imagesbybrl

<p>I agree that it's refreshing just to have a photography show on the air. Wish there were more! One question, he gets some really awesome colors in his pan. But I read that he doesn't do HDRI, use photoshop and rarely uses filters. He and the Lik employees deny the use of computers to get those colors. Maybe I only read the wrong threads, but has anyone heard the same, and how does he get those colors? BTW I also agree, it's a turnoff with the yelling. But you have to hand it to the guy, he markets his images very well.</p>

 

<p>To all, sorry for the duplicate entries. I use dial up and many times there is a lenghty delay so I'm not sure if my entry was submiited. So I hit the submit button too many times. My most sincere apologies to all.</p>

<p>I agree with Kim. I always use a tripod whenever possible, if it is not possible, resort to a mini tripod, monopod or firm support such as on top of a wall or butt the camera base against the side of a structure. If you must handhold then don't shoot any slower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Some maybe more steady than others, but by using a tripod you ensure every image is razor sharp. I am not the steadiest shooter, so I freely admit that when handholding I use a shutter speed that is twice as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. I have no ego to bruise. No matter how steady you are there will always be a chance of camera shake if using a slower shutter speed in comparison to your focal length. It's always good to play it safe. <br>

Tripods are also great at slowing the pace as Kim mentioned. It gives you more time to compose and check every aspect of your image for distractions. </p>

<p>I agree with Kim. I always use a tripod whenever possible, if it is not possible, resort to a mini tripod, monopod or firm support such as on top of a wall or butt the camera base against the side of a structure. If you must handhold then don't shoot any slower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Some maybe more steady than others, but by using a tripod you ensure every image is razor sharp. I am not the steadiest shooter, so I freely admit that when handholding I use a shutter speed that is twice as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. I have no ego to bruise. No matter how steady you are there will always be a chance of camera shake if using a slower shutter speed in comparison to your focal length. It's always good to play it safe. <br>

Tripods are also great at slowing the pace as Kim mentioned. It gives you more time to compose and check every aspect of your image for distractions. </p>

<p>I agree with Kim. I always use a tripod whenever possible, if it is not possible, resort to a mini tripod, monopod or firm support such as on top of a wall or butt the camera base against the side of a structure. If you must handhold then don't shoot any slower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Some maybe more steady than others, but by using a tripod you ensure every image is razor sharp. I am not the steadiest shooter, so I freely admit that when handholding I use a shutter speed that is twice as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. I have no ego to bruise. No matter how steady you are there will always be a chance of camera shake if using a slower shutter speed in comparison to your focal length. It's always good to play it safe. <br>

Tripods are also great at slowing the pace as Kim mentioned. It gives you more time to compose and check every aspect of your image for distractions. </p>

<p>Brian,<br>

I like the HDRI shots you included, especially Grand Central. I like to try to get rid of people in my images. I don't know if you use this technique or not. I use a 3 stop ND filter coupled with a low ISO speed and a small aperture (say f/11 or f/16). Many times depending on the lighting it can yield exposure times running into 4 to 8 minutes long. This way I can get rid of most if not all people in the image (that is if you don't want people in your shots). I was surprised to hear tripods were allowed at Top of the Rock. I should try to bring mine up there. Till now I used a baby tripod (for lack of a better descriptive term) on top of the stone parapet wall on the uppermost observation deck. It lets me get away with traveling lighter. There was a good point brought up that maybe the people with tripods got permits from the building owners beforehand, so checking with them is a great idea.<br>

I know generally in street shots the police don't really bother you if you have a tripod unless it blocks pedestrian traffic or you are shooting on private property, but after an incident at Times Square I always obtain a shooting permit from the Mayors Office for Film Location Shoots. I really don't want to mess with the police an their interpretation of the law (and it saved me from a few confrontations with the police when I shoot pans in the city). It can get pretty nasty sometimes (but hey, they are concerned with terrorist activities). The permit is free, all you have to do is fill out the online form indicating the day and location where you will be shooting (only works if you know several days beforehand where you intend to be). Once they approve the permit, they fax it back to you, and your set. <br>

