allklier

<p>This question came up today, and I researched the topic. There seem few scientific answers to the question, even though it's essentially a geometry problem with a number of variables.<br>

One interesting reference I found was the Rule of 600, which refers to what shutter speeds are needed to avoid star trails, which can be traced to the earth's rotational speed relative to the stars.<br>

There is also a generally accepted variation of the rule of thumb that cameras with crop sensors need to multiply the reciprocal focal length by the crop factor to avoid camera shake.<br>

Which brings me to the actual factors playing a role:<br>

Camera shake happens when natural hand movement makes an object that is static in the scene (i.e. has no movement of it's own) move multiple pixels on the sensor in the time the shutter is open. Obviously shorter exposure times mean the same object has to move faster. However, we can assume that movement inducing shutter speed is relatively stable, though differs from person to person (as mentioned), can be influenced by camera ergonomics, camera weight, and environmental factors.<br>

Comparing camera factors, one common data point is field of view, that allows us to compare various lenses and focal points. As it turns out, using focal length, and the existing rule of thumb, it appears for 35mm cameras and lenses, the rotational speed of the camera has to be kept below 2000 deg/s.<br>

Example: the 50mm focal length on a 35mm lens has a horizontal angle of view of 40 degrees. The rule of thumb would indicate a safe shutter speed of 0.02s. That results in 2000/s. If one checks other lenses and their respective rule of thumb exposure and angle of view, the result is pretty steady.<br>

Comparing this with a PhaseOne P65+ back and 645 set of lenses, the comparable 'normal' focal length is 80mm, which has an angle of view of 47 degrees. Assuming the same rotational speed the safe shutter speed would actually be 1/40s, not 1/80s as the rule of thumb would tell us. Now, this 80mm lens isn't the exact equivalent in terms of angles.<br>

So it stands to reason that the 1/50s safe shutter speed translates to whatever the normal focal length is in the respective system.<br>

Having said this, this will yield an equivalent result if the image were to be viewed at the same final size, disregarding that the MF image is made up of many more pixels.<br>

In fact motion blur will be result of perception. And it would be better to say, that any camera shake induced motion blur should not exceed x pixels of movement, where x is likely to be 1 or 2 for perfectionists, and maybe 5 for most people with discerning taste.<br>

So the 1/50s second on MF would still result in a higher pixel count movement (the 5DM3 has a vertical resolution of 3,480 pixels, compared to the P65+ with 6,732 pixels).<br>

So if one were to peek at the 100% magnification of the image file, the safe shutter speed for a P65+ would likely be more 1/100s for a normal focal length.<br>

PS: The mention to just use a tripod is valid, however it assumes photographs that lend itself to tripod photography, such as landscape or product. In other commercial genres like fashion a tripod is not practical.</p>

<p>The answer may well lie in doing both rather than one or the other. Get film gear and use it where highest quality or image impact trumps convenience. Use digital where cost and convenience rule. Consider a hybrid process: film capture, but digital post and repro via scanning.<br>

There are still labs around though there are fewer and that can make it less convenient. Go all the way and not only setup film camera but also darkroom and processing capabilities and you don't have to worry about that. <br>

Quite a few people are rediscovering film - for the result and the joy. And there is a reasonable market for used film and processing gear still, which in some cases can make it actually more affordable to shoot film than digital for the same/better resolution.</p>

<p>Most meters will have an offset to a given camera. If you know what the offset is, some meters will allow you to program in an exposure compensation. Take a meter reading, and then take a series of shots bracketed around that reading. Figure out which of the exposures is most accurate, your offset will be difference between the meter reading and setting this particular exposure was taken.</p>

<p>I've used the Kodak E6 kit. Pretty straightforward. It's the 6bath process, though mixing all the chemicals results in 7 bottles you'll end up with. Processing instructions are included. It's a single-use set, so you throw it out. Good results. If you make less than 5 litres, you need some good measuring cups since the concentrations come in different sizes, some of the 7 solutions have multiple ingredients to mix.</p>

<p>The question of affordable also depends on what volume you're looking at over time. E-6 processing by a Lab in Seattle goes for $6.50/120 roll. I've picked up a used Jobo processor for $500, plus $100 in chemicals and accessories. After 100 rolls of E-6 I'm breaking even, and then I'm saving quite a bit, plus it saves me lots of time driving to the lab downtown. So if you're using film regularly, that's worth looking into.</p>

