jimmcnitt

April 30, 2009

Hi Ty:

One lesson learned from the decade I spend as a working photojournalist was to avoid "retail" photo projects like the plague, or perhaps the swine flu.

In my experience, most publishing professionals--photo editors, art directors, designers, newspaper and magazine editors, etc.--understand copyrights and, more importantly, have realistic expectations about what a photographer can and cannot accomplish.

But I also discovered (the hard way) that friends, neighbors, small business owners, etc., often have distorted concepts of copyright law and sometimes very exaggerated notions of what a photographer can achieve, how quickly it can be done, and how much (or little) it should cost.

When the job not only involves your personal friends, but their extended circle of friends and team mates, as in the case of the project you describe, it is by design a prescription for disaster.

My policy on retail work was simple. If it was for a relative, friend or neighbor, I made it absolutely clear I was doing the job as a favor and refused to accept any payment--other than, perhaps, some "in kind" gesture like dinner at good restaurant.

I know it's especially tough for "event photographers" to draw this kind of distinction when that first assignment is likely to be cousin Wanda's wedding. But, at least until you are very well established, mixing fees and friends is almost always a prescription for hurt feelings–or worse.

If anything, this is even more true in the age of ubiquitous digital cameras and "pirated" downloads than it was in the film era.

--jim

April 26, 2009

Recently the reflex mirror on my Canon 5D (circa early 2006) detached and shattered. A quick Google revealed I wasn't alone. Several 5D owners reported their mirrors had detached without breaking and they were able to repair the problem themselves–or have a camera repair shop do the job for about $35:

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QEEq

Those of us with broken reflex mirrors, however, were in for a nasty surprise. A well-known camera repair facility they told me that Canon does not sell the reflex mirror separately, so a damaged mirror means replacing the entire reflex assembly for $500 plus.

A little further Googling, however, revealed this February 2009 Canon Service Notice:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11933&keycode=2112&id=55659

In other words, Canon will reinforce your 5D reflex mirror free of charge before it detaches. Or, if your reflex mirror has already detached, Canon will now repair it for free. They even pay the UPS charges.

If you own an early-model 5D, I'd urge you to take advantage of Canon's offer and have your reflex mirror reinforced at some point when you can spare the camera for a week or two. (My repair took four business days, round trip shipping included, but I live within overnight UPS distance of a Canon service center.)

Murphy's Law, of course, dictates that if you ignore Canon's offer, the mirror will likely detach when you need your 5D the most.

--jim mcnitt

April 24, 2009

Hello Bradley: As mentioned in the thead, the answer to your question depends entirely on the software settings of your specific camera. In the case of my Canon 5D, I am able to turn off all the in-camera JPEG processing--including sharpening, color saturation, and contrast boost--except for compression.

JPEGs processed this way look rather flat on the camera LCD and computer monitor, but I use CAMERA RAW 5.6 in PHOTOSHOP CS4 (yes, since Photoshop CS3, you've been able to open and tweak your JPEGs in CAM RAW) to separately adjust my color temperature, exposure, shadows, midtones, highlights, contrast, clarity and vibrance (but NOT saturation, there's a big difference between vibrance and saturation when it comes to skin tones).

I'm not an event photographer, so I seldom batch process my images, but if you have multiple JPEG images shot under similar lighting conditions, you can simultaneously open all the JPEGS in CAM RAW, make your corrections to a single image, then hit the SELECT ALL and SYNCHRONIZE buttons, and CAM RAW will apply the same corrections to all of the images.

Of course, as also discussed above, you are generally better off shooting RAW in the first place, since you will get more dynamic range from RAW images than JPEGs. But if your camera offers the ability to turn off sharpening, contrast, saturation boost, etc., you can, indeed, achieve something that's very close to a CAM RAW file that offers all the speed and convenience of a JPEG. I do it all the time.

good luck...

April 20, 2009

<div>

00T7dZ-126737584.jpg.fef23c60ca39214ebd714840e7e65e1b.jpg

</div>

April 20, 2009

Question answered!

But the passionate and thoughtful discussion about the essence of street photography it seems to have provoked is far more fascinating. Javier makes a point that really resonates with me:

''My definition'' of Street photography is not simply a ''snap shot'' but it is [a] photograph. It is well framed, well composed and tells a story.

