Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Focus on Imaging 2012

Posted in Equipment, Opinion, Photography, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 12, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

Focus on Imaging 2012 wasn't so much a race to buy the new gear as, "gentlemen, start your engines..."

It’s been a long while. It doesn’t seem that long ago that I was writing about last year’s Exhibition, but here we are in the aftermath of Focus on Imaging 2012. In contrast to the hullabaloo last year over Canon’s last minute withdrawal, this year the noise was of a more positive nature. Although already previously announced, there were several as yet unavailable major new cameras for punters to get their hands on. Both Nikon and Canon had brand new top of the line and one-down camera bodies. In a sector of the market with an average three to four year upgrade cycle for each model, this is a not insignificant watershed, even if the majority of these four models are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Back in black... After a hiatus which generated much public debate following their late withdrawal from the show in 2011, Canon were back at Europe's biggest annual imaging show.

As mentioned, Canon decided to grace us with its presence this year having staged a late withdrawal last year. In a long, tiered layout that evoked immediate thoughts of Apple Genius Bars, Canon were indeed back with a sizeable presence and a good number of their new 5D Mark III bodies on display – a fact not lost on pro-Canon users keen to point out Nikon’s solitary D800.

As if XQD, CF and SD slots weren't enough for the new Nikon D4 (pictured) and D800, they teamed up with their Canon equivalents to introduce a show-only GT slot... the Gaffer-Taped slot.

Having made the sensible decision to visit on the Tuesday, queues never quite reached ridiculous, which meant that getting to that single D800 and one of the two D4s on offer wasn’t too stressful. Having got to the head of the queue, the experience unfortunately was a bit anticlimactic if thoroughly unsurprising; both cameras had tape rather unglamorously plastered over empty memory card slots. If anyone’s counting, that’s actually three different card slots for the two camera models – CF and SD on the D800 and CF and the new XQD format on the D4. Having garnered widespread praise for the dual CF slots in the D3 series, as well as watching rival Canon take a bit of flak for having different card slots in the 1D Mark IV (a lesson they learnt with the new 1D X with its dual CF slots), it seems a strange decision by Nikon to settle on different card slots, and I for one would much have preferred matching card slots on the cameras even at the expense of some performance.

Something old, something new. You don't have to be the newest and greatest to draw a crowd - not a newly released exotic telephoto in sight but they can still draw a crowd.

Of course it wasn’t all about the two “main” manufacturers even if it does sometimes feel that way. Olympus clearly decided to have a bit of a presence at the show this year, with the bags from the show carrying their marketing. They also drew a big crowd at several points during the day to push their new OM-D system and the E-M5 camera, with Strictly Come Dancing stars Ola and James Jordan roped in to… erm… do their thing.

Doing your thing... No, not ballroom dancing. Unashamedly taking pictures of ballroom dancing, even if the lighting and backgrounds are far from ideal.

I’m sure the dancing was excellent – not that I’d know – but the PR was certainly top notch from the two stars. James was well coached and well rehearsed in his little marketing speech, and the couple handled the armada of lenses well and ended up posing with people from the crowd for a good length of time, and interacting generally with polish and poise.

Hands up if your bank manager doesn't know you're here... Or actually hands up if you're a Strictly Come Dancing fan. Exported by the BBC to 35 broadcasters covering 75 countries, the series and its foreign equivalents are now recognised by the Guinness Book of Records as the most successful reality TV format.

Ultimately though, about the only thing I’d learnt from the presentation was that the camera system was small and light, although if Olympus’ goal was just to generate visitor numbers to their stand then it was certainly job well done. Well, I also learnt that… good looking celebrities draw photographers with cameras like… moths to a flame… bees to honey… or any other idiom you care to apply. Actually on second thought, I’m not sure I learnt anything as both those tidbits of knowledge are pretty self evident!

This is why you need 36 megapixels. You might be photographing their backs (look at the people in the background!), but the pictures will be so much better with the (insert new camera model you're looking at).

Fujifilm also had offerings that caught the imagination, from the X10 and X100 to the brand new X-Pro1. Unfortunately with prices that take these admittedly appealing cameras out of my current spending priorities, I was distracted more by an unnamed and uncredited image on the Fujifilm stand.

They make nice cameras... just don't let them near the liquify tool!

I suspect that most of us are aware of retouching that goes on to various levels in mainstream media, particularly in the realm of fashion and glamour. But I think what caught me by surprise was the lax standards in disguising the “airbrushing”, to borrow a lay term. Further to that, the various steps of quality control that deemed the result acceptable. In my opinion anyway, the person who did the editing should never have passed that on as a finished product. The person who received the image should have looked it over and flagged the editing as unacceptable. The person who printed the image should’ve picked up on it. The person who mounted the image onto the backing board should’ve picked up on it. The person who put that on the Fujifilm stand should’ve picked up on it.

A tummy tuck gone wrong... it just goes to show that occasionally, Photoshop operators can get it wrong. Either that or we have some very funky mosaics.

Bad hair day? This is one halo that cannot be blamed on over enthusiastic, under controlled tone mapping. Note also the sliver of black on the edge of the frame as a by-product of pinching or liquifying too close to the edge of the frame. Easily avoidable with a little more care, too.