<p>A few reasons:<br>

- Image quality. Color depth and image feel. I've shot a few things with film/digital side-by-side and the digital just doesn't look the same. Even if you try to compensate in post processing.<br>

- More deliberate shooting process. Working with film and a much more manual camera forces me to slow down. <br>

- Cost. Today, assuming you sort out how you develop, I can shoot higher quality images on MF film for less than a high-end digital DSLR, which delivers inferior images.<br>

I shoot on Mamiya RZ67 color & B/W and I shoot Canon 1 series digital. Process film and scan myself.</p>

<p>I have very good experience with the Canon flashes and their infrared triggering. Currently I use one 580EX and two 430EX. But I haven't combined that with any studio flash, so I can't comment on that. It probably depends on what you're trying to shoot and whether you really need the studio flash. There's a big following of the school that uses multiple small flashes to light pretty much everything. An excellent source of information on this topic is the s-t-r-o-b-i-s-t blog (remove the dash, for some reason Photonet does not allow posts which spell this word correctly).</p>

 

<p>You can use the Canon flashes either in manual or automatic mode. In manual mode you can select the power of each flash individually, for up to 3 flash groups; in automatic mode you can set the ratio of flash power between the flashes, and exposure compensation.</p>

 

<p>So far I have not had any issues with line of sight or reliability. In fact I've been able to trigger in many situations where the flashes weren't directly pointed at each other, or where there were objects in the line of sight. The more complex configurations were indoor, so I guess the infrared signal bounced of ceilings and wall to make it work.</p>

 

<p>I usually keep my 580EX on camera as master, and then the two 430EX as slaves whereever I need them. You can configure the master to participate, or just trigger.</p>

 

<p>As far as I know the 400D doesn't have a PC terminal, so you would have to use another way to hard-wire them.</p>

 

<p>For more detail, take a look at an <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/06/light-effects-with-slave-flashes.html">old post</a> on my blog.</p>

<p>A bit more artistic interpretation. The moon was pretty high in Seattle on a very clear sky with no cloud nearby. So this was shot through the branches of a tree I was standing next to. That would require extreme DoF or hyperfocal length, so instead I took two pictures (one of sharp moon, one of leaves focused in front of moon) and then blended them in Photoshop.</p>

 

<p>The rest of the standard shots of course on my <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/08/total-lunar-eclipse.html">blog</a>.</p><div></div>

One option for this image is to darken the background. Attached a q/d job in Photoshop with a brightness adjutment layer using a gradient mask with some manual adjustments on the deer.

Probably getting off-topic for this forum here, so I'll make this my last comment on this:

 

That is selective logic. If I recall correctly, he wasn't on WSF but the Port Angeles/Victoria run, and he didn't intend to do anything on the ferry, but LAX. What makes a mall different than a ferry? The point is that people are suspecting and spying on their neighbors without being trained to do so properly and be respectful. I have no problems with professionals doing it.

 

There are plenty examples of societies that got led into spying on each other, and none were particularly thriving for a long time. It's a slipery slope I'd rather not have us go down on any further than we already have. There have to be better solutions.

It's disturbing to see these stories pop up everywhere. While some general common sense and vigilance is always good, making us a nation of 300MM police men patrolling each other is just destructive and short sighted. Don't ask people that haven't been trained properly to separate good from bad, and to protect our individual freedoms to judge the action of others. It's not fair to those who are judged, and it's a dis-service to those judging wrongly however well they may mean.

These patterns are not uncommon in a badly done cloning job. They're more likely to occur if you use the cloing brush in brush strokes or across color boundaries. More careful selection of the cloning source, and creating separate dots rather than strokes can avoid them. The other consideration, in particular when combined with gaussian blurs, is to clone first, then blur - the blurring will smoothen some of the patterns out and make them less noticeable. Learned that the hard way. When it comes to cloning, taking the time to do a high quality job is important and worth it.

