younes

<p>Thanks for the feedback everyone.<br>

Ryan, that shot is simply stunning!<br>

Gary, you californians don't qualify for this kind of talk :-D. You are the spoiled brats of landscape photography LOL (well along with other few West Coast people).</p>

<p>Actually, I just wanted to clear up what seems to be a little confusion around the topic. "Backyard" was meant in figurative way...as in close to home.<br>

Being open to opportunities can be applied to any field in photography, not just nature and wildlife. Take architecture for example: you may not have Gaudi or Gehry buildings in your city/town, but if you are willing to look beyond the building and focus on basic design elements (colours, lines, patterns and texture) you can open doors that you never even contemplated before.</p>

<p>Actually, I just wanted to clear up what seems to be a little confusion around the topic. "Backyard" was meant in figurative way...as in close to home.<br>

Being open to opportunities can be applied to any field in photography, not just nature and wildlife. Take architecture for example: you may not have Gaudi or Gehry buildings in your city/town, but if you are willing to look beyond the building and focus on basic design elements (colours, lines, patterns and texture) you can open doors that you never even contemplated before.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then there was the black bear in my swing chair on the back deck last summer...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Now that would have been quite the photograph (and sight for that matter). On a side note, I am totally envious of you!<br>

PS: I had to edit my post twice, bcs I am apparently not allowed to use more than one exclamation point...now, I didn't know Big Brother was among us.</p>

<p>Lex, you know that you CAN photograph people in your own backyard, the law does allow it (in Canada at least ) :-D</p>

<p>It's funny how inspiration comes from the least expected places. I've been asking myself a lot of questions about the direction I want my photography to take, so inspiration and creativity are two topics that have resurfaced a lot. I am actually reading a wonderful book by Freeman Patterson "Photography and the art of seeing" that I a strongly recommend. The teachings in this wonderfully written book apply as much to photography as they do to just about everything in life.</p>

<p>Ever find yourself complaining that you can't get any inspiration from your local landscape? Or that you live in a "landscape poor" area? How much of that is true and how much of it is just an excuse. Darwin Wiggett just posted a wonderful article on my blog on how you can make great photography in your "neighbourhood:

 

MODERATOR NOTE: BOTH URL's removed. Email on it's way to explain photo.net policy

<p>The main problem with HDR is that a lot of users believe it can overcome fundamentals of photography such as creativity, composition and exposure, and that is sad. HDR treatment of a poor snapshot DOES NOT give it more artistic merit.</p>

<p>I am not sure people strip the data willingly. I have noticed that sometimes, depending on the way I save my images, or depending on where I upload them, the data gets lost for some odd reason.</p>

<p>Thanks Stephen. It's really funny, how when I started, I would quickly tire out from a particular spot and blame it on living in a non appealing area, when really, I simply failed see the possibilities. Just like you, what keeps me ticking with photography is the endless amount of opportunities, where the only limit is your creativity. Make sure you check out my blog tomorrow as Darwin airs his take on some similar issues at <a href="http://younesbounhar.com/blog">http://younesbounhar.com/blog</a>.</p>

<p>Thanks Michael (and for the correction too).</p>

<p>I think David has nailed it right on. HDR is technique that allows you to "extend" the dynamic range of your camera, to more closely mimic what we see. Unfortunately most HDR users tend to use it as a gimmick and produce mostly garish, cartoonish photographs.<br>

<a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=120086&CGISESSID=06624e46c98fd1c050b9d7c5777b710d&u=21889">Here is a good example of HDR used properly</a>. You can't even tell that HDR was used, yet the photograph could never have been taken in a single frame using a camera (obviously ND filters could have helped, but not to this extent).</p>

<p>Gary, I beg to differ...how could you ignore mine :D.<br>

Seriously, isn't Photo.net the land of ignored photos (along with some amazing non ignored photos too).</p>

<p>Boy this things turns nasty faster than you can say it!</p>

<p >Canadian Photographer <a href="http://www.darwingwiggett.com/">Darwin Wiggett</a> has graciously offered to host my next post on his blog, where I discuss the role of luck in nature photography and how luck only helps those who are prepared. Check it out here : <a href="http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/younes-bounhar">Guest post</a>.</p>

<p >I would love to hear your thoughts on it.</p>

<p>What a lot of people haven`t mentionned is that often, the longer shutter speeds are more a technical constraint than an artistic choice. Unless you have one of those new cameras that shoot at iso 1 billion, try and get a shot after sunset with a shutter speed faster than 1/2s...when you choose to shoot during the magic hour, as I do, you make do with what you have. With that in mind, you can still use that motion blur effectively as a lead in or as an important element of the composition...and I am totally with Tim Holte's take on it :)</p>

<p>You are simply seeing your filter edges due to a very wide focal length. I would suspect you are stacking a UV and polarizing filter and would suggest to only use one at a time (in fact I never use UV filters).</p>

<p>There are quite of a few photographers who believe that increased exposure time will indeed increase saturation. From a purely physical standpoint, it is simply impossible. The sensor cannot create colour that isn`t there. The most likely explanation imho is that the darker ND (as neutral as their manufacturers claim them to be) do introduce a colour cast (usually in the magentas). So yes, ND filters increase saturation, but not because they increase exposure time. It would be interesting to do an experiment with the same ND but with exposure times vastly different (say iso100, f/16 and 30 to 120s vs iso3200, f/2.8 and 1/8s )...</p>

<p>All these tricks are last resort type of measures...I mean if you dunk your camera in salt water, why the heck not give it another dunk in freshwater :). Typically though, salt water immersed cameras rarely make it from what I hear.</p>

<p>I tend to be clumsy and careless, and have been lucky to sink two of my dSLRs into a river! Yet both have survived a nd worked perfectly since. While I do not hope it happens to any of you, I have gathered here some tips to save your came ra if you find yourselves in this situtation : <a href="http://younesbounhar.com/2009/03/26/save-the-camera/">http://younesbounhar.com/2009/03/26/save-the-camera/</a></p>

<div></div>

<p>My camera is permanently stuck on my tripod.</p>

<p>Definitely a dust spot. As your aperture gets smaller, your depth of field is "bigger" so you can see spots you wouldn't see at larger aperture (as they would be out of focus).</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time Matthew. I had resisted doing a blurb on "dressing the part" and wanted to focus more on the photography aspect, but this is the comment I've heard the most so far, so I may just do that in my next entry...<br>

Cheers,<br>

Y.</p>

<p>Last week I posted a short article on my blog with tips on how to handle photo gear in the winter.I have now posted a follow-up to the <a href="http://younesbounhar.com/2008/12/30/winter-photography-part-ii/">article with photography oriented tips</a>. I hope you find it useful. All feedback is welcome.</p>