Keep shooting and have fun!</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

I've shot Ekta-chrome and Koda-Chrome before when I played with multi exposure studio still life images. My idea of the latitude of chrome was shared by other photographers at the studio I use to work in. Now maybe in time latitude for chromes might have changed, as film technology has advanced. We all know that film has come a long way over the years and capabilities changed for the better. I haven't shot chrome in many years, but when I did it was very low. When I shot chrome if I was off by 1 stop, many times the highlights would get blown out. Since we are on the subject anyway, since you were able to get 12 stops or a latitude of 4096 on the Ilford, what is your feeling on the latitude on Tri-X. It was the Tri-X B&W that I stated the 512 lat. or 9 stops. I will def. have to revisit and get a couple of test rolls of Astia and HP5 to do a stop by stop test until I lose shadow and highlight detail. But for the characteristics of Astia & HP5 which side does the film favor, and how should I adjust the settings to get maximum exposure latitude in a high contrast situation (always good to know to keep in my files should I use that particular film in the future). I'll let you know how it comes out. I'm glad to hear from someone who thinks in terms of latitude and stops as well. </p>

<p>I am wondering what is exactly meant by lack of picture depth. Maybe it's just another way of describing latitude of the recording medium. The greater the latitude captured, the greater the tonal and color range recorded. We refer to the range of light intensity that a medium can reproduce as latitude. I shot 35mm exclusively until a year and a half ago. I still do a great deal of shooting in 35mm film, andI miss the Ektar 25 film. The biggest thing I had to come to terms with is the difference in latitude between film and digital capture. Latitude (tonal and color range) should not be confused with saturation and contrast. A digital image can be tweaked with levels, saturation & incresed contrast to make images pop out. However by increasing sat. & contrast you actually cut down on the tonal steps and range of the image. By creating more absolute colors, you give the illusion of depth by having fewer colors and starker images, which can be confused with good picture depth. I view depth not as how vibrant an image is, or if the image goes from pure black to pure white. Instead I view picture depth as an image with full range of tones. If one medium captures pure black to pure white in 12 tonal steps as compared to another medium which captures the same image in 100 tonal steps, the image with more tonal capture has more picture depth. I feel this way because there is more information gathered, while still representing the entire color range. The latitude of the human eye is 50,000 (the brightest light we can perceive is 50,000 times brighter than the dimmest light we can perceive. B&W film has a latitude of 512 times or 9 stops. Color Negative film has a latitude of 32 times or 5 stops, Color reversal and Digital has the narrowest lattitude of 6 times or 2 1/2 stops (roughly). The lack of latitude, is one of the primary reason's HDRI (High Dynamic Range Imaging) is gaining popularity. The idea of HDRI is to try to capture the same amount of tonal information as that of B&W film. THis is done by taking multiple exposures (many times up to 9 images 1 stop apart) in digital and merging the exposures into one final image. This one image will have more information and range to work with. Though initially it appears flat. With Photoshop burn and dodge you can create a full image with more information that rivals B&W. The more tones represented, the greater the picture depth. This is why whenever we take a picture, the image never matches what we see. The medium is not sensitive enough to match the human eye. For the same reason, digital or film reversal can not match the information gathered by color negative or B&W. I feel this is why DSLR pictures may seem to lack depth (it does not mean it lacks punch). I don't believe it has anything to do with merely getting light and dark values in a print. So if you want to improve the picture with depth....try using HDRI capture techniques. This is my opinion based on my experience with both 35mm film and digital capture. I thought it worth mentioning, as I did not see it brought up earlier. Of course, I don't expect everyone to embrace the idea, but I just ask that we keep an open mind to the idea of latitude and it's effect on picture depth.</p>