Small post scriptum: I looked through the Photoshop instruction Bruce linked to. In my experience this sequence is ok, but has one flaw. The Gaussian blur will wash pixels with neighboring pixels, which is more pronounced the bigger the radius. If the foreground/background is of very different color (as in your case) it will create a weird halo effect. I would suggest creating a mask of the foreground and cut out the foreground before applying the gaussian blur, and then adding it back together. I have a (non-nature) <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/06/editing-depth-of-field.html">example</a> of this on my blog.

<p>I think the previous answers covered most of the explanations, so here just two reasources I found helpful:</p>

 

<p>It's good to understand Depth of Field at various focal lengths and apertures. That will give you an idea upfront what the sharp volume of the composition will be, and maybe even allow you to choose apertures which are more conducive to what you're trying achieve. There's an <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">online DoF calculator</a> which can be used to print out sheets for your cameras and carry with you if you want.</p>

 

<p>Also check if your camera has a depth of field preview button. Most Canon DSLRs have one on the front bottom left corner of the lens mount. Pushing this button closes the aperture blades to the selected value and allows you to preview the depth of field through the view finder.</p>

 

<p>Finally, in terms of Photoshop, which in some cases is the only choice to achieve a desired effect, one of the best ways to learn about it is to watch the <a href="http://www.radiantvista.com/workbench/">Radiant Vista Workbenches</a>. They're free, and interactive which is much more intuitive then the endless screenshots most resources provide. I learned most of what I know about Photoshop that way.</p>

Based on the image it uses the same plate as other heads, which I use on Canon DSLRs. So it should work - these plates have the small pin used on video cameras which can easily be removed with a screw driver when mounting a DSLR.

 

That said, I found the hand grip distracting when taking pictures and would buy a different head.

 

I have the 488RC2 midi ball head and am very happy. A ball head gives much more flexibility in adjusting your camera. If you really need the level feature, you can get a small level which slides into the hot shoe.

Thanks for pointing these other locations out. I'll will add them to the next version of the list.

<p>I always find myself looking online for good photo locations. So here's my

contribution of locations in Washington State and around Seattle, which I've

visited myself over the last few months. With maps and sample photos.I've rated

them with 3 stars (definite photo location), 2 stars (good location), and 1

star (ok location, limited photo subjects).</p>

<p>Also posted on my blog where I will keep updating this list as I discover

more locations: <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/08/seattle-area-photo-

locations.html">Seattle Photo Locations</a>

<h4>Seattle Metro General Locations</h4>

<ul>

<li>Pike Place Market (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Pike+Place,+Seattle,+Washington,+United+States&

amp;sll=47.608044,-

122.340252&sspn=0.008926,0.017853&ie=UTF8&cd=1&mpnum=0&ll=47

.608941,-

122.340574&spn=0.008926,0.017853&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1">map</a>)

- 3 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>One of the best known <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/07/pike-

place-and-more-seattle-locations.html">locations in Seattle</a>. Early morning

is the best time, before the crowd and while shops are open.</li>

<li>Equipment Tip: Bring wide angle lens and flash. </li></ul>

<li>Woodland Park Zoo (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Woodland+Park+Zoo-

North+Gate,+601+N+59th+St,+Seattle,+King,+Washington,+United+States&sll=47.6

08941,-

122.340574&sspn=0.008926,0.017853&ie=UTF8&cd=3&mpnum=0&ll=47

.671688,-

122.351475&spn=0.01783,0.035706&z=15&iwloc=addr&om=1">map</a>)

 - 3 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Great opportunity for lots of <a

href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/07/yet-another-revisit.html">animal

shots</a>. Very natural settings, hard to tell that shots are taken at zoo.

</li>

<li>Equipment tip: Bring a telephoto (> 400mm) to get close in on the large

settings at the zoo.</li></ul>

<li>Alki Beach & West Seattle (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Alki+Beach+Park&sll=47.671688,-

122.351475&sspn=0.01783,0.035706&ie=UTF8&ll=47.594356,-

122.38409&spn=0.071426,0.142822&z=13&iwloc=addr&om=1">map</a>) -

2 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Great views of <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/06/power-of-white-

balance.html">downtown Seattle</a>, including <a

href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/06/panorama-images.html">panorama

shots</a></li>

<li>Opportunity to see <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/08/early-

morning.html">fishing boats</a></li>

<li>Distance views of Mt. Rainier</li></ul></ul>

<h4>Seattle Metro Parks</h4>

<ul>

<li>Gasworks Park (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Gas+Works+Park,+Seattle&sll=47.594356,-