Here’s a hint. If you’re going to… embellish… a model’s figure, do not make life hard for yourself by photographing them against a mosaic background. Although it is certainly possible to do a much better job than was done in this instance.

There is certainly too much manipulation and post processing going on in photography circles these days, whether it’s in the fashion industry, local camera clubs, international exhibitions, and even the odd photojournalist image. But that’s another subject for another post.

Read Full Post »

Digital or Film?

Posted in Opinion, Photography, tagged , , , , , , , , , on May 31, 2011 | Leave a Comment »

Alright, so maybe this post is about 5 years too late and that question’s already been answered. But I’ve just got a couple of things to get off my chest having attended a slide presentation recently.

It was, in the main, a very good presentation. But on a couple of occasions the photographer, who is a staunch slide film worker, mentioned that certain things would have been easier to sort out if he had been “working in digital”. Things like, solving the problem of a distracting background, or having no light on the foreground interest.

Now, I am a self-confessed digital fan, having been an adopter of the format since 2000 with the Nikon D1 (which wasn’t better than film!). There are many positives to the digital format, and some negatives, but this impression that it is a form of cheating because it allows photographers a shortcut or an easy way out is just plain wrong. It can encourage some photographers to do that, but that’s not the fault of the medium; ultimately it is the photographer’s decision to take editing or compositional shortcuts.

As you might have gathered from my last post, I’m quite a conventional photographer. So dropping out a background or introducing new elements into a composition is not something I’m comfortable with, and it’s certainly not something I do myself. But equating the digital medium with manipulation is a falacy – digital is digital, and manipulation is manipulation.

It certainly shouldn’t be viewed as a crutch to resolve mistakes made at the point of clicking the shutter – ultimately it’s down to the photographer to make sure that the background isn’t distracting. Nor should it be a photographic shortcut for the lazy photographer to not have to find foreground interest that actually has some light on it.

I shoot digital for two main reasons, specifically detail and ease of storage and cataloguing. And a number of other reasons. In 2005 I spent a few days in Austria on a photography trip. I shot a Mamiya 7 medium format rangefinder side by side with a friend’s D2x and compared the results when I returned. The results were easy to interpret; the medium format film held marginally more detail… as well as a lot more grain which largely obscured the extra detail. The digital files had more dynamic range and cleaner edges. If I had to pick between the digital and film versions, the digital versions looked better every time.

How easy it is to manipulate my images, is absolutely not one of the reasons I shoot digital.

But I do agree that positive film can sometimes be better, primarily in its rendition of highlights. Banding and hotspotting can result easily from digital sensors, leading to sharp and distinct drop offs into burnt out areas. There is also a tendency for light to bleed from highlight areas across into the shadow areas of the image in areas of high contrast.

Another area where many people conventionally believe film to be better is in the production of black and white images. Due to immature technology in the early days, as well as a general lack of understanding in how to process digital files into black and white, resulted in digital technology not getting a fair trial. Early examples were frequently flat and lacking tonal range and local contrast.

Yet with the technology available to us today, I would suggest that there is a strong argument for saying that you can actually get just as strong images from digital sensors as you can from silver halide emulsions.

Even with film you couldn’t get a good black and white image just from a straight print. The best black and white workers were masters of their craft, utilising techniques such as different processing chemicals and grades of paper to obtain the end product they were after, not to mention the odd instance of dodging and burning. As with any new technology it has taken time for users to get to grips with how to deal with the new medium, and to grasp the different factors involved in achieving similar results.

A straight “Desaturate” conversion to black and white in Photoshop, for example, was the de facto method of conversion to black and white for many early photographers. I would wager that some are still doing it today. Yet in the same way that quality black and white workers in the film days understood how to influence contrast and tone, black and white workers in the digital era are understanding how to use different conversion methods such as the channel mixer to achieve similar results. Techniques in high dynamic range (HDR) imaging allow high quality dodging and burning.

It is, in many ways, similar to the relationship between manipulation and the digital medium. Shoddy black and white work in the digital era is down to shoddy black and white work, and not necessarily due to any failings in the digital medium.

Photographers that got good black and white images in film days spent a great deal of time and effort at perfecting their craft. It is unreasonable to expect a casual photographer to measure up to the same standards regardless of whether he was shooting in film or digital. On the other hand there are numerous photographers who have applied themselves to the digital medium and are now producing quality black and white work.

The key to producing good images is to understand your chosen medium, be it digital or film. Ultimately it’s down to you as the photographer, more than any heated debate on the Internet.

Read Full Post »

It’s Good, but is it Photography?

Posted in Opinion, Photography, tagged , , , , , , on March 24, 2011 | 1 Comment »

Photography is generally defined as the practice of creating pictures by recording light on a light-sensitive surface. Yet increasingly these days in photographic circles there is plenty of imagery being proudly presented – and warmly received – that on a personal level I would struggle to classify as “photography”.

