joe_willmore

<p>Michael, I typically spend the Christmas season with my wife's family in Florida. It's my anecdotal opinion that b/c there is no snow and the weather better, the people there go wild with holiday lights. Partially it's to compensate b/c there's no bad weather, partially I'd argue it's b/c it's easier to put up holiday lights. But all of the best neighborhood light shows I've seen (other than luminaries in New Mexico) have been in Florida in December. So yes, even Florida has a lot of holiday-related stuff to shoot.</p>

<p>No particular gear on my wish list. As for photos that emerge b/c of the season...<br>

1. Foodies...lots of interesting opportunities based on what is being baked/prepared. Everything from racks of spiced nuts (my wife & sister-in-law spend a day making them as presents) to candy canes to cookies.<br>

2. Holiday lights...especially at night. Bring that tripod!<br>

3. I live near the DC area. Lots of places that go "back in time" if there's a snow fall (Colonial Williamsburg, Gunston Hall, Sully Plantation)...you just need to get there while the snow is fresh and not tramped on by footprints or cars.<br>

4. Powerful statements. I visit Arlington National Cemetery during the Christmas season. The shot of the red and green wreaths on the tombstones with snow or ice is humbling. Many people come to leave moments on the graves of their loved ones in Section 60 (the Iraq and Afghan war dead). The Korean War Memorial emerging out of the fog and mist of winter will stop you in your tracks. The Tomb of the Unknowns with the sentry on guard while it's snowing. JFK's Eternal Flame flickering in the wind.<br>

5. Trees without leaves. Mist coming off of water (rivers/ponds). Ice on windshields. Frozen streams. Sculpture gardens in which the presence of snow and ice effectively creates new sculptures (and interesting shadows). All provide some great landscapes to shoot and opportunities for photographic creativity.<br>

6. The Golden Hour. Yep, it's great any season. But now...find thee a building with ice (or a frozen waterfall or sidewalk with ice or pond) with that golden light reflecting off of it...it will appear as if it were on fire. I've been to Yosemite and loved it. But at the top of my bucket list is to visit Yosemite in December. The Golden Hour in winter can be a mind-blowing experience.<br>

7. Animals and children in the snow and ice. Get a dog frolicking in the snow. Or kids building a snowman. Or a child peering over the top of a snow fort. Or deer or a fox in the snow (these days, a pretty common sight in most suburbs).<br>

8. Wish I had more access to the Northern lights and less light pollution--this would be a great time to shoot that.<br>

9. Have you tried macro photography with water and droplets? Now try it with frozen drops of water after the temps drop or an ice storm.<br>

10. I love macro and reflection/refraction concepts involving Christmas ornaments/Christmas trees. Look for city lights (now more colorful as holiday decorations go up) reflected in the nearby river or ice on the streets.</p>

<p>This is a nice example of the value of these forums. Ralph--I read your post, checked out Pixelmator and then just downloaded a copy yesterday. I'm looking forward to putting it through its' paces.</p>

<p>Holly, when you set on aperture priority, that means your camera is willing to sacrifice shutter speed in order to maintain the aperture you set. And unless it's either a still-life object OR a human trying very hard to remain still (and has something to lean against), anything from 1/25th or slower is not going to be tack-sharp. It's not that Chas is saying that you can't focus with aperture priority. It's a narrow DoF results in a very small margin of error. The cliched advice that editors used to give photographers going out in to the field was "f8 and be there" which was a way of saying that f8 or f11 made it easier to take shots in-focus b/c the DoF was wider/deeper. So if you're shooting with a small DoF, being off just a small amount results in blur. If you're shooting with a slow shutter speed and you're not on a tripod then you're likely going to get blur when shooting people.<br>

Here's a suggestion (that is a great tip for a new shooter). Take a subject (puppy, baby, flower being blown by a consistent flow of air...maybe by a fan). And try shooting by manipulating Brian Peterson's triad of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. Shoot with a narrow DoF, then a deeper DoF. Set to shutter priority and play with shutter speeds. Then adjust ISO. Compare the results. You'll make more sense out of some of these posts. You'll grow as a photographer. And you'll identify looks (blurred movement, high key, bokeh) from this little experiment that you'll want to deliberately incorporate into your shooting style in the future.</p>