<p>I agree with the mentality of saving for a rainy day first. People are into photography just like home theater systems for several reasons as a hobby. Some are into creating images, others are more interested in the gear. My old college professor quoted something he read once which has stuck with me ever since. He said "we start by loving the toy, we end by loving the art". Everyone starts with the fascination with the camera as a toy (well maybe not everyone, but I did). It's a symbol....a badge of honor, and many play the time honored game of mine is better than yours. But for some, its the images that captivate. It's higher ground and infinitely more rewarding. I'm not sure which ground you are on. If your ultimate fascination is with the toy, and since you are still young, and if you have a savings rate far exceeding the national avg. and you can afford the D300 by all means go for it. But if it's the images that grab you, then you have to ask yourself, for my type of photography, have I mastered the art of to the point that you have gotten all you can from the camera? If it's image quality you seek, I agree, use your money and buy the best optics you can afford. This will make the most difference in your images. I owned and used the Nikon FM2 for 22 years. I do everything manually, from exposure to focus. Every image I have ever taken was done manually, so when it came time to buy my first digital camera I went with the D40x. I spoke to a knowledgable rep. at the specialty camera store. They were use to custom printing my images, and when the salesman suggested the D200 (the hot camera at that time), the owner said to me, based on your type of photography the D40x will do just fine (and it was due to come out in a few months). It didn't have the bells and whistle's of the higher end Nikon line, but it fit what I needed it for. I wanted a small lightweight camera that felt good in my hands, light enough not to add too much poundage in my camera knapsack, and capable of good performance. I shoot manual mode exclusively, so the other features ranging from AF to Matrix metering did not matter. I continue to meter and focus myself. The camera had the ISO setting I use most (100). I'm not the best photographer out there, not even close. I admit there areas I can improve upon and the camera can continue to handle those situations as they come up just fine. How am I so sure of that? Because just a few years ago, the top of the line pro digital camera did not have all of the features and functions of todays beginers model, and the pros did just fine back then. If they were still able to shoot impressive pictures back then, then if I'm worth anything, I should be able to make excellent images now with the D40x. Just ask yourself honestly, why do I really need the new body? What group do I fall into, and make your decision based on that. I have known too many people who upgraded simply for love of the toy, for me not to ask you which group are you in?</p>

<p>Thank you all for your response. The lesson plans had already been drafted befoer my post. Be rest assured many of the ideas you guys posted was already addressed, but thank you for the input because you never know. Better safe than sorry, and I am glad you brought up all of those points.<br>

Charles: A lot of what you addressed are covered. The lessons were intened to gound them in the basics so if a situation comes up which wasn't cover in class they would be armed in determining most likely what happened. One of the excercises they will be doing is recording identical images focused on the same point throughout the aperture range 2.8....4....5.6....8....11....16....22 etc. I wanted them to see for themselves what happened to the DOF for the subject. Though this part will be illustrated as well in the handout materials. I will tie in aperture to shutterspeed in the excercise as they will see the direct correlation between the 2 as they try to maintain the same exposure. Vary distance shoot will also be covered to show the effects on DOF if one were to focus further away or closer to. Shutter speed with moving objects will also cover positioning which is important in trying to capture images as subjects coming towards you have relatively less movement in the frame than one going across. We will cover EV and histograms as well. Thanks for your time in responding.<br>

Les: Thanks for letting me know my response had alayed the concerns you had with my first post. It means a lot.<br>

Marta: Yes, there are field trips included to put the lessons to use and the results seen first hand. Please keep shooting pictures as you seem to love doing that. The photos clearly show a focus on the main subject by filling the frame which you do well. Before tripping the shutter make sure to double check the subject is perfectly focused, unless it was your intention to do otherwise. If you don't mind me asking, what is the make and model of the camera you are using, and if it is a DSLR what is the lens you are using. It might help to render feedback on the slight softness of the images.<br>