122.38409&sspn=0.071426,0.142822&ie=UTF8&ll=47.646309,-

122.337613&spn=0.017839,0.035706&z=15&iwloc=addr&om=1">map</a>)

- 2 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Interesting old <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/07/pike-place-and-

more-seattle-locations.html">industrial equipment</a></li>

<li>View of Lake Union house boats, and Space Needle to the south</li></ul>

<li>Rose Gardens (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Rose+Gardens,+Seattle&ie=UTF8&ll=47.665

474,-

122.348771&spn=0.017832,0.035706&z=15&iwloc=C&om=1">map</a>) -

2 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Great location for <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/06/seattle-

locations.html">macro shots of many different kinds of roses</a></li>

<li>Equipment tip: Bring your flash, and macro lens.</li></ul>

<li>Bellevue Botanical Gardens (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bellevue+Botanical+Gardens&ie=UTF8&ll=4

7.610908,-

122.180457&spn=0.017851,0.035706&z=15&iwloc=A&om=1">map</a>) -

2 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Good variety of <a

href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/05/revisits.html">floral shots</a>, no

entrance fee, making it great for <a

href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/04/bellevue-botanical-

gardens.html">frequent visits</a>.</li>

<li>Small Japanese Gardens</li></ul>

<li>520 Bridge / Ship Canal Wetlands (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bellevue+Botanical+Gardens&ie=UTF8&ll=4

7.645564,-

122.295899&spn=0.00446,0.008926&z=17&iwloc=A&om=1">map</a>) - 1

star</li>

<ul>

<li>Good in-town location for <a

href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/06/seattle-locations.html">birds &

water flora</a></li></ul>

<li>Marymoor Park, Redmond (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bellevue+Botanical+Gardens&ie=UTF8&ll=4

7.662006,-122.107158&spn=0.017834,0.035706&z=15&om=1">map</a>) - 1

star</li>

<ul>

<li>Local park with river and decent wildlife + <a

href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/05/right-time.html">sunrises</a></li></ul>

<li>Discovery Park (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Discovery+Park,+SEattle&sll=47.662006,-

122.107158&sspn=0.017834,0.035706&ie=UTF8&z=14&iwloc=addr&om

=1">map</a>) - 1 star</li>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/05/creating-photo-

opportunities.html">Lighthouse</a> and view of of Puget Sound to the

South</li></ul>

<li>Tiger Mountain, Issaquah (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Tiger+Mountain+Rd+SE,+Issaquah,+King,+Washingto

n+98027,+United+States&sll=47.661935,-

122.41737&sspn=0.035667,0.071411&ie=UTF8&cd=1&mpnum=0&ll=47.

524562,-121.983089&spn=0.035761,0.071411&z=14&om=1">map</a>) - 1

star</li>

<ul>

<li>Nice <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/05/tiger-mountain-

issaquah.html">mountain trail</a>, but limited landscape shot

opportunities</li></ul>

<li>Sculpture Park (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Sculpture+Park,+Seattle&ie=UTF8&ll=47.6

16636,-

122.353256&spn=0.008925,0.017853&z=16&iwloc=A&om=1">map</a>) -

1 star</li>

<ul>

<li>Interesting outdoor <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/02/tour-of-

seattles-parks.html">sculptures</a></li></ul>

<li>Seward Park (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Seward+Park,+Seattle&ie=UTF8&ll=47.5543

74,-122.252898&spn=0.01787,0.035706&z=15&om=1">map</a>) - 1

star</li>

<ul>

<li>Decent views of Lake Washington, nicer during summer with all the

boats</li></ul></ul>

<h4>Greater Seattle Area ( < 2hrs driving distance)</h4>

<h2>Landscape / Nature Photography:</h2>

<ul>

<li>Snoqualmie Falls (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Snoqualmie+Falls,+WA&ie=UTF8&ll=47.5431

2,-

121.836083&spn=0.008937,0.017853&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1">map</a>)