This is one of photography’s contemporary grey areas. It is a matter of debate how much manipulation can occur whilst still preserving a photograph’s status, and this threshold varies depending on the genre of photography. In journalistic use for example then essentially no content alteration can take place, and the situation is largely similar for “natural history” images in photographic circles. The threshold is far more liberal for categories such as art photography, and it was a circular with this image from the London Salon’s 99th Exhibition 2010 that prompted this post:

Quality Street - Michael Hughes

Slide 080 of 196, London Salon of Photography 99th Exhibition 2010, Quality Street © Michael Hughes. One of the eight prestigious medal winners. Quality Street... quality photography? The London Salon of Photography clearly think so.

Take that image out of the photographic context, and a lay person could describe it as an image. Others might describe it as artwork, or a painting, or even a drawing. Possibly some might describe it in colloquial terms as a “photo”, but very few would identify it as being a photograph taken by a camera.

Yet, “the aim of the London Salon is to exhibit only that class of photographic work in which there is distinct evidence of artistic feeling and expression.” (emphasis added) — London Salon of Photography

My unease stems from the acceptance of this genre of work as photography, and not any concern over their artistic merit. Ultimately whether a piece of work is of good standard or not is a matter of opinion and depends on who you ask, but the classification of the work should be more straightforward.

A work heavily influenced by Photoshop is not necessarily any less deserving than one created directly in camera. They are, however, difficult to compare and have no place in a photographic competition or exhibition.

In the same way that you wouldn’t generally compare a watercolour with a photograph, or a sculpture with a poem, I would argue that comparing some of these artistic works with photographs is inherently flawed. Although they share pixel and paper and ink mediums, they require a different skill set. I would hope that a photographer is judged on his ability in creating photographs, not on their ability sitting behind a computer workstation.

One of the counter arguments is that these artistic works have their beginnings in a photograph or, in the case of collages, several photographs. Yet the point to recognise here is that the author is merely taking the original photograph(s) and turning it into something else. For example influential British artist David Hockney refers to his photocollages as “joiners”, an acknowledgement of the fact that they were something beyond photographs.

The law recognises an artistic work as “a graphic work, photograph, sculture or collage”. From the legal point of view, the threshold for the creation of a derivative piece of work – deserving of its own legal status and copyright protection – is very low. If I took a photograph and then did significant things to alter its form in image manipulation software such as Adobe Photoshop, I am in essence creating a new work. When viewed in this manner, would you consider the new work a photograph?

If it helps, consider this analogy. There are numerous painters, particularly those who work with oils, that paint from a reference photograph. Sometimes devalued by those within artistic circles, it is nonetheless a common practice by painters of all standards. With oils sometimes taking months to put together, a reference photograph can greatly help the artist to capture the lighting and mood from a specific moment in time.

Famous French Impressionist Edgar Degas utilised photographs to help him freeze the movement of dancers to help him translate that into his painting. I would be very surprised if you found many people trying to argue that those Degas pieces are photographs or that they should be included in photographic exhibitions or competitions, just because they began from a photographic image. Is what Degas did with oil and canvas really all that different from what some modern image workers are doing with Photoshop and pixels? The artist is taking a photographic image and making radical changes to its form and composition. The resultant work should be considered a different medium.

Fish in the Sea - Steven Le-Prevost

Slide 086 of 187, London Salon of Photography 98th Exhibition 2009, Fish in the Sea © Steven Le-Prevost. Again a medal winner. Is it an oil painted from a photograph? Is it a simulation of an oil painting made from a photograph? It's an award-winning photograph, according to the London Salon of Photography.

I stress again, this post is not here to cast aspersions on the artistic merits of these derviatives from photography. They are artistic works deserving of appropriate appreciation. The question is, are they photography?

Photographic circles need to start realising this to preserve the art of photography before it becomes further muddied and diluted. You shouldn’t need to know that somewhere along the line a piece of art was a photograph before it was altered, to appreciate it as a photograph. You should be able to pick out a “photograph” from a rogue’s gallery of artistic works, without needing a caption to tell you.

Are we as photographers so ashamed or limited by our choice of medium that we have to imitate different art forms to stand out?

Perhaps I am a purist, but I would hope that a brilliant photograph would be recognised instantly as two things – not just brilliant, but also as a photograph.

Read Full Post »

Focus on Imaging 2011

Posted in Equipment, Opinion, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2011 | Leave a Comment »

Every March in the UK, the “biggest annual imaging trade show in Europe” rolls into the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. I’ve never had reason to attend because despite it’s “biggest” billing, very little groundbreaking camera technology ever debuts at Focus, with all the big announcements and displays reserved for the bi-annual Photokina in Germany, and CliQ in America – the recent rebranding exercise of the Photo Marketing Association (PMA).

Yet that changed last year when I switched tacks to move into the wedding industry, and indeed almost 40% of the trade visitors to Focus are from the wedding or portrait industry. Focus was an ideal opportunity to view products first hand and meet potential suppliers, many of whom are based outside of the UK.

The big talking point this year was Canon’s announcement that it was pulling out of this year’s Focus on Imaging, barely two weeks before the start of the exhibition. Needless to say this spawned a huge amount of debate on the Internet, with views ranging from Canon diehards who felt greatly disappointed, through to pragmatists who cited trade shows as being an expensive and loss making sideline.

