Like I said, most people will never use more than that.

- DSLRs (crop sensor) - 6-8MP. 99% of photographers will never need more than that, especially as more and more photo consumption moves away from print media and toward the internet.

- DSLRs (full frame) - I think Nikon has this one nailed at 12MP. The high ISO performance of that camera is truly amazing, and I think it's shifting people's focus in the photography world.

So what do you think? Do megapixels matter? Are you excited about the next batch of higher resolution sensors? Or have you had it with the megapixel race, and are ready for camera manufacturers to focus on something else? I think you can guess where I stand.

edit: I wrote the bulk of this post well before the Stevenote at WWDC (the iPhone 4 announcement). Interestingly, Steve Jobs said a few words about this very topic defending why they went with a 5MP chip instead of an 8MP one which is the highest available among current smartphones. Even more interestingly, they went with a back-illuminated sensor, which sets a great precedent for the small camera market.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Something in-between

2010-06-11T13:25:00.000-04:00

As I get more comfortable with my DROID, I'm finally starting to use it to add another layer to my social networking. One of the main reasons I was so eager to get a smartphone (with a camera and processing app) was the ability to capture little moments and share them out on location. These are the little lomo snapshots that I would never likely create with a "serious" camera and "serious" post processing, but I love the ability to share a glimpse into how I see the world (and I enjoy seeing similar photos from other photographers, most notably Chase Jarvis with his Best Camera project).

I was trying to decide how best to share out these updates, and thought I would give tumblr a try. tumblr seems to be a nice middle ground between the brevity of twitter and this blog, giving me the opportunity to post photos with a caption or little story without worrying about character limits. I've also decided I'm going to post short tips/tricks/thoughts to the account from my phone every so often, things that don't really have enough substance to be a full blog post here but that I think you guys would benefit from. My favorite feature of tumblr is that it's extremely mobile device friendly with a nice clean quick-loading interface for mobile browsers.

Check out my tumblr blog here - you can follow me if you have a tumblr account, or I think you can set it up for an RSS reader as well. Most of what goes on there will also get linked to from twitter, so if you're already following me (@simonhucko) you're all set. Also, being new to tumblr, I'm not following very many people yet. If you know of a good tumblr blog (photo-related or otherwise), please let me know via comments below or twitter so I can check them out.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 22 wrapup

2010-06-08T09:59:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Another Droid shot this week. I had big plans to go to the Ithaca Festival last Friday and shoot, but instead I met up with a few people and just walked around. I did take a few shots, but nothing outstanding. It was more fun just to be there in the moment, and it's nice to take a step back from the lens from time to time and just enjoy life around you. There are a few other festivals/fairs going on this summer that I plan on shooting (might even break out a roll or two of Tri-X), so look for that.

My shot this week was part of a short walk I took focusing on doors. I've never been one for photo assignments (for whatever reason), but when I got my Droid I got invited to a weekly Android assignment group. I think these weekly assignments are perfect for the walks I take on my lunch break - by this point I've shot most everything within walking distance of my building, so having something different to focus on while I'm wandering around is a great way to spice up the usual routine. If you're in a bit of a rut or have a hard time coming up with photo ideas, I highly recommend an assignment group on flickr (just do a search for "assignment," there must be hundreds to choose from).

My pick this week is "self" by irv_b:

© irv_b

What a great twist on a self-portrait (it even has sort of an Alfred Hitchcock vibe to it). I like that there's just enough light on the background to give a nice crisp silhouette, but no more than necessary. I like your choice of framing, too - the negative space balances it out very well. Very mysterious shot.

That's it for this week. Keep up the great work everyone, we're almost to the half-way point!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

Freelensing

2010-06-07T08:00:00.002-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

I first became aware of freelensing a few months back when photojojo published an article about it. It seemed pretty cool, and in the wake of all the tilt-shift photos online (especially the time lapse stuff) I thought I'd give it a try. Unfortunately, I just wasn't able to get images that I was happy with. Last week, photographer friend Tim Ho posted a shot that renewed my interest in freelensing. (side note: if you've never seen his work I highly recommend checking out Tim's photostream. He's got a great eye, especially for color, and is becoming quite an accomplished strobist.)