John: Point well taken. I make it a point of never underestimating anyone. I'm a firm believer you are only as good as the last image you take and the day you are comfortable with where you are and what you know, is the day you stop learning and expanding. People have different learning curves and different styles. There has to be some diversity in the examples to better increase the chance for stiking a chord with different student. But no need to tell you I won't go crazy with tons of different styles shown because we simply won't have the time, but be rest assured I will also be showing my own work mixed in there as well.<br>

Sandra: My plans for the lessons already incorporated most everything that was brought to the forefront in the repsonses save yours. Thanks for taking the time as an instructor for sharing your opinions. I do have more duds in the past than I would care to admit. I think it's good idea to show images I have taken that have problems and what I did to avoid them. I will make sure to incorporate several of those as well and as you mentioned should help with the class participation. It was not and will not be my intention to show perfect photos and tell them how to shoot them. There are too many things that can go wrong to exhibit it all and cover it all. Perfect photos too many times is more complicated than it appears which would result in a lot of note taking with no absorbtion. I want to build basic understanding and knowledge so they in turn will be able to figure out what happened on their own if it was not covered in class (which is possible). What I'm going to do is show photos (not all of them will be perfect, some will be, others won't thru less than perfect execution, but they will all have the same thing in common). They will all show the importance of a clear subject matter, one that that can easily be identified. They will all show basic tools that were used to make that subject stand out, which in turn also helped to eliminate or play down distracting elements. They students will be slowly given only a few tools at a time to focus attention. It will be illustrated in photographs, and when they shoot they will only use those tools just shown. Class photo review of the images and discussions will help the student come to this conclusion on their own at the begining with some carefull conversation guidance. Then this same technique will be used in field trips. As I go through the different aspects of the camera, the class will learn other tools at their disposal. The students will only be given a handfull of manageable simple techniques at a time, which will be reinforced on field trips. But it's all about the basics. The only difference is with these tools they will have to stop and think first, which ones should I use and why. That's what I them to do. I don't expect them to use the techniques in all of their images. But even if they do it for a least 5 images every entire vacation, they will slowly get use to seeing things a little differently because they took the time to stop and think, and they will have a tanglable list to know where to start from. Inject a little more excitement into some of their vacation pictures or little league games. If they can do that, I'll be happy and I'm sure they will be too.<br>

Jussi: I only indicated that copying was a great way to learn all of the techniques and the factors that go into a good or great photograph. I did not say I was going to do it. The original reason for getting some additional images was to show something a little less intimidating than what was perfected over a lifetime of taking pictures. As Sandra pointed out and I agree I should consider using my own images to fill in this area, but by including some other images will help round it out so it doesn't become the Brian show. Even images you take today through years of practice can be daunting for someone new. But that doesn't mean they should not be introduced to truly fine works to build their appreciation of the arts. That is why I still intend to show works from Adams, Leibovitz, Wolfe & Rowell as well. When I started in photography I admired the works of Gary Perwieller. He was a still life commercial product and still life photographer. I started by learning to copy his work. This was back in the days of film. I shot 8x10 view camera's before but could not afford one. So I used 35mm. It was my first camera and it was fully manual. It was a Nikon FM2 coupled with a 35-70mm Nikkor zoom, and I used 25 speed professional film. Gary's work was an eye opener for me because his fantastic product shots many times required 3 to 4 multiple exposures on the same frame. This was before the days of photoshop and image merging. Everything was done in layers and precision was of the utmost importance. You had to make sure that what was exposed was not further exposed in subsequent exposures. Exposure 1 was frequently lighting to record movement of the subject, exposure 2 was recording the main subject in it's final resting spot, exposure 3 was for the background (colored halo to draw attention to the subject or star screen). Exposure 4 was for the lighting on the element that created a visual floor for the image (many times it was a tube painted in gloss colors). The tube was lit from above to create a graduated effect that would dissappear at the bottom of the frame. Each exposure requried different lighting, sometimes varying focus or aperture. Each area could only be exposed once. If an area was not to be recorded until exposure 3, then that area had to be recorded as black in exposures 1,2 & 4 (since black does not register on film, it can then be exposed at a latter time, which requried fine tuning light souce). It was an eye opening experience. I had to deal with composition, set design, order of exposure, lighting, focus, planing how to cut exposure and light certain areas at a time. All of this required absolutely no camera movement or set movement for a perfectly finished 4 exposure shot, and you didn't know if it worked until you got the film processed. Different light sources sometimes required different filters for color correction which meant touching the camera. This was my fight against the Klitschko Brothers (in your words). I was a newbie and I enjoyed the challenge. I succeeded in taking a picture of a toy train with a model car jumping over it Dukes of Hazzard style in a evening star setting with a soft blue glow behind the train. My 4 exposure worked so there was no movement between exposures. Did the picture look good?...not really....did it work? yes....did it match Gary Perwiellers work?....No! But it worked well enough that I learned a lot from that one excercise. My photography teacher at City College knew that the subject wasn't stong and from a composition stand point it could use some more work, but he gave me an A on it anyway because it was far technically advanced than anyone would even venture at my stage.....and technically it did work, not just as well as I would have hoped. So, would I disuade someone from attempting images like Adams with the zone system?...No.... Would I assign it?.....No. But I do recognize the learning importance, at least for me of such excercises. Pulling it off is not the important thing, but learning from it is invaluable.</p>

