PHOTOGRAPHER’S JOURNEY.com

I shoot with a Canon 30D. I have two sophisticated lenses I find myself using more than any others: the 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS and a 17-40mm L f/4.0. I have the beautiful Canon 508 EX II flash. I have a full set of Westcott Spiderlite TD5 studio lights, as well as reflectors and a tripod. I have Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Photoshop, not to mention the computer the programs run on.

And I am no doubt less well-equipped than some of you.

Have you ever stopped to wonder about the enormous amount of equipment (and money) we pour into this thing we call photography? Don’t get me wrong. Each piece of equipment I own helps me do what I want to do creatively in certain situations. I don’t regret owning any of it. But fundamentally, when it gets down to it, photography is not in the camera.

I’m reminded of this recently when reading American Photo’s description of the top camera cellphones of the year. At the top of the editor’s list? The Nokia N95 with a 2.6-inch screen, 5-megapixels and the ability to record video at 30 frames per second (the same as a real video camera). All of it for the bargain price of $750.

Would anyone ever attempt to use a cell phone to do serious photography? Well, ask yourself this: would anyone ever use a Holga toy camera to do serious photography? Ok, it’s not a perfect analogy. But the answer is yes, just the same.

Consider Patrice Elmi’s series “Views from a Cell.” Select “View more photos from the show” in the top right corner and you will see what I mean.

Elmi is no slouch: she trained at both NYC’s School of Visual Arts and Pratt Institute before picking up her LG phone. When she turned to LG to see if they would sponsor a gallery of her work, even they couldn’t believe she’d made the images on a phone. But she did.

Her work is really impressive for its compositional values. And I think any photographer hauling around all the equipment we tend to haul around can truly appreciate the work of a good eye… no matter what tool we use.

That, in the final analysis, is what photography is all about.

Popularity: 34% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!

One of my favorite things to do in photographic composition is to play with angles and lines. Our eyes have a natural fascination with patterns that can work exceptionally well as the basis for a photographic composition.

But it’s even better for me when I can find a way to incorporate actual human beings into the composition. I made this image here near the end of a day of largely unsuccessful shooting. I never get too hung up on defeat after days like this. I figure some days it’s just harder than others to make the compositions you want.

On this particular day I joined my son, Adam, for a camera tour of Annapolis, Maryland. Not an organized tour - just the two of us bumming around.

I found it difficult to photograph Annapolis. For me, it was so geared toward tourism - so geared toward the “cute” - that I found it a bit tough to escape making photographs that felt like cliches. It was one beautifully colored door and charming street after another. Know what I mean? As helpful as it is to escape now and then and photograph in new places, it isn’t a guarantee of great photography by any means.

I’m sure other more talented photographers might have found more pictures than I, but again, I try not to get too hung up on that sort of thing. As a boy, my father used to take me fishing and he always told me it never really mattered to him whether he caught anything. It was just the process - sitting there and enjoying life - the process of fishing that he enjoyed most. And for me, using my camera is a lot like that. Sure it’s nice to bag a 20-pounder every now and then (metaphorically, that is) but a day out with nothing to show for it but happiness isn’t all that bad, either.

But like most things, when you stop searching for something hard and just accept what comes your way, that is when fate can sometimes surprise you. I’d nearly given up taking pictures that day in Annapolis when I stumbled up to the dock upon which this old man was seated. I knew immediately that I was interested in the lines of the dock and the perpendicular lines of his shirt. I also liked his red hat which I thought worked well against the blue water. I wondered what he was thinking.

A wide-angle lens was my only choice for composition - but to do that I could not isolate the man effectively. I tried a vertical orientation, but it just lost all its punch that way. So I included the couple on the right and in the end I think it adds even a bit more drama to the scene. Now I wonder what all of them were thinking (although I’m pretty sure I know what was on the couple’s mind!)

But I think it’s fascinating that just when I lowered my guard - just when I gave up trying to “make” a photograph - the photograph essentially came to me all by itself. There’s probably a good life lesson here for wiser minds than my own and I’m pretty sure it would have something to do with Zen. But simply as a photographer, it’s good to know that just being there is sometimes enough.

Popularity: 20% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!

Beautiful models with perfect makeup do not make good photography by themselves. At least not for me. What does? A photographer who understands the fundamental power of light. Aneta Kowalczyk is among those photographers, in my opinion.

What is it with Polish photographers? A while back I profiled the excellent Andrzej Dragan, another Polish photographer with an enormous amount of talent. Now, I discover Aneta Kowalczyk.

Kowalczyk herself is a former model and her work could reasonably be described as fashion photography - except that I think it transcends that label. As you view it, picture for a moment that rather than a model you are photographing your father, your neighbor, you sister, your friend.