Panasonic was one of the beneficiaries of Canon's withdrawal, with their stand taking over some of the space left vacant by Canon's late absence.

Officially, the decision was made after Canon made a review of its marketing activities for the year, and decided not to attend the show in 2011. Yet it seems curious to make such a decision that close to the show when no doubt deposits will have been paid and lost, and resources must already have been spent on stand production. There certainly is a case for suggesting that there is more going on here than is at first apparent. Canon’s statement to fans that they would still be respresented by the various retailers at the show will be of little consolation to many of their customers.

Canon stated that they would still be represented by retailers such as Calumet at the trade show. Here seen rather ironically proclaiming "Canon Refurbished"!

A photo trade show wouldn’t be a photo trade show without the usual long telephotos on display for members of the public to get their 15s with optical royalty. Canon has made their reputation on this in the past, but in their absence it fell to Nikon – unusually for them – to have the long telephotos on display.

Nikon telephotos on display at Focus on Imaging 2011, with the Canon equivalents conspicuous by their absence.

Arguably the biggest beneficiary of Canon's withdrawal, Nikon were very visible at the show with free bags, and posters everywhere proudly proclaiming "I am Focus on Imaging". Perhaps I'm too sensitive to these things but I thought it was a subtle, if merely co-incidental, comment about a rival company who very clearly weren't (at) Focus on Imaging.

Of course when it comes to big telephotos, Sigma have a showstopper themselves in the very exotic and very expensive APO 200-500mm f2.8 EX DG lens, that comes equipped with its own carry handle and even its own Li-on battery to power the focusing motor – it has that much glass to move! The lens was on show this year, in what I reckoned was exactly the same spot as it was last year!

They don't come much bigger, or heavier, or more expensive...

Of course if long telephotos are an essential ingredient of photo trade shows, so too are the models and the photogaphers that gather around them throughout the day. I managed to visit Focus on Monday this year, when it’s a little less crowded, so the photos below will have a little less oomph to them, but last year when I went on the Sunday the scenes were nothing short of chaos.

Scrum time - boys will be boys!

I have great sympathy for the girls (yes, girls; strangely enough I didn’t see any male models) that sign up for these shows. It’s hard enough being the subject for one photographer under the guise of a “workshop”, nevermind having to look at as many of the cameras pointed towards you as possible, just to keep the punters happy. Not to mention that you have to look good doing it, and more importantly pretend that you’re enjoying it.

"So as I was saying, if you see how the light hits the model this way..."

While the big camera manufacturers avoid unveiling new cameras at Focus, it does however present an opportunity for some of the other manufacturers to unveil new products. Last year for example Doug Murdoch, one of the co-founders of Think Tank Photo, was on hand to show the company’s Retrospective Lens Changers, which I took an instant liking to and went on to order the moment the product hit the shelves.

The first product that caught my eye this year was the Linhof 3D Micro, first debuted at Photokina 2010. At a retail of £675 + VAT, this represents a much cheaper alternative to the Arca-Swiss Cube C1. In fact, at that price it is even cheaper than the Photo Clam version of the Cube, the Multiplex. It’s also smaller and lighter, and manufactured to the standards you would expect from Linhof. If there’s one drawback to the head, it’s that it runs a proprietary Linhof quick release system, so those using the Arca system will need to jury rig an adaptor or carry different plates.

Lastolite's eye-catchingly named Hotrod Strips.

Also on display were a couple of new products from Lastolite, including two versions of the Hotrod Strip – essentially strip lights for speedlights (try saying that three times fast…). These come with standard 120cm lengths, but available with 30cm and 40cm widths. They are unfortunately of standard softbox construction with four rods and a ring, rather than the popup/collapsible products the company is synonymous with, such as with the popular Ezybox range of softboxes. Apparently bendy frames can only get you so far! Still, they are the only setup I know that offers striplighting potential for portable strobes and should be in stock imminently, with pricing around the £90 + VAT range.

The new Strobe Kits, standard on the right and with an Ezybox-style mounting ring on the left.

They also had a new Strobo kits designed to fit directly onto a flashguns. By utilising a magnetic system new attachments can be quickly and easily attached and detached. There is a large range of attachments available from colour correction gels to different sized honeycombs, down to more creative options. The kits include the adaptor, two honeycomb grids, a mask set and gels, and will retail for £100 + VAT.

Korean manufacturer Samyang attended Focus with their range of fast and niche prime lenses with budget price tags. Nikon D3, Samyang 35mm f1.4 lens at f1.4.

For some while the Korean manufacturer Samyang has been creating waves amongst amateur photographers with the introduction of affordable exotic glass, particularly after the introduction of their 85mm f1.4 lens and more recently with their 35mm f1.4 lens. They also offer an 8mm f3.5 full frame fisheye for crop sensors, and a 500mm f8 mirror lens. Samyang have clearly identified a segment of the market that could benefit from cheaper optics and that quartet of offerings should certainly garner some interest.

Holy Bokeh Batman! The out of focus rendering of the budget Samyang 85mm f1.4 lens is impressively smooth. Nikon D3, Samyang 85mm f1.4 at f1.4.