It's that last phrase–the idea of the single, well-composed image that "tells a story"–that seems to be the at the heart of most great photographs and, perhaps, especially great street photos.

Sometimes the story may not even make into conscious awareness, but we recognize it at some unspoken level. HCB's "Derrière La Gare Sainte Lazare, 1932," has always enthralled me, for example, but I never really understood why until read a recent review by art critic William Meyers:

"A heavy-set man has made his way across a puddle by using a ladder lying in it as a bridge and, reaching the end of the ladder, leaps. But he will not make it across the puddle, and Cartier-Bresson has frozen him -- and his reflection -- in time, just as his foot is about to splash down. We admire Cartier-Bresson's exquisite precision in capturing this most decisive of moments, but why else does this picture lodge so in memory?

Because we have all known that moment when, like Cartier-Bresson's jumper, we realize we are not going to make it across, that we cannot avoid the wide water. On a poster in the background, the silhouette of a performer executes a balletic leap whose graceful perfection mocks the efforts of the heavy-set man, as abstract ideals mock all real-life human efforts. Like many of the photographs in this exhibition, it is clear this picture was taken some time ago, but it is not dated. Instead it has entered a timeless realm where it is perpetually new."

Andrew mentions something about HCB's work that has always struck me as well:

a lot of his shots were blurred, not quite focused, exposure a bit off or had other technical issues that would cause most people today to reject them, but for him, it didn't detract from the work but added another dimension to it.

In their 2004 obituary of HCB, the New York Times notes:

"He insisted that his works not be cropped but otherwise disdained the technical side of photography; the Leica was all he ever wanted to use; he wasn't interested in developing his own pictures."

Immediately after that comment, however, is a quote that puzzles me:

"My contact sheets may be compared to the way you drive a nail in a plank," he [HCB] said. "First you give several light taps to build up a rhythm and align the nail with the wood. Then, much more quickly, and with as few strokes as possible, you hit the nail forcefully on the head and drive it in."

Is he talking about an overall approach where he gradually warms up taking a few images here and there before finding that one scene that hits the nail on the head? Or is he describing the way he approaches a specific scene, studying it photographically–tapping it lightly to build up a rhythm–before finding that one penultimate frame?

I suspect he means the former, but I'm not really sure. --jim

Image removed. As per photo.net Terms of Use, do not post images that are not your own.

April 19, 2009

Hi Richard:

I didn't have time to read the full thread, so my comments are probably redundant, but here goes. In my experience, RAW provides you with slightly more latitude for tweaking White Balance, Curves and HSL. If your camera supports RAW+JPEG, you can try this out for yourself.

That said, unless you have a really high-end dSLR, for your kind of action photography, you probably want to stick with JPEG lest you find yourself missing great shots because the cache is full and your viewfinder says "BUSY."

--jim

April 19, 2009

Hi Michael: Thanks for the tip about digital compacts. Actually, I been carrying Canon G7 around for a couple of years, but upgraded recently to a G10 because it shoots RAW. Come to think of it, the G10 wouldn't be any more conspicuous than a Leica M1 rangefinder! In good light, the G10's image quality can almost rival the 5D.

I also recently picked up a Canon SX-10 IS, precisely because it has a swivel LCD–and a 28 to 510mm optical zoom. So far, however, I've been immensely disappointed by the image quality. Even when taken in full sunlight, at 100 percent my images seem to be composed mostly of over-sharpened compression artifacts. I've put photos from the Canon SX-10 IS and Nikon Coolpix 8400 side-by-side and its no contest–the 8400 wins hands down. Responsiveness, unfortunately, is a different story.

Haven't tried either of the G10 or SX-10 IS for street photos, although I plan to soon.

As for the first frame, the more I think about it, as Javier says, working with a big white Canon 70-200 pretty much screams "look at me." This probably has a lot to do with it. Then again, at 6'2" and 240 lbs, most people tend to get skittish very quickly when I get inside their personal space comfort zone of 15 or 20 feet. So I'm not sure working wider would be much of an advantage for me.