- 3 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Excellent <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/07/snoqualmie-falls-

refinement.html">water falls</a>, especially at sunset, including sunset

itself</li>

<li>Also known for a few peregrine falcons that call the gorge home</li>

<li>Some historic locations with the old power plant</li>

<li>Equipment tip: ND filters can be helpful for waterfall shots</li></ul>

<li>Nisqually Wildlife Refuge (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Nisqually+Wildlife+Refuge,+WA&sll=47.54312,

-121.836083&sspn=0.008937,0.017853&ie=UTF8&z=16&om=1">map</a>) -

2 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Great <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/07/early-morning-

light.html">nature location</a> for birds and other wildlife, including photo

hides for die hards</li></ul>

<li>Robe Canyon Trail (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=robe+canyon+park&sll=47.07254,-

122.71328&sspn=0.009017,0.017853&ie=UTF8&ll=48.103648,-

121.898804&spn=0.035364,0.071411&z=14&om=1">map</a>) - 2 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Great <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/08/robe-canyon-

trail.html">river and nature location</a>, not too crowded.</li></ul></ul>

<h2>Documentary / Location Photography:</h2>

<ul>

<li>Bremerton - Turner Joy (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bremerton,+WA&ie=UTF8&ll=47.562747,-

122.624186&spn=0.002233,0.004463&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=1">map</a>)

- 3 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Excellent <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/03/bremerton-take-

2.html">naval ship photography</a>, can access almost all parts of the ships

interior</li>

<li>Equipment Tip: Bring wide angle lenses, and flash</li></ul>

<li>Snoqualmie Railroad Museum (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Snoqualmie+Falls,+Uninc+King+County,+WA&ie=

UTF8&ll=47.533473,-

121.828465&spn=0.004469,0.008926&z=17&iwloc=addr&om=1">map</a>)

- 2 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Some old <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/01/make-waterfall-

interesting.html">rusty steam engines</a> next to the highway. </li></ul></ul>

<h4>General Washington State Locations</h4>

<ul>

<li>San Juan Islands, Friday Harbor (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Friday+Harbor,+WA&ie=UTF8&z=14&iwlo

c=addr&om=1">map</a>) - 3 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Very nice <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/07/day-on-san-juan-

islands.html">views from ferry ride</a> and on island. Ferry schedules require

some advance planning.</li></ul>

<li>Mt. Rainier - Eastern Slope (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?

f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Sunrise,+WA&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr

&om=1">map</a>) - 3 stars</li>

<ul>

<li>Great <a href="http://photos.janklier.com/2007/06/mt-rainier-national-

park.html">close-up views of Mt. Rainier</a> on sunny days. Light is better

before noon at the Sunrise Visitor Center.</li></ul></ul>

So if you can't take a photo to be used with such a story, what are they doing to prevent someone from writing the story anyway (even without a photo). Ban paper and pens within city limits?

 

Most companies that take this approach to competition may have short-term success, but have rarely shown staying power in the market.

Lots of very good suggestions already in this thread. If you use AF, making sure that you set a single AF point, and keep it on your main subject is key, otherwise lens will pick AF point, and it may not be the one you desire. I typically use the top center AF point and keep it focused on the head of the player. Also make sure to keep camera in AI Servo mode so your focus is up to date when you actually take the picture. That allows you to track the subject in motion and remain focused and ready. Also keep focus delay to minimum. I use shutter priority and then set ISO to get enough DoF for the scene I want to capture.

The article Mark referenced has lots of good info.

 

<p>I use the 100mm macro lens and its a great lens for this type of work. For some lighting equipment ideas/reviews take a look at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Flash-and-Lighting-Accessory-Reviews.aspx">review</a>. I've used the cloud dome inifinty board, which is the most basic setup you can start with. You'll also need a decent tripod and remote release cable/transmitter.

 

<p> If you're new to this, continuous lighting will be much easier than flash. But either way it will look much easier than it is. So give yourself plenty of time, and read up on it, because it's non-trivial and non-obvious on how to get the lighting right.

Dave - I think the difference is whether you simply aim to take random shots hoping to strike gold often enough to be satisfied, or if it so happens that some of your best pictures weren't necessarily the most carefully planned, well executed, etc. In fact it maybe because you randomly expanded beyond your usual technique that you captured something superior, and now you have to figure out what was different and how to more predictably and repeatably achieve the same level. There's a fine balance between focusing on taking good pictures, but also letting things happen rather than trying to force everything into neatly structured blocks. A creative art does not totally fit into the latter.