OK, back it up a bit. What is freelensing? Freelensing is the art of shooting through a lens that isn't attached to your camera. The main reasons to freelens are to create a tilt-shift look with your photos, or to get closer focusing for macro shots. The latter is the same as using an extension tube or bellows, it allows you to get closer to the subject resulting in a larger image on the sensor. The tilt-shift goodness is really what I was after, and considering a tilt-shift lens costs mega bucks, doing it for free seemed like a pretty sweet deal. After doing a little reading, I realized that my earlier failures were due entirely to user error (of course). The key to freelensing is to focus your lens to infinity and keep it *as close as possible* to the camera. In other words, put the lens on the camera like you were going to mount it, but don't twist it in to lock it. Then ever so slightly begin tilting the lens and watch the plane of focus move around. Once you get an image you're happy with, shoot, rinse, repeat.

A few caveats:

1. Your lens is not attached to your camera. This can result in damage to your lens, the mirror, or the sensor, and will probably attract a bit of dust into the camera body. Do this at your own risk.

2. If your lens has an aperture ring, you're all set. If you shoot Canon, stop your lens to the aperture you want by holding down the DOF preview button while removing your lens. If you shoot Nikon, you're going to have to physically hold open the aperture lever on the back of your lens. A small piece of folded up paper, a broken up match stick, or even blue sticky-tack can be used. Be extremely careful when messing around with your lens. Again, this isn't the safest thing in the world...

3. Exposure is going to be all manual, all the time. Your histogram is invaluable for this sort of thing. Learn to love it.

4. Getting what you want in focus is rather difficult at first. Take plenty of shots, and be patient with it. You can even mount your camera to a tripod, making it easier to manipulate the lens without throwing everything off.

5. Longer lenses work better, apparently. Don't ask me why. My 50mm worked really well for this (especially because it has an aperture ring), so that would be my recommendation.

That's about all I can think of. It's another fun little "trick" that can give you some interesting results. I highly recommend playing around with it a bit (as long as you aren't squeamish about shooting with a detached lens), see what you get. Feel free to share your results here or in the [tob] flickr group.

For more discussion on freelensing and some awesome photos, check out the freelensing group on flickr.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 21 wrapup

2010-06-03T09:35:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Well, I gave myself an extra day and I *still* missed my deadline. Sorry everyone. I promise I'll get back into the groove with this whole blog thing soon.

In case you missed the review, I got a new toy last week. As such, I've been shooting an awful lot on it. (I did take the bigboy camera out and play with freelensing a bit, but that's a discussion for another day...) Camera apps for Android are still somewhat limited, but Vignette came highly recommended on the internets and I have to say, it rocks my world. All the low-fi fun you could ever want right at your fingertips. This week's photo was made using a "tobacco" gradient filter, which gives your skies a dramatic orange tint. I really like the effect combined with the water at the bottom of the frame, and I have some killer shots in mind for this effect in the future.

This week's pick is "Strike" by irv_b:

© irv_b

I'll admit, I have a bit of a thing for detail shots of hands at work. This one is very well executed, though - it definitely tells the story of what's going on. The little bit of motion blur is excellent, adds a nice dynamic feel to the photo and you can almost hear the sound of the drum. This would be perfect for some sort of promo material for the band (flyer, program, etc). Great eye and timing.

Ok, that's it for this week. I promise I'll get my act together here and start posting on time again. Keep on shooting!

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

DROID Review

2010-06-01T09:30:00.003-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

What? A phone review? Sorry everyone, just got a new toy and I felt like sharing my thoughts about it (especially as it applies to being a photographer). If that's not your cup of tea, feel free to move on. For the rest of you...

My wife and I finally upgraded to smartphones last week. Originally we were talking about switching to AT&T and getting iPhones, but we wound up staying with Verizon and getting matching Motorola Droids. The main reason for this decision was that they were on sale, buy one get one free. Hard to argue with a $200 savings. Another reason that we stuck with Verizon is that we didn't have to wait for our contract to expire next month to avoid paying a fee. Finally, my wife wanted a phone with a physical keyboard - she has an iPod touch and doesn't like typing on it. (I've found that I use the virtual keyboard 99% of the time, but sometimes it's nice to have physical keys to press.)