What I did discover, is that street photography provokes a sense of excitement, participation and creative fulfillment that has the potential to become downright addictive. --jim

April 19, 2009

A lively discussion! As for the 30 frame issue, I have to agree with Jeff that this is really a question of personal style as opposed to some kind of a right versus wrong way. As a young photojournalist in the 1970s, I had a chance to work under two of the all time greats–Ralph Morse and George Silk–who were both staff photographers at LIFE during its salad days in the 50s and 60s. They would have agreed unconditionally that "photography is a game of percentages." One of the tricks Ralph taught me was to shoot motordrive bursts while rotating the exposure ring back and forth. That was his way of "auto" bracketing when using Kodachrome 64 which had an exposure latitude of maybe 1/2 f-stop–if you were lucky.

That said, photojournalism, at least in those days, usually involved subjects who were either aware they were being photographed–or were completely oblivious. From my limited experience with street photography, I'd have to say it really is a completely different animal. I thought Graham hit the nail on the head when he said: The longer you interact with a scene, the more your presence affects it and the less spontaneous it will appear to you. Street photo work is largely about initial discovery -- you are reacting to some sort of convergence. I started the thread because I was truly amazed at how often the first frame was, hands down, the best of almost every sequence that I shot the other day. This almost never happened in the far more formal, even formulaic, approach that I used when shooting magazine assignments. As for the "decisive moment," I'm not sure I understand your objection to the phrase, Ton, but your example of a "a single shot taken from a distance of 2-3 meters" is exactly what I had in mind: That single instant that encapsulates an entire story in the blink of an eye. If I recall correctly, HCB actually actually considered his work to be "stolen images"–which during the conservative 1950s, his American editor translated as "the decisive moment." HCB's concept, I believe, was that there is a single "intuitive" instant during which a photographer must capture an image, or else it is lost forever. This, however, was in the days before motordrives. Perhaps the fact that many other photographers responding to this thread seem to agree that, when it comes to street photography, their initial image is usually their best images, is further validation of HCB's concept–even in an era of digital media and motordrives. --jim

April 18, 2009

Hi Stephen:

Yes, from quite a distance. But even so, I think people have a sixth sense about having a big 24" barrel pointed at them.

The last time I tried any street photography I used a Nikon Coolpix 8400 (28-80mm) with a swivel back which made it very easy to frame and shoot holding the camera at waist level. But the focus lock was so sluggish that the results were indifferent at best. The beauty of the 70-200mm 2.8 is that the focus lock is almost instant and the limited depth of field isolates the subject. But, yes, the dirty looks abound.

April 18, 2009

This was the first grab shot. I was riding down an escalator at the time and the balding fellow was walking away at a pretty good clip as well, so in each of the following shots the composition had less and less impact.<div>

</div>

April 18, 2009

I took about 30 exposures, but none were as good as this first grab shot:<div>

00T6gY-126195584.jpg.6665d41f83ef561d6f20b5a6551b8b04.jpg

</div>

April 18, 2009

Thanks Graham & Andrew. Your explanation makes sense. What surprised me was that having an unlimited supply of "film" seems to have little impact on capturing that elusive decisive moment. Some examples.

This was the first frame. In the subsequent shots he is turning away and climbing down:<div></div>

April 18, 2009

I've been editing the results of a street photography session yesterday in mid-town Manhattan and noticed something curious. Nearly every time I shot an interesting scene, the first frame of a sequence was usually the best.

I found the subject's expression, pose, body language–or even the entire composition–would change in subtle but important ways between the first and subsequent frames. About 70 percent of the time the first frame was clearly the best frame.

In fairness, I haven't done street photography in many years. And I've never done it with a really good digital camera and lens (Canon 5D and 70-200mm L USM IS). Still, I'm wondering if photographers who routinely shoot street scenes with digital cameras have noticed anything similar?

Jim McNitt

www.jimmcnitt.com

November 13, 2007

Hi AJ:

You've posed some thoughtful questions, and as your photographic skills evolve, you will

surely resolve them on your own.

You might, however, want to add one additional question: "What is Art?"

It seems to me, if you can sort that one out, the other pieces will pretty much fall into

place,

When you finish "Seizing the Light," have a look at Arthur Koestler's "The Act of Creation."