<p>Nice shot, especially the 2nd one (good atmosphere)...wish I could keep my hands steady for 1/13s on 35mm (I'd have to use timer to avoid camera shake just from pressing the shutter). Too bad it only works for classic portraits, and not when you want sharp details in the background as well (in the event you want a landmark to appear in all it's glory and you want to use a finer ISO as well). How well does the image hold when blown up to 12x9?</p>

<p>Thank you very much for your feedback. It was very helpful. Maybe I should have clarified why I'm looking for outside images. I am using a great deal of my own images for the class. I intend to show works of others as well. I have also shot a lot of illustration photographs as well to clarify points and concepts, right and wrong. I will be using hardened examples of established works as well (thank you for that point as well). But in my countless conversations with casual picture takers there is one common thread. They love good images, but many of them do not progress beyond a certain point simply because they have no desire or time to spend honing in their photographic skills. They just do not know where to begin to simply improve their pictures. The class is just to push them in the right direction, offering tips and approachs for casual picture takers. Excellent images are great to look at and study. Many feel trying to copy the techniques and style of imagery as cheating, but I know it's a great way to get hands on understanding of the concepts and the technical nuances that went into taking such a photograph. In time they will begin to discover their own artistic direction (If they decide they want to take more than a passing interest) which originated from stronger fundamentals gained from such excercises, and will morph into a style they feel more comforatble with. <br>

I was really looking to also present ordinary images (those which are far, far from perfect). Images that show a clear intent, direction, path and understanding of composition, yet not quite executed successfully. In reality these images will still stand out heads and shoulders above the everyday shoot before you think photographs. Something that shows them you don't have eat, breath, sleep and live photography in order to take better pictures. To show them what is achievable in a relatively short time with just a little care. The bottom line...it may not be perfect, it doesn't have to be, it can still look good and be relatively easy to achieve. So I want to mix in other images at varying abilities. The class is for casual picture takers just looking for some improvement. Show them work of others, no one famous, no one extremely advanced. I'm just happy they are showing some interest in improving a skill.</p>

<p>I was asked to teach a general class on how to improve your photography. The class is geared to newbies to photography who are looking to take the first step to improve their photography. Many own DSLR's without any real working knowledge of the camera. I wanted to teach them the basics of photography and the basics of camera gear. I thought it would be important for them to understand how the camera and lens works so they will better understand why many of their images were not successfully recorded. But to do this, I thought is would be great to show them images that work. Some thing to strive for. What is the best way to obtain outside images just for illustration purposes for a small class?</p>