joe_willmore

<p>First, I wasn't that impressed with Fairbanks--it seems to me to be "in-between" much better places (Denali, the hot springs, etc.). You can go to a place there call The Creamery (which is now a park)...some water, lovely stands of birth trees. There is also a summer amusement park with steamboats that is closed out of season (can't remember the name but it's about 2-3 miles from the Fairbanks Airport). I got some terrific shots of the steamboats moored and closed for the season as well as the deserted town front at the park.<br>

Second, at this time of year, what I'd be doing in Alaska (especially if it was a clear night and I was away from urban light) would be to shoot the Aurora Borealis. Fairfbanks should be good for that.<br>

Third, with Anchorage, you've got a gazillion options....water, mountains all very close by. When I was in Anchorage two years ago I saw a moose in a hotel parking lot. Only one person...then take a dog sledding tour and shoot the dogs and the sledding experience. </p>

<p>First, many good answers so far in this thread.<br>

Second, a lot depends upon what you're trying to do....show off the detail of the model?....make it look realistic (ala diorama)?....show as much of the model as possible?....show scale (thus put a human or coin or yardstick near it with clear lighting)?...create an artistically compelling shot?<br>

Okay, those questions aside, let me provide a range of links for a couple of articles and websites and examples that you can sort through and decide which best fit your members and your society/competition:<br>

--David Levinthal is a nationally recognized artist who creates tableaus and dioramas with deliberately obscured and poorly-lit shots--probably not what you're looking for but still it will convey a lot of great examples about how stage photos (and compose them) so they look more realistic: http://www.davidlevinthal.com/works.html<br>

--Lori Nix makes amazing backgrounds: http://www.lorinix.net<br>

--Matthew Albenese does some incredible fake scenery and micro worlds: http://petapixel.com/2012/10/19/a-behind-the-scenes-glimpse-of-matthew-albaneses-magical-miniature-worlds/<br>

--Here's a good article by a model railroader who also shoots his work. The article is also specific to shooting for competition: http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2013/03/i-photographer-model-railroad-shooter-paul-dolkos<br>

General tips I would offer:<br>

1. Use a tripod. Not some cheap POS but something that is rock solid and on solid ground (i.e.: not carpet). And take a long exposure (to let in more light and so you don't have to use a flash). A handheld camera in low light usually has a slower shutter speed which usually means you capture less detail (which it sounds like you want MORE detail and sharper photos).<br>

2. Use a soft box or a scrim (cloth like a sheet or window curtain) to soften the light and reduce the glare and harsh shadows. Then put a piece of white paper or poster-board to serve as a reflector on the other side of the light source (to help reduce and soften shadows even more and make the lighting appear even more natural).<br>

3. If you want to capture as much detail of the model as possible, than you'll shoot with a narrow f-stop (something like f8/f11) so the entire model is in-focus. This means you absolutely need to be using a tripod (or have good studio lighting).<br>

4. Remove clutter (unless you're shooting in a diorama and trying to make your model "real-world"...in which case you construct clutter). Let me explain....plan the background, get rid of all the crap around the model and display it. Just get a large piece of poster board, lay it flat and then curve it up to provide a background (if we were shooting human models we'd call this a cyc...short for cyclorama). We'd put the DoF to include the model but not the background or foreground which would be empty. If you wanted to create a realistic model in a real world-setting, you'd use DoF to help hide empty spots, you'd intentionally add items in the foreground and background to generate some visual "clutter." An example would be that rather than just put your model ship on an imaginary ocean, you'd put clouds in the background and maybe a wave in the immediate foreground that obscures a big of the ship (as if the picture was taken from a dinghy or rowboat approaching the ship). </p>

<p>A photo with a lot of "noise" is one that tends to have a lot of pixelation and distortion. Generally this means you're shooting at a very high ISO or you're shooting in exposure (very dark) that pushes the camera's ability to capture detail so it overexposes and adds a lot of grain. It often shows up in shadows. Long exposures can also create noise. The result tends to be uneven color, excessive or unintended graininess, and distortion.<br>