I was worried I would be unhappy with Android and wish I had held out for an iPhone, but thankfully that's not the case. It still feels a little rough around the edges (especially when it comes to app availability and quality), but the fact that Android is gaining marketshare every day means that the playing field should level out pretty quickly. The important apps are all there, including highly integrated twitter and facebook apps that can sync up with your address book. You also get the option of sharing out photos to twitter or facebook (among other sites) right from the gallery on the phone, which is nice. One thing that's seriously lacking is a good flickr app (at least, I haven't been able to find one). I had to resort to using the e-mail uploading for flickr, which isn't all that bad (especially because "e-mail" is one of the sharing options in the photo gallery), but it's certainly not ideal.

The camera on this phone seems to be pretty good. There are a few nice features missing that I would have liked to see. The most critical lapse is the lack of any kind of exposure adjustment. From what I can tell, exposure compensation is available in the API, so I'm not sure why it hasn't been implemented (maybe the camera doesn't support it?). I hope that they fix this at some point, since the auto-exposure algorithm seems to be a little aggressive and deals with high contrast scenes by blowing out highlights, which is usually the opposite of what I want. 5MP seems a bit extreme, too, I can only imagine how small the photosites are (which leads to lower dynamic range and higher noise). Low light performance is poor, as expected, but the built in LED "flash" is a nice feature. The light is very harsh and a little cool (blue), but it's better than being stuck without one. The camera does auto-focus pretty well, but you're stuck with whatever it thinks you want. A touch to focus feature would be great. The "macro" focusing gets pretty close (within 2 inches or so), which is fun to play with.

I bought Vignette (the only non-free app I have on my phone) to use instead of the stock camera app, and dang is it good - fully functional camera controls plus a ton of framing and filter options for after you take the shot. The app generates a small preview that you can try different looks on until you find the one you like, then processes and saves the full version in the background once you're done. You can even import old photos from your gallery to edit. The only drawback I've found is the inability to stack the different filters. For some reason, there is a small set of options that you can toggle on or off to "stack," but for everything else you have to process the photo with one and then re-import it and process it with another to get a stacking effect. Certainly not a deal breaker, but it would be a nice update.

Overall, I'm very happy with my new phone. The glossy screen (hard to see in direct sunlight) and limited camera controls mean that it won't be completely replacing my point n shoot, but it's nice to have a camera with me 24/7 and a way to share images with everyone instantly. If you're a photographer and haven't gotten a smart phone yet, don't feel like you have to get an iPhone. Android is very photographer friendly, and while it doesn't quite rival the iPhone, it definitely gets the job done. Look for more competitive features in future updates, too.

edit: Forgot to mention the screen. I believe it's something like 854x480, which means that widescreen 480p video will display at its native resolution (and looks really really nice). The wide aspect ratio makes viewing photos a little goofy, but it would be easy for me to upload a set to Picasa that's formatted for the screen. (Forgot to mention that, too - Piacasa integrates with your gallery so that all of your Picasa web albums are available on your phone instantly). The high gloss finish isn't ideal for bright sunlight and shows the smudges from your greasy fingers like nothing else, but I just keep a small microfiber cloth in my pocket to clean the screen and camera when necessary.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr

52 weeks: Week 20 wrapup

2010-05-27T09:42:00.000-04:00

© 2010 Simon Hucko

Sorry I'm late again this week. Life has been totally crazy, and I can't seem to catch up with everything I have to do. It's going to be a super busy weekend, too, so between that and the holiday (Memorial Day here in the States) I'm going to extend the deadline this week until Monday at midnight, with my post on Wednesday. Find some time this long weekend to take a photo, you have no excuses!

My photo this week comes from my playing with a new technique. In case you missed the blog post with all the goods on Monday, check it out here. Suffice to say I'll be playing some more with this technique until I get a good feeling for when and how to best use it. Also, thanks to some inspiration from a photographer friend of mine, look for some experiments with freelensing in the near future.

Congratulations to kristanhoffman for this week's winning photo:

© Kristan Hoffman

I've never been to Chicago, but these big metal orb things seem to be the thing to go and get your picture taken with. I think my favorite part about this image is that she embraced the foggy weather and used it to present a somewhat non-traditional shot of the sculpture. The fact that the city just fades away behind it puts the focus entirely on the sculpture and the people, and also lends some nice contrast to the buildings in the reflection. My (close) second favorite part of this image is the flying seagull and its reflection. Perfect timing and composition with that one, and again it emphasizes the contrast between the foggy blankness at the top of the frame and the people and reflected buildings at the bottom. Wonderful shot.

~S

[title of blog] on flickr