For instance f1.4 primes are notoriously expensive, and the 85mm offerings from Nikon or Canon cost in excess of £1000 each. Even Sigma’s 85mm f1.4 retails at about £750. In contrast, the Samyang 85mm lens retails at a shade over £200. There are of course sacrifices to be made, and the lens is manual focus only; and in the case of Canon users, aperture control will have to be via the lens aperture ring (Nikon users have the “luxury” of in camera aperture control if they wish). Still, for those of us without a spare grand or two sitting around in the bank, this presents a very affordable way of reach the heady heights of f1.4 and all that it brings with it – superb low light capabilities and stunningly narrow depth of field. I certainly thought bokeh was similarly impressive from the samples I did manage to shoot, while build quality was certainly reasonable.

The Samyang catalogue, in focus, at Focus. Nikon D3, Samyang 35mm f1.4 at f1.4.

Overall Focus was a worthwhile trip, and I’m sure it was a fine success for the organisers and exhibitors, despite the curious absence of Canon. That was a decision that doesn’t make sense to me from a PR standpoint, especially given how late in the day it was. That I am bringing it up again is not the joyful attempts of a Nikon user to rub salt in the wounds of Canon users disappointed at their absence, but a very real concern about a marketing decision which has left a sour taste in consumers’ mouths.

The back of a visitor's registration pass that listed exhibitors at the show, still displaying the name of missing camera giant Canon. While the show's program had no trace of Canon in the listing or on the floorplan, passes had been sent out by mail well before Canon's late withdrawal. Nikon D3, Sigma 85mm f1.4 HSM.

At the show I was briefly walking the floor with a friend who had his EOS 1D Mk IV hanging around his neck. He was approached by a couple of polite punters who looked a little like lost tourists.

“Excuse me,” they asked him. “We see that you’re a Canon user. Can you please tell us where the Canon stand is?”

I felt genuinely sorry for them and wondered if Canon had taken this into account when reviewing their “marketing activities”. Because good marketing it almost certainly wasn’t. Certainly at the late stage at which they made the decision they could have pushed ahead with 2011′s attendance before making a more graceful exit from 2012 if required.

Focus organiser Mary Walker said, “Focus is not about one company – it’s about the UK photographic industry.”

Indeed it is not, but at the same time one cannot help but wonder if Canon’s departure from Focus signifies that it has lost interest in the UK photographic industry.

Read Full Post »

Making Hay…

Posted in Opinion, Photography, tagged , , , , , , on February 8, 2011 | 1 Comment »

… Should be done while the sun is shining. Or so goes conventional wisdom anyway.

Yet as photographers we should be aware to the photographic potential available to us when the sun isn’t shining, or when conditions are not ideal. When I think about landscape photography I am sometimes guilty of wanting – and waiting for – conditions to be nigh on perfect before I’ll venture out with camera gear in tow. It doesn’t help that even though I live near a lot of fantastic countryside, it still takes probably an hour at a minimum to get somewhere, by which time the weather could have changed (or any one of a range of excuses). Given that in the UK a litre of fuel now costs more than the latest all-singing, all-dancing DSLR (I jest, but the exaggeration isn’t extreme!), I prefer to be sure it’ll be worth it before I get in the car. And there is very little sure about landscape photography.

So all that translates to not getting in the car. A bit like the feeling of always not having a camera when a photo opportunity presents itself, you also miss opportunities if you don’t put yourself in the position of finding those photo opportunities in the first place, camera or no camera.

So in the deepest, darkest of winter a short while back, this photographer was dragged out by a dear friend to a place in the middle of nowhere. Somewhere vaguely near Bradford, which with the greatest respect is not exactly a hotbed of nature photography. Given average weather conditions and thawing snow, I didn’t even bother with the heavy and annoying camera package. It was also somewhere I’d photographed before, in better conditions, in the middle of summer, flush with green. So I assumed (why do people even bother assuming, seeing as it seems to perpetually lead to disaster…) there would be nothing to gain from photographing it again in less than perfect conditions.

Green and lush, Goit Stock falls as it looks in the summer.

An hour’s drive later, having managed to avoid any sat nav sabotage due to the benefit of having made the trip two summers ago, we were safely parked and began the short trek to the falls. The ground was a mixture of snow and packed ice, and given my general propensity for being a clumsy clot, took slightly more effort and time than it should, but the sight when we arrived took my breath away. Or at least, it did for someone who spent his life growing up in an equatorial metropolis of 3 million people.

Goit Stock Falls in the winter, icicles and all.

Luckily for me my friend had brought along her camera, her tripod, and a sense of charity. After she’d taken her own shots I borrowed the camera and grabbed a few frames. Apparently two days earlier the ice curtain had stretched all the way across the falls but after a bit of a thaw most of it had broken away.

Prior to getting there, I hadn’t anticipated spending much time at the falls at all but as it turned out we stayed until the winter light began to fade. Even then on our way back there were plenty of little details to capture downstream, as the normally interesting swirling water and rock formations along the river were embellished by ice and snow. Needless to say the trip back was a very pleasant affair.

Detail shot of a rock formation a short way downstream of Goit Stock Falls, with ice hanging off and topped off with a dusting of snow.

There is an old saying that springs to mind. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And bring your camera.