How do you avoid or minimize noise? Shoot at an ISO around 100 or 200 (vs. 1000 or even higher) if possible. Have a camera with a larger sensor. Use noise reduction options on your camera or with software.</p>

<p>Take your iPhone. Download the 645 Pro app (which allows you to manipulate your iPhone like a DSLR--by adjusting focus, aperture, and other settings. And then get an Ollo-clip (so you can shoot macro). You'll have a very small (pocket-sized) camera with good pixel count and the ability to manipulate and compose in ways that most Point-and-Shoots won't allow.</p>

<p>1. What does "better" mean--by what context or whose standards? I can take a picture of a building/landmark during a family vacation. If I convert it to B&W, the lines are stronger and emphasized and it becomes a more powerful photographic. If I keep it in color, my wife and son will like it better as a memory of a special trip. If I crop it it can display the fine detail and aging copper on the outside of the building but the scale and perspective is lost. What is "better"? It depends on your perspective and criteria. One of the first weddings I took pictures of, I discovered that photos that the bride/Mom/family wanted weren't ones I necessarily valued and edits I'd make (to "enhance" a photo) weren't ones the family usually valued.<br>

2. Rules regarding cropping and editing? There are tons of "rules" when it comes composition but I like to quote the noted photographer, the pirate captain Barbossa who said "they're more like guidelines actually." So there are plenty of "rules" about cropping and composition. But photographic rules also benefit by being broken at times.</p>

<p>Best piece of advice I ever got about shooting a sunrise/sunset concept is to ask yourself if the picture is worth taking if there wasn't a sunrise/sunset going on. For instance, take any one of the photos shown in this thread. Look at each one and ask "if it were a cloudy day with no obvious sun/it was 10am with the sun not on the horizon, would I be taking this picture?" And if the answer is no, than it's not a particularly remarkable shot. <br>

However...if there is an interesting depth to the shot (b/c of the pier that extends) or a great silhouette (the birdhouse shot earlier in the thread is a great example) or the blur of the water for a time-lapse shot on the beach or birds/dolphins feeding in the water, then combine the sunset and you've got yourself a lovely shot.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. It's been a rich one with a lot of diverse detail and shared experiences. I appreciate everyone taking the time to share some useful info.</p>

<p>First, as a number of people have stated, this is not NEW. Permit and license fees for a range of public lands, parks, and venues have been around for a very long time.<br>

Second, I'm guessing this isn't driven by a desire to regulate photographers (there is probably "some" of that) as it is more by two other factors:<br>

--a need to get cash. In a climate where parks aren't supported well, folks come up with all sorts of "user fee" gimmicks.<br>

--demand by other photographers. Yep--why should I pay a fee to be the exclusive photographer for an event if a bunch of other people (mostly amateurs) can come up and shoot alongside me? So that means contracts with photographers for events will often restrict use of the space for many others. You'll often see this at some high school sports or theatre/music events--they may have a contract with a particular photographer so they restrict other shooters at that event. If you think that's weird, than look at agreements with merchandise (a promise to buy all office equipment from Home Depot, to do all catering from Sweetwater, and to restrict who the food vendors are at games or concerts). Look at the next "Color Run" in your neck of the woods and see how easy it is to get in there and shoot it if you aren't registered as the exclusive event photographer.<br>

And folks, it's not just requiring fees or permits. There's a popular park in my neck of the woods (Meadowlark Botanical Gardens) that also limits the number of photographers per day...even if you have insurance or permits.<br>

Folks can argue that this is government limiting our freedoms. Nah....it's just people managing a public facility. When there are multiple users, there's always a challenge to balance the usage among everyone. Preventing me from bringing in some horses to the park to shoot some vintage pioneer shots may "limit my freedoms" but it makes the park more accessible to others. That's also why musicians would need permits and approvals to stage concerts in public venues or politicians to hold events or actors to hold a play. Doesn't matter if it's 3 people or 30 or 300...you gotta draw the line somewhere.</p>

<p>I'm interpreting the OP to mean more than just seminars or workshops but tips across the spectrum for improving one's craft and technical skills.<br>