The fact that Kowalczyk photographs primarily gorgeous women (as well as some men) is incidental, in my view. Her understanding of lighting and the power it conveys is as evident here as it would be had she been photographing her mother. And it’s the skills I appreciate most as a fellow photographer.

Kowalczyk also shows great skill with composition.

A long time ago I made a gigantic discovery: I am not the greatest photographer of all time. Not even the second greatest. No, my photography is nurtured by what I’ve seen through my eyes. A lot of that lies directly in front of my lens. And a lot of it lies in the work of others.

I am inspired by the great work of other photographers. I pull a little something from each of them. And although I make it a point never to copy another’s style - my own photography reflects a partial amalgamation of so much other work I have seen. I like what Kowalczyk has done here. It gives me some great ideas, and I hope it will for you, too!

Popularity: 51% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!

Some time ago, I was laboring over a big decision: strobes or hotlights? After a great deal of research, I came to the conclusion that, for me at least, hotlights are the way to go.

Why? First of all, “hotlights” are always on. Unlike strobes, they offer a what-you-see-is-what-you-get approach to lighting. And since I work in television news, the choice seemed natural. This is not to say that hotlights are better than strobes - they aren’t. They each offer different advantages and from what I’ve read, many photographers use both.

But I’m starting out with this studio lighting thing. A newbie, if you will. While I’ve certainly used flash, a full light set is pretty much a new thing for me. And since I’ve wanted for some time to work my way toward doing portraits professionally on the side, I decided to bite the bullet and invest.

Which hotlights did I choose? Westcott’s TD5 Spiderlights.

I’ve had a fair amount of experience shooting with them now and here’s what I’ve learned.

First of all, the lights are great. I own both the halogen and fluorescent bulbs. The halogen bulbs are incandescent and therefore quite a bit warmer (both literally and in color temperature) - 2800K using five bulbs. The cooler fluorescent bulbs generate near-daylight color balanced at 5500K. These bulbs don’t generate much heat and, in my opinion, offer a great deal more flexibility when shooting on location. Still, if you buy these lights, it may be a good idea to invest in both sets of bulbs. Not inexpensive, but worth it.

Continue Reading »

Popularity: 28% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!

Want to get that sparkle in the eyes of your portrait subjects? Here’s the “how-to” - first in the field and then in Photoshop.

They say eyes are the windows to the soul. I don’t know about that but I do know a person’s eyes in any portrait draw our attention first. Powerful eyes with a sparkle can have a lot more impact than eyes that are dull with the flat light.

My motto is “never do it on the computer if you can do it right in the field.” So use a flash equipped with a bounce card. Flash units such as Canon’s top-of-the-line 580EX II and Nikon’s SB-800 have built in flash cards. It looks like this. All you have to do is pull the card up, aim the flash toward the ceiling, and the light from the flash will provide the perfect “catch light” - or sparkle in the eyes. This works when shooting most animals, too.

Studio lights - or even natural daylight if you have time to get the set up right with a reflector - can also help you get that catch-light look. But the important thing here is to remember the need for a catch-light while doing the set up in the first place.

Continue Reading »

Popularity: 34% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!

It’s Friday, so this post is purely for fun.

If you are like me, then you not only admire the works of great photographers, you admire the great painters. Well, I came across a fun method for giving your photos a color scheme similar to that in your favorite painting.

Up front, full credit for this idea goes to James Delaney. But here’s how it works:

1. Choose a painting. I found a good source of painting images here.
2. Choose your image. The image you choose should at least have similar base colors as the artwork you are trying to match.
3. Open Photoshop.
4. Open the image of the painting.
5. Open your photograph and make certain it’s the active window.
6. Choose the Image menu and go to Adjustments, then Match Color
7. Choose your painting as the source and adjust the luminance accordingly.

Voila! That’s all there is to it. It’s not for every image - but it works. Thanks to Photoshop’s powerful match color tool we get a new way to see some of our images.

Here is what I did with a painting by Edward Hopper and a photograph of a barn I took:


You can’t do this in Photoshop Elements or earlier versions of Photoshop. Adobe introduced the “match color” tool only in the CS series.

I know this is a little gimmicky, but it is fun. And you can play with different images to get different looks.

What I think is interesting is that by applying the color schemes found in great paintings to our own photographs, we can learn to see color a bit differently… a bit like the artists did. That is not a bad thing as an instructional tool. Color theory is an extremely important and often under-appreciated aspect of photography. So even if you have no desire to alter your images to achieve a famous painter’s color scheme, I do think there’s some benefit in playing around with this technique since it essentially allows a very interesting form of art study.

I certainly don’t recommend converting all your images this way! But as an instructional tool, it’s pretty cool. Try it out and let me know what you think.

Popularity: 22% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!