Read Full Post »

Budget(ing) Wedding Photography

Posted in Opinion, Photography, Wedding Photography, tagged , , , on August 2, 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Essence of the Moment Wedding PhotographyTechnology is a wonderful thing. More powerful, cheaper, better… it’s a neverending upgrade cycle. Today many people have more computing power in their mobile phone than they did in their first desktop computer. In the same way, digital cameras are getting better all the time, and prices that were once astronomical (a six million pixel Kodak DCS660 would have set you back £18, 000 in 2000) are falling to levels that us mere mortals can afford without having to remortgage the family home.

This also means that barriers to entry to wedding photography are falling all the time. Back in the 1980s you needed sound technical knowledge to take a well exposed, in focus picture. By the early 1990s a camera could do that fairly reliably. In the early 2000s as already mentioned you needed significant outlay to get a decent digital camera, but today you can pick up a decent DSLR and lens (that would produce better quality than a camera from the early 2000s) for under £1, 000.

As a result there are a flood of photographers chancing their arm and turning professional. And frequently these people are happy to compete on price, with little to distinguish themselves on quality. There are plenty of photographers that offer all inclusive packages for well under £1, 000; indeed all day wedding photography for £495 is not unheard of.

The question is, why shouldn’t you as a potential client have to fork out over £1, 000 for your wedding photography, particularly if bridal magazines are increasingly telling people to pay no more than three figures for it, and demand copyright in the process. Not to mention, someone else can do it for £495!

Essence of the Moment Wedding Photography

The answer is quite straightforward – I simply couldn’t afford to do a wedding for less than £1, 000. Anyone who can charge £495 for a full day’s wedding photography is only interested in quantity and certainly not quality. Let me explain.

At a full day wedding I will typically capture about a thousand images, of which I will usually present about 300 – 400 to the client. I edit each of these individually, cropping, tweaking exposure, making other little adjustments, and optimising them for screen viewing, and for the web. Allowing a very reasonable five minutes per image (doesn’t sound like a lot does it?), it will take me 30 hours to edit 360 images. That’s three very long days spent camped in front of the computer editing the images. It takes another day or two to design the album, and don’t forget the original day of photography itself.

That means that what sounded like an expensive £1, 000 for a day’s photography, is actually paying for about five to six days of work. I’ll also probably have met the couple at least once and frequently twice outside of that as an initial meeting and then to discuss album options. Then I also have to factor in tax and national insurance, public liability insurance, professional indemnity insurance, purchasing, maintaining and updating high end equipment and insuring that equipment… along with other business expenses such as running a website, hosting client galleries, advertising, sample albums…

Essence of the Moment Wedding Photography

Suddenly it shouldn’t sound like a ridiculous figure. And hopefully you’ll be asking yourself how someone who charges £495 manages to do so?

Many just put everything on a disc without editing it, which is a sure sign of a profit over quality mentality. I would love nothing more than to do the same – editing is the worst part of the job without a doubt – but I wouldn’t be caught dead letting shoddy work into the clients’ hands.

Some won’t be insured, which is cost cutting with potentially disastrous consequences. Insurance is not there because you need it, but in case you need it. I’d like to think that I’m professional enough not to need it, but should the worst happen then it’s the least I can do to protect my client (and myself).

Some have very simple equipment, which could be limiting. All other things being equal, would you rather hire someone with equipment that just about does the job, or someone whose equipment more than did the job? Although it has gotten more affordable, high end photographic equipment is still not cheap. A professional grade camera still costs about £3, 500 and is succeeded by a new model every couple of years.

Essence of the Moment Wedding Photography

And at the end of the day, regardless of what I’ve set out above, you should be choosing your photographer based on the quality of his or her photography. As I’ve said before, don’t have a minimum photographic standard that you’ll accept and then go shopping for the cheapest. Have a maximum budget you can spend and then go shopping for the best. Which might not even be the most expensive!

If you’re about to tie the knot, congratulations and good luck with the planning. And you can do a lot worse than having a look at Essence of the Moment if you’re still looking for a photographer!

Read Full Post »

Name Checking

Posted in Opinion, Photography, tagged , on July 31, 2010 | Leave a Comment »

The other day I was engaged in a bit of “friendly” repartee with a user on a large online photographic forum. The user in question was insisting that access to higher level sporting events would help boost their portfolio and generate more experience. It’s not a concept that’s altogether alien, but at the same time not one that I subscribe to.

As long as the sport that you’ve photographing is of a decent standard (say, University level for example), then you can generally get as good pictures shooting at that level as shooting at the very highest level. That is to say, as long as the physique is decent – sadly rules out Sunday League! – and the technique is sound, there’s no reason you cannot get as nice an image as you would photographing professional athletes.

Full of Impact

Full of Impact: You don't need high level sporting events to produce good sports photography. Durham University women's rugby union.

Indeed, frequently the reverse is true and the opportunity for excellent sports photographs is actually better at lower level events.

Take as an example, football. Games in the lower leagues such as the English Championship, League One and League Two, are frequently more frenetic than in the Premier League. Players are generally more committed and physical, diving into tackles, and more frequently committing themselves to 50-50 challenges. All that gives you ample opportunity to take good sports photographs.