Especially his essays at the end of Book I on "Visual Creation." Here's a small taste:

"We see not only with our eyes, but with our whole body. The eyes scan, the cortex thinks,

there are muscular stresses, innervations of the organs of touch, sensations of weight and

temperature, visceral reactions, feelings of rhythmn and motion -- all sucked into one

integrated vortex."

Koestler was a wise man who spent decades reflecting on nearly every aspect of human

creativity. He can help help you understand "why" you've been taking pictures for the past

couple of years. Once you understand that, the "how" part should be much easier for you

to solve.

Good luck with your search.

--Jim McNitt<div></div>

August 2, 2005

Abid:

If shooting in B&W is what you want to do, Google some reviews for the Nikon Coolpix

8800. My understanding is that, unlike most other digicams, when set to full

destaturation (B&W) the 8800 uses the memory normally allocated to color information to

increase the amount of picture detail in the B&W capture. --jim

July 19, 2005

Kim:

For whatever reason, I've also noticed the Rate Recent quey hangs up quite frequently. I've

found that by reselecting "Rate Recent Photographs" from the Gallery Menu I can quickly

get back in the RR quey and continue on my merry way. --jim

February 22, 2004

Alan:

It's not a slot Canyon, but it is one of the most remarkable -- and little known --

acheological sites in North America. Chaco Canyon is a bit difficult to reach --

about 20 miles on unimproved roads that wash out from time to time. But it's

definitely worth the effort. Here's the official site http://www.nps.gov/chcu. Even

the camp ground is located in the midst of Anastazi ruins.

An even more off-the beaten path idea: Starting in Green River, Utah, follow

the jeep trail north along the west bank of the Green River into Gray Canyon.

You'll likely encounter one of the several herds of Mountain Goats which

come down to the river to drink and there are numerous smaller side canyons

with abundant desert life to explore on foot.

Finally, if you don't already own them, the two volumes of "Photographing the

Southwest" are an absolute must. You can order them from Amazon.com

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0916189082/102-0788542-

8740936?v=glance) and probably Amazon.uk.

Have a great trip. --jim

February 22, 2004

Can anyone recommend an English-speaking photo assistant in Marrakesh

for a 7-day shoot in mid-March? --Jim McNitt

February 15, 2004

Richard:

Sad to hear K64 is nearing the end of its product life. K64 was, indeed, the

bread and butter film of photojournalists in the 70s and 80s who weren't on

same-day deadlines.

The near absence of grain, contrast, slight magenta hue and incredible

saturation were among its advantages. Editors demanded KR64

transparencies because they were easy to view and produced far higher

quality color separations than than negative film.

The disadvantage of K64 is its narrow exporure latitude. A difference of 1/3 an

f-stop in one direcrtion or the other is all it takes to either block up the

shadows or, especially, blow out the hightlights. Hence, the need to bracket!

It ages wonderfully, which is to say, not at all. Most of my K64 trannies from

the early 70s have been stored in sheet protectors and aside from scratches

and dust, they look as if they were taken yesterday.

While I love K64, unless your objective is to make prints larger than 16x20, my

advice is to invest in a good digital SLR and then shoot, shoot, shoot.... --jim

June 26, 2003

Hello Brian:

Just a note of congratulations and thanks.

The outtages and error messages have diminished drastically

and filtered critique searches are producing results again!

When server error messages do appear, a second click is

usually sufficient to invoked a proper response. One new quirk: a

rating of 7 no longer requires a comment. Don't know if the

same goes for 1 or 2.

I'm sure the past month hasn't been easy and I know I'm not the

only PN subscriber who feels you deserve a major rhetorical pat

on the back.

Great work... and thanks!

June 26, 2003

Hello Bob and Tobias:

The fact that the cages are locked IS reassuring. But who did you

say has the key?

A few of the suggestions in this manifesto sound diametrically

opposed to what I would consider the spirit of Photo.Net (i.e.

"Explicitly disqualify LCD screens as an improper display

technology.") But, since when do tempered opinions provoke

debate?

Perhaps I've missed it (a distinct possibility), but I've never

encountered a comprehensive Photo.Net FAQ.

A well organized 20-30 page document that explains in detail the

basic guidelines, procedures and nomenclature for uploading,

critiquing and portfolio management would have manifold

advantages. Not the least of which would be considerable

savings in time and energy for Forum moderators.