<p>Matthew, I get your challenge. And back in the day when I shot film, I had to agonize over stuff like this. But with digital, shoot away! Take what you think is your best shot. And then recompose. Different DoF. Maybe some exposure compensation. Maybe go shoot something else and come back to that side of the house in 45 minutes when the shadows or glare are a bit different. Step back. Tilt the camera. Got artist on yourself and look for a creative way to shoot the house (maybe with a wide angle lens up close with a bush in the foreground that dominates the house). 90% of those photos will be worthless to your real estate clients. But you'll grow as a photography of built space. You'll start to learn "hey, this just doesn't work, not matter what lens I use" or you'll be able to instinctively get how to maximize the sense of privacy with seconds of seeing the lot. If this helps, give yourself a shot sequence, make a checklist, put it on a pad of paper and check the shots off as you go along.</p>

<p>I have a slightly different take. You said you're "newish" to photography. The tendency for many people starting out is to try and buy the best camera they can afford. It's often a similar approach to software. Why not start out with something that is much more basic or free. Play around with something like Snapseed. You'll get a feel for editing and what it is you want to really do with your photos. You may discover that all you want to do is saturate and sharpen, maybe play with some curves. In which case there are a host of programs for free or less than $10 that will do all that for you. Or you may decide you want to add raindrops or fire to a photo, use a green screen, change skin texture, and play with layers. In which case you'll want a serious program with a major learning curve (and unless it's GIMP, probably a decent price). No offense, but right now you probably don't know enough about editing (and photography) to know what exactly what it is you want to do. Give yourself some editing challenges/assignments with the programs you have access to now (or can download for free). After a couple of months, you'll have a much better idea of how much money but especially time you want to invest in a program. </p>

<p>Jeff, I always took the saying "the best camera is the one you have with you" as a recognition that you need to haul it around in order to use it--a camera doesn't help you if it's back in your studio and you're on the African Safari, at Dealey Plaza, near the Twin Towers on Sept. 11th, or seeing the freak weather develop. I've never taken that statement to mean that camera phones are the cat's pajamas but rather, you've got to haul your gear around with you and if boasting about that great hasselblad you've got doesn't do you any good if you don't have it with you.</p>

<p>First of all, we need to put things in perspective. When I was in Anchorage, I saw a moose in the hotel parking lot. Yeah, it may be "urban" (compared to the rest of Alaska) but it's still pretty rural. The biggest limit to your wildlife photography in Jan-Feb. will be that many of the critters will have gone south or are hibernating, not that you'll be in a city.<br>

Personally, I prefer Anchorage over Fairbanks for photography. Get thee to a higher hotel in Anchorage and shoot sunsets or sunrises. Or the Sound. Or Elmendorf AFB. Or the Botanical Gardens. The aerial shots around Anchorage are superb--worth renting a seat on a small plane for a 1-hour flight around the surrounding area.<br>

When I was in Fairbanks, I asked one of the locals what there was to do or see, asked another one what was notable about Fairbanks. Both referred me to places NEAR Fairbanks but not actually in the city…the hot springs, Denali, etc. I was staying near the airport in Fairbanks and within walking distance there was a resort closed down for the winter--shot some nice pictures of deserted riverboats and also birch trees at the Creamers Field wildlife refuge.</p>

<p>Lauren, my suggestion (especially since you're shooting kids) is to get a good kit zoom (like an 18-50/70mm). Kids won't remain static ("hey Johnny--hold that pose!"). Or there are times when you can't get everyone in the photo with a 50mm. I do most of my shooting with a prime lens (50mm). But for shooting kids, I'd recommend a zoom. Now…b/c it won't be f1.8, you're going to need some added light. You can get either a refurbished SB600 or a YN-560 for little money (the YN options can be as inexpensive as $40). Bounce it off the