Compare that, say, to a Cristiano Ronaldo stepover or Spain stringing together 20 passes in the World Cup Final. You would maybe get a picture of Ronaldo or a picture of one of the world champions, yes. But you wouldn’t get an eye catching sports photograph.

Furthermore, even if you are given access to a big sporting event, for example as a member of the press corps, access at major sporting events is often very restrictive. At grassroots level sporting events you frequently have much more freedom to go where you want, explore different angles, try different things. You simple can’t do that at high level events.

No Where to Go

No Where to Go: Bath players Ryan Davis (21) and Michael Claassens try to stop Newcastle's Geoff Parling (L) as Newcastle's Jamie Noon looks on, Guinness Premiership 2009. Parling has since joined Leicester Tigers and gone on to represent England. Professional sporting events frequently have tight restrictions on where you can photograph from. At Kingston Park for example we cannot run the touchline.

I have pictures of Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Michael Phelps, Jonny Wilkinson and co. in action. Yet, my best golf picture is not of Tiger Woods, my best tennis picture is not of Messrs. Federer or Nadal, my best swimming picture is not of Michael Phelps, and my best rugby picture is not of Jonny Wilkinson – despite having been the photographer for the Newcastle Falcons for ten years.

You don’t need to photograph big sporting events to learn and develop a good sports photography portfolio. What you lose if you haven’t got access to the big events, is name checking. The opportunity to say to someone, “look at me, I’m good (because) I have have pictures of X, Y or Z.“

Anyone who says shooting bigger events will boost their portfolio is hoping that the person viewing that portfolio will be bowled over by the names in their book, rather than the standard of their photography.

Read Full Post »

My Lens is Longer than Your Lens!

Posted in Opinion, Photography, Equipment, tagged , , , on June 15, 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Gannet Pair

My rock is bigger than your rock: Gannet pair, Bass Rock.

I think we’ve all been there at some point. Eyeing a new bit of kit to help you get “better” pictures. Wishing that you had a longer lens to help you get better wildlife photographs for example.

I’m slightly privileged in that regard; my work as a sports photographer means that I have had access to a variety of long lenses and own my own super telephoto. I’m not privileged enough that I didn’t have to pay for that though!

So you’d think when it came to wildlife photography I’d have a bit of an advantage. And I like to think that I do, with a nice camera and a nice lens and a familiarity from using both that comes with a decade of shooting sport at the highest level. There are certain skills that dovetail nicely between both genres; the ability to track quick movement through a long lens for example.

Puffin in Flight

And the eels have it: A puffin returning with a beak full of sand eels with which to feed its young, Farne Islands.

I shoot plenty of my wildlife photographs with my 400mm. On a D300 rather than a D3 generally, because of the greater reach it affords me. You can bin any notion about using the “better” camera just because you own one; the extra reach offered by the DX crop sensor offsets any other advantage the D3 offers, unless light levels are very poor. Occasionally I’ll throw on a 1.4x converter, and very very occasionally only, a 2x converter. More down to quality issues than not needing the reach!

I have plenty of wildlife images shot with this setup, and a fair number that I am happy with. The reach is obviously an advantage, and the subject separation is excellent even on DX (remember that depth of field is determined by camera to subject distance, and shooting FX and DX at the same camera to subject distance levels the playing field significantly).

Furry Fella

Shortlisted: Up close with a grey seal pup, Donna Nook seal colony.

So, when I entered a few images into the British Wildlife Photography Awards, I was hoping to get some past the first stage of judging. I’m not sure you can ever really guarantee these things, and the final results are really down to individual taste, and luck, but suffice to say that the standard is very high so anything would have been a bonus. Nor am I a professional wildlife photographer; it is a hobby for me at the end of the day.

I received notification today that I had two images shortlisted, which as a pleasant surprise! What was also surprising is that out of all my wildlife images taken with expensive equipment, the two that were shortlisted were shots that could have been taken with any DSLR and a kit lens.

Inquisitive

Shortlisted: A quite literal illustration of how all that expensive kit isn't needed! Donna Nook seal colony.

Sometimes having longer lenses can make the photographer lazy; sometimes purposely doing things differently, like getting up close and personal with a wildlife subject, can generate impact. Just remember to take care when approaching wildlife, so as not to startle them or cause damage to their habitats or lives. For example animals can abandon their young if they smell human scent on them, consigning them to almost certain death.

The picture might be more important than the equipment, but there are more important things than the picture.

It's a Cruel World

Scavenger and Scavengee: A seagull stands over the corpse of a grey seal pup, possibly abandoned by its mother and starved of the vital milk it needed. Note the hollow eye sockets. Donna Nook seal colony.

Read Full Post »

The Right Tools for the Job

Posted in Equipment, Opinion, Photography, tagged , , , , , on June 2, 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Durham Cathedral

Durham Cathedral: In its magnificent setting on the banks of the river Wear. 5 image stitched panorama.

Durham Cathedral is one of the architectural masterpieces in Europe. Blessed not just with painstaking Norman workmanship but a setting that rivals any in the country for sheer magnificence, the Cathedral lies on a plateau in a loop in the River Wear.