1. Study the giants in your areas of interest. You shoot landscape? Then look at the work of Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell, go to exhibits of their work, read about them. Part of the reason people look at some art like Jackson Pollock and say "my 3 year old could do that" is that they don't understand art (especially that particular movement). Likewise, people who look at Adams' work and go "well, he must have had a good camera" or "if I was in Yosemite, I bet I make a snapshot just as good as that." Understand what they saw and you'll improve what YOU see and perceive. You'll also have a better understand of what they had to do to achieve that great photo, how they MADE it and that will improve your skills too. My favorite photography quote of all time is Dorothea Lange who said "a camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera." Study their work and you'll improve your own.<br>

2. I'm a big reader more than workshops. Lots of great stuff out there on macro, landscapes, and architecture. Between books on great photographers (or architects or major buildings), you can learn a lot and also gain many ideas. For architecture, the really big names photographically are Ezra Stoller and Julius Shulman and there are some nice books out by them/about them/focusing on their work.</p>

<p>Hey Drema,<br>

My understanding is that the "official" monsoon season for Arizona is June 15th through September. But that's incredibly misleading. The real issue here are flash floods in the slot canyon caused by sudden rainfall. That's why--regardless of when you go to a slot canyon, you want to check the weather.<br>

As for when I'm going, it will likely be in April. And in all likelihood, I'll be going to Southern Utah. I know the temps in the many of the slot canyons in August and September will easily break 100. And some of them (though not the Antelope Creek Canyon options) often have long hikes in the sun just to get to the canyon.</p>

<p>Holly mother of....what some incredible resources people have posted. Thanks a bunch to all of you. Definitely not up for the technical canyons. But this still gives me tons of options AND the info will decrease the risk of me getting in over my head.</p>

<p>Lots of great practical hints--I appreciate it. DWheeler--I may follow up with you once I get a clear idea of my travel parameters. Right now, it's looks like I'll be there in April. No interest in hitting them when it's 90-100 degrees. </p>

<p>Wow--the slot canyon map is a GREAT reference--thanks for that. I'm mostly likely going to be staying on the Utah side of the border. I referenced Antelope Creek Canyon b/c that's the one most photographers from outside the SW recognize but I'm actually looking to get away from the crowds which is why I'm not shooting Upper Antelope Creek Canyon.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the tips. <br>

In doing some some additional research, I've also found...<br>

--for Lower Antelope you get the best colors in the morning, for Upper Antelope it's from 10am-2pm.<br>

--so it sounds like the best shooting time is specific to particular slot canyons--those with narrow tops are probably best around noon.<br>

--and of course, the nature of the rocks (red rocks, sandstone, quartz, etc.) affects what kind of color you get as well. </p>

<p>Any thoughts on getting the colors you sometimes see in some of the photos? Such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_Antelope-Canyon.jpg ?<br>

I know that the "beam of light" is about tossing up some sand/dust. But are the colors mostly a function of the rock formations or the timing of the day?</p>

<p>I'm making plans to visit some slot canyons in Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. I'm probably going to avoid Upper Antelope Canyon b/c of the crowds. I know that:<br>

--many of them are very dusty so you don't want to be swapping lens while you're in the camera<br>

--you want to check the weather (b/c a sudden rain can be deadly)<br>

--if it's on the Rez you'll probably be required to hire a guide.<br>

I don't know but suspect that the best time to get great light is probably mid-day (b/c the typical "golden hour" time slots are likely going to be mostly darkness for a slot canyon.<br>

What other tips can anyone give me about shooting in a slot canyon?</p>

<p>Restrepo the film only came out in 2010. As for Junger, he's really more of a writer--most of the filming and the still work associated with "Restrepo" came from Hetherington. So it's not really accurate to say that Junger "quit war shooting" b/c it's not something he's ever really been noted for...being a conflict photographer. His most recent project is a 2013 documentary called "Which way is the front line from here?" which is primarily about Tim Hetherington's conflict work (also a highly regarded documentary, especially if one is a photographer or photojournalist).</p>

<p>I recommend going digital. This is coming from someone who shot film/negatives for 25 years. When I shot film, I had to ration each shot. With digital, there is the freedom to experiment, to just say "what the h*ll--let's try this and see if it works out!".<br>