Yes, Photo.Net covers nearly every level of photographic

expertise (or lack thereof) imaginable. But a well-ordered, well-

organized FAQ should be able to address a sprectrum of topics

from "How do I make a JPG for uploading?" to the finer points of

display gamma and ICC profiles.

Forums play a vital role, especially for exploring advanced topics

and, apparently, for venting one's frustrations. But a good FAQ

provides a common benchmark and an easily accessed

reference tool.

BTW, Tobias, I been using a custom gamma of 1.8 on my Mac

monitors -- one 20" studio display, one iMac and two LCD

iBooks. I'll try nudging this up to 2.0 or 2.2. But abandon the

LCDs? Never! I thought the whole point of critiquing was to

make emphatic declarations from the comfort of my overstuffed

Chesterfield.

June 12, 2003

P.S.

Somehow I missed Jacques suggestion earlier in the thread. It

won't do anything to address visibility, but it sure would keep

ratings inflation in check.

There's one potential side effect that needs to be thought

through. Would it result in sudden wave of photographer

suicides? If, in effect, one must gave out a "1" for every "7,"

there's going to be a lot of highly discouraged novices.

Still, it's something worth considering!

June 12, 2003

As they say in politics, Photo.Net is one helluv a big tent. It

embraces experienced working pros, first time hobbyists and

everything in between -- from digital artists to photographic

fetishists.

When you factor in the international reach and the language

problems associated with photographic jargon, it�s amazing that

the ratings system works at all. But in the midst of all this

complexity, it not only works -- but works rather well.

It�s clear that cronyism and ratings inflation are going to be a

feature of any subjective ratings system that is not anonymous.

Just look at the Olympics. It�s human nature.

Still, the designers of the present iteration of the PN system had

a brilliant idea in awarding the default �High-rated� status based

on the volume of ratings. To get a lot of ratings, most

photographers must make a lot of ratings. This structure favors

PARTCIPATION which is certainly good for PN�s own page-hit

stats as well as for building an active and loyal community --

presuming, of course, that there�s server capacity and bandwidth

to handle it all.

This is not to say that the system doesn�t have a built-in bias. On

the plus side, IMO, truly exceptional work does stand out and get

noticed very quickly. Novel ideas and techniques also tend to

stand out -- although there seems to be an ebb and flow as

today�s novelty becomes tomorrow�s cliché.

Finally, there�s a political bias. This is what Doug is talking

about. Fair or not, photographers who post a lot of images, rate a

lot of images (especially with pleasantly high numbers), have a

reputation among the regulars, and develop a network of

�mates,� are going to end up dominating the top-rate pages.

In short, the ratings system as presently structured is partly

objective and partly political, which, when you think about it, is a

lot like most other human �communities.�

Doug believes that we aren�t speaking up in opposition to what

we know to be imperfect or mediocre images. He�s probably

right. But it�s also important to realize most people shape their

behavior to maximize their reward from the system.

I, for one, take commenting seriously, and whenever possible, try

to devote considerable time to making helpful (and realistic)

suggestions for improvement. (�Pity you overexposed it,� is not

what I consider a helpful comment.)

I spend a couple of hours a week in the Gallery, commenting on

the work of talented new-comers, or good new work by regulars

whose names I recognize. I ignore what I consider banal.

I also spend a couple of hours trying to rate the work of people

who have taken the time to comment on my images. This is

sometimes rather painful, because frequently, I just can�t bring

myself to give someone a 4 or 5 when they have, out of the blue,

commented favorably and given me a 6 or a 7. So, often I

regretfully leave their work un-rated. It�s not really anything to do

with fear of retribution. I just know that people DO take ratings

personally.

I�m also inclined to be overly generous with people whose work

I admire or who frequently rate and comment generously. I take it

even Doug is apt fall into this particular behavior pattern.

Finally, I get extremely pissed off when critics use someone

else�s creative work as a forum for addressing the generic

problems of the rating system. This is a vital topic, but properly

discussed, as Doug is doing, in the site Forum, and NOT in

ratings comments of specific photos.