It has stood in that spectacular setting since building work began in 1093, when it took about 40 years for the majority of the original construction work to be completed. A colourful history through the centuries includes serving as a political and military base for the Prince Bishops in Anglo-Saxon times, through to more contemporary fame when it was cast as Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in the first two Harry Potter films.

Durham Cathedral in Infrared

A little bit magical: Durham Cathedral, through the trees. Infrared image.

Together with the neighbouring Castle, it was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1986. The Cathedral receives in excess of 600 000 visitors a year and is open daily as a place of worship. And like many other cathedrals in the country, photography is strictly prohibited.

So it was a surprise to discover that the Cathedral was hosting a Photography Evening on 1 June 2010, during which members of the public were invited to bring their camera and tripod along for an evening in the Cathedral. The fee was a very reasonable £10, pre-booking was advised, and I had the opportunity to go along as a helper from Durham Photographic Society.

Crossing, Looking up Durham Cathedral Tower

Crossing: Looking up Durham Cathedral Tower. Fisheye lens, four frame HDR.

Photographers were there in good number, rendering the evening an exercise in patience as photographers waited with cable releases at the ready for a clear shot. There were photographers young and old, and of both genders. Big tripods, little tripods. Point and shoot compact cameras, through to full sized DSLR cameras. Samsung, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Canon, Nikon… every major brand.

And in the middle of it all, I spotted someone with Nikon’s top of the range DSLR. The Nikon D3x… 24 million pixels of amazing quality that would have been just the ticket for lovely detailed interior shots of the Cathedral. Along with the very highly regarded and highly priced Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom lens, it was a setup that would set you back over £6 000.

That’s enough to buy a small car in this country. And not a bad set of tools for this unique photographic opportunity, then.

Chapel of the Nine Altars

Chapel of the Nine Altars: Spectacular stained glass, converging verticals and all. Three frame HDR.

Yet not the right tool for the job. Not in this case anyway, as £6 000 of top of the line photography equipment was paired with nothing more than a monopod. Which, as it turned out, was swiftly discarded as being of little use as the photographer resorted to lying the camera flat against any surface that he could find in an effort to get vaguely sharp results.

The irony of course is that someone with an entry level DSLR and kit lens and a basic tripod would have got better results. Freedom to shoot at base ISO, freedom from handshake, freedom to choose a smaller aperture for greater depth of field, and freedom to compose freely and accurately using a tripod as opposed to laying the camera on a ledge and hoping. And freedom to spend the extra £5 500 sitting in their bank account.

I’d take 12 million sharp pixels over 24 million pixels afflicted by a bad case of noise, limited depth of field, and handshake, any day of the week.

View from the Choir

View from the Quire: Better balanced light later in the evening allowed this shot as a single exposure with a Perspective Control lens.

So, the moral of the story is to bring the right tools for the job. That’s not necessarily the highest resolution camera or sharpest lens or most expensive bit of kit you can get your hands on. Sometimes it’s as simple as a humble tripod.

Another way of looking at it is, if a spectacular Cathedral opens its doors to the general public for photography for only the second time in its long and illustrious history, don’t bring a D3x. ;)

Read Full Post »

It’s All About the Photographer!

Posted in Opinion, tagged , , , on May 27, 2010 | 1 Comment »

“But, I thought you said…”

You’re right. I did.

I’m talking about something else now, however.

Good photography is very often confused by many to be one part photographer and one part camera. It’s not, and if anything it’s really all about the photographer.

In the same way that no one told Pavarotti that he had a magnificent microphone and acoustical auditoria, good photography is about the photographer and not the camera he or she uses to create pictures.

The camera is an enabler. It’s a tool by which photographers express their creative vision. And it’s that creative vision that leads to good images, and not about whether you have the latest and greatest camera, or a continuation of playground my-lens-is-bigger-than-your-lens antics.

This also means that the camera can be a disabler. There will be times when a photographer will be hamstrung by their equipment. I’m not pretending that it doesn’t happen, because it does. There will come a point in time when a photographer visualises something, but just doesn’t have the lens for it. But the key element of the equation is the visualisation; if the photographer doesn’t visualise it then the image will never be created, regardless of the size of the kit bag.

Yet the very technical nature of photography frequently leads to the misconception about the importance of the technology. People frequently exclaim, “that’s a great picture,” and then spoil it with, “what camera did you use?”

Computers are a brilliant piece of technology, but they only help you write a blog, not a interesting blog.

What makes a professional better than John Smith with his little point and shoot is not the fact that the professional’s camera is better than Mr Smith’s. It’s because the professional knows how to compose, how to use the light, how to put a subject at ease.

Since moving into weddings, I’ve found that a lot of couples choose photographers primarily on price. Some will have a (low) minimum standard they require, but primarily it’s about finding the cheapest. Far be it from me to quibble with the demands of a finite bank balance, but this methodology is upside down. Have a maximum budget that you can spend (low if necessary), but then find the best possible photographer you can for that money.

At the end of the day, no one would pay to hear me sing at the Royal Albert Hall. Pavarotti down the local karaoke would have been quite something.

Rest in peace, Luciano.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.