As others have pointed out, just b/c the camera has an automatic feature doesn't mean you have to use that.</p>

<p>Good movie--very powerful. Hetherington actually captured the vehicle he was in being hit by an IED. There is also a very power collection of work (still photos) by Hetherington of sleeping soldiers. You can find some of them here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/04/12/tim-hetherington-s-sleeping-soldiers-photos.html<br>

Finally, b/c Hetherington's death was avoidable (he bled to death b/c the other photojournalists he was with didn't have any trauma medicine expertise), Junger and others have started a program called RISC that focuses on trauma medicine for photojournalists. You can find more information on it here: http://warretreat.org/2012/09/08/medical-training-for-journalists-a-note-from-sebastian-junger/</p>

<p>I'd leave the speed light at home. I've shot twice in Barcelona. Unless you're shooting any impromptu portraits, you won't use it (the speed light). As for zooming in to details, I think you're better off with a tripod and fast glass and then crop. Given Barcelona's architecture and the reality of shooting in any city, I personally would take a wide angle lens simply b/c there will be too many sites where you want to capture the entire building or venue not just part of the facade.<br>

As for dealing with crime and pickpockets, I think the best answers there aren't in limiting your gear, it's stuff like:<br>

--situational awareness<br>

--not putting a big beacon over your head that says "tourist with expensive gear" (using a speed light in populated areas is a quick way to draw attention, having a bag that says "Nikon" or "Canon" is another).<br>

--carrying your gear in ways that makes is very hard for quick hands to reach in or pull off. For instance, a messenger back is a buffet if you don't zip it up and let yourself get distracted. A photo or tac vest or a backpack with lots of pockets you can't see in back of you is also problematic. Have it strapped on to you so it can't be pulled off easily and keep pockets closed and zipped.<br>

Most of all, have a blast. Barcelona is my favorite European city. Love the people and love the city.</p>

<p>Holly, you've got a couple of issues here to address:<br>

1. Info on the actual speed light--the download of the manual should get you started there.<br>

2. Inability to focus when it's really dark. Yeah, you're either going to need to go manual. OR...use a wider aperture (like f11) so autofocus isn't as much of an issue (it should focus easier unless it's pitch dark). OR...have a continuous light source to provide enough light to allow AF.<br>

3. And ultimately what you'll find is that while the manual will enable you to at least light up scenes and shoot in AF, what you're really going to want to do is PLAY and EXPERIMENT with your speed light. Don't beat yourself up when you try stuff and it "fails." You didn't fail--you're just being creative in a field (photography) that requires creativity. You're very quickly going to discover that you'll want some kind of diffuser to go on your speed light. And you're going to want to get it off camera in order to get better photos.</p>

<p>I can understand all of those who've just accepted their left-eye dominance. But unfortunately, that doesn't do much for the OP. My situation: I'm right-eye dominant but it's my bad eye and it also isn't easily correctable with lens (I've got a stigmatism).<br>

To address the OP:<br>

1. Yes, eye dominance can be changed. It tends to be easier to deal with when you're younger though.<br>

2. I've provided a link on this issue. Here's a hint if you want to look at this issue in more detail: shooters (I mean people who shoot rifles competitively...as in competition or the olympics, very precision shooters) have looked at this issue exhaustively. And especially b/c that's a sport (rifle) that benefits from a match between eye and hand symmetry when it comes to dominance, it's not so simple to just get a left-handed competition or match-grade rifle (yes, they make such things). So you get a lot of shooters at the junior-olympics level who will work to change their eye dominance. http://www.positiveshooting.com/eyedominancemain.html</p>

 

<p>I'm a big Capa fan. I hope this exhibit comes to a city I'm in.</p>

<p>The nice thing about both the Peterson and Freeman recommendations is that they're very prolific as authors. So if you (meaning Stephen) like the Peterson or Freeman book you're exposed to, there's a lot you can go to build on that each of them has written.</p>

<p>I want to second Andrew's recommendation on Brian Peterson. He's got a range of books. But he doesn't a particularly good job at explaining now just how aperture, ISO and shutter speed work but how they interact (so your decision with one shapes the result with another and so on). And his books are very user-friendly.</p>