Doug�s point, as I take it, is that we should be rating the images

we don�t like, as well as the ones we do -- at least the one�s that

make it to the �High-rated pages.� Call a spade a spade. Ideally,

this is true. But realistically, this is not behavior the system

rewards -- if anything, it�s behavior the system discourages.

Yes, we can all be more aggressive in promoting our �aesthetic�

-- although I personally prefer to make such statements through

my work, rather than by tearing down someone else�s image

with contentious comments.

It's not an easy thing to tell a sincere person that you consider

what is presumably their best effort to be fundamentally flawed

and mediocre in an objective and emotionally neutral manner.

I'm not sure I can do it. I seen very few photographers on PN who

can.

PN could, I think, eliminate this conflict by going to a system

where the uploading photographer remains anonymous during

a given ratings period, say a week or ten days.

This would surely promote objectivity. Would it be fun? And most

importantly, would photographers upload a thousand images a

day in order to take the inevitable lumps that would come from

being rated anonymously? Probably not. Which leaves me

thinking that the current system, despite its flaws, does a pretty

good job for most of the people, most of the time.

February 23, 2003

Back to the original thread here. Whatever Canon's motivation,

the lack of a review zoom beyond 2x or 3x on the Canon D60 is a

problem for me -- and I assume others.

So, if you want to review your images on an LCD at higher

magnifications, the fact is, you can transfer your CF to many

consumer digital cameras -- including the Nikon 5700 and

Canon S230. You may also be able use the cameras to delete

unwanted images and make to room on your CF cards.

Macman pointed out that digital wallets are becoming

increasingly inexpensive. This has a strong attraction to me

because I don't like lugging an iBook or leaving it in an

unattended car or, even worse, with parking attendants. Even

with 2GB of CF cards (4-128s, 2-256s, and 1-1GB) it seems I'm

either running out of memory at the wrong time -- or am nervous

about running out of memory at the wrong time.

So, for $280 I picked up the 20GB "Image Tank" at B&H last

week. I'd NEVER trust this thing with critical work on an

assignment. But I don't mind leaving it in the car -- or even

lugging it in my camera bag. It gives me peace of mind that I

won't run out of memory and, if I have a couple of CF cards with

something exceptional on them, I can use it to BACK UP the CF

cards.It's only USB 1.1, the construction is very tinny, the manual

is almost nonexistant, and the 20GB drive is probably off-off

brand -- but it does run on AA batteries and weighs only about 9

ounces. It has a built-in CF card reader and is plug-and-play

when used with OS9.2. Once mounted, it behaves like any other

USB 1.1 hard drive -- slow as cold molasses.

As for the issue of using LCDs to review your work in the field --

Macman's point is well taken. Still, I think it is possible to

determine sharpness if you have a high enough magnification

and a hard edge or other straight line in the image. Certainly, you

aren't going to be adjusting levels, contrast or color based on the

LCD. But I think I CAN make good calls on exposure and

sharpness -- maybe 30 years of looking at Kodachrome

transparencies through a loupe has been worth something

more than eye strain.

February 23, 2003

Daniel:

You are wise to invest in the "L-glass" first. I use a 28-70 f/2.8L

and 70-220 f/4L alongside a bunch of non-L primes (20,

34,35,50, 100). When reviewing my work at the end of the day I

can instantly spot the images taken with the L lenses by their

superieor "color contrast." Images taken with the L-lenses just

seem to have richer, more subtle colors. In addition, IMO, they

are just as sharp as those taken with the non-L primes.

As for digital, well, camera salespeople will always be trying to

sell you something. Really, it's a question of how much you

shoot and your personal style. I've taken close to 100,000

images since I bought my first digital camera (Nikon 990) in May

2000. With Kodachrome 64 (my film of choice) at about $.50 per

frame -- that's some serious film savings. But then, I already had

iBooks, hard drives, monitors and had been using PS for almost

a decade already. With the D60, I can finally marry my L-lenses

with a pro-quality digital body -- that's been a great joy!

If you're dubious about digital, there's no rush. Keep investing in

good glass, the price of digital cameras and computers keeps

falling at about 50 percent every 18 months -- so maybe by the

time you've got a full quiver of glass, they'll be giving the cameras

away.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jimmcnitt