 

My motto is: every day is a school day, you should learn something, and you should have fun doing it.

I'm not sure this is a black/white question. The photo that is worth a lot is the one that can create an emotion and connection in the viewer. What people connect with spreads over a very wide range and is dependent on what they experienced in their life, their emotional state, etc.

 

That said, it's much easier to find someone having a connection with a beautiful scene, even if it's a mediocre photo from a technical / asesthetic level. The big challenge in ordinary scene is to make sure that the photo conveys what the photographer saw when he observed the scene. Since the camera only captures a fraction of what the eye sees, and because it's a snapshot in time and doesn't capture what happened in the minutes before, many photos taken by unskilled photographers fail to convey what they experienced, and then lack the elements that will create a emotional connection for the viewer.

 

Thus it depends on the level of execution, not the material you started with.

<p>I've wondered about the clubs and checked some of their websites out. In my mind there are two parts to photography - the solitary part of taking the photo, and editing them (and so far there are few cameras with 'group view finders' or 'popular vote shutter release buttons' :-) ). Then there is the part where you measure yourself against others. And that has less to do with ego or competition. It is required in order to continue to grow in the level of achievement. While a few can do this through extensive experimentation and careful study and self-reflection, for most folks the tried and true learning from a master, or at a minimum from someone at least one, better several levels above your own achievement level is the better path. I think this is where the clubs I looked at fall down: these are too many folks at the same level and as an earlier post stated, the mediocricity rules as a result. Pleasing the clients, and the feedback of commercial success can be a good indicator, but that is only the popular vote, not the vote of someone with a discrening eye and knowledge of the art. I recently read a very good <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/levels3.shtml">3-part series</a> by George Barr on this topic which I found most thoughtful on what it takes to get to the next level.

 

<p>That also relates to my experience on photo.net. I've found a lot of great people, and have gotten some most thoughtful feedback and critique. However, there are many of the infamous 3-raters. And are those people who have no concept of photography and are here simply for the nudes, or are those the masters that give you a reality check on your level of achievement? In my book any negative vote should be accompanied by an explanation of what you thought didn't work, which I'm now making a point of when contributing a critique or vote. Having seen few 3-ratings with an explanation, I assume those aren't the masters.

 

<p>As you can tell, I'm less than positive on camera clubs, and have had mixed results on photo.net. Right now I'm putting my money on a real workshop with a professional photographer, in the hopes of getting high quality feedback and critique that I can learn from, even though it is more expensive than your average camera club. As the saying goes - you get what you pay for.

You may also want to make sure that your monitor is properly calibrated, and all your software uses the same color space. I found that some of my images where off until I did so.

Very interesting topic indeed. I can appreciate Don's point, as I too earn a living with computers and don't use them other than for necessary tasks at home (whereas I enjoyed being a geek many, many years ago).

 

I enjoy photography for that it is a new challenge, it is something different than what I do for a living, it is something I still have much to learn compared to the level of achievement I have in my professional career.

 

Would I ever consider switching and become a pro photographer (once I'm sufficiently studied in the field)? Maybe as a second career down the road. Many professionals stay in careers long enough nowadays that they really need a second career at some point. But the realities of switching from one successful career to starting over in another one is often not economically feasible given that many constraints have been based on the economics of the current conditions. There are a few who take the risk and jump, and a few succeed, many fail.

 

I can relate to digital cameras inviting thoughtless shooting. I believe though that this is very valuable in the learning process, and for some type of photography where it's non-trivial to catch the peak moment. It does take discipline not to succumb to mindless shooting, but then if you take it serious and want to become a better photography it will be matter of discipline either way. I control myself in terms of my disk space that I backup, not the amount of shots I take. Having to delete shots makes you think about the wasted time it was taking it.

 

In the end we all have professions and we all need other creative outlets both to create distance to the everyday stress factors, and the exercise the otherwise unused brain cells. What you choose for your profession and the other outlets varies. The good thing though is that today enough of these avenues are affordable enough that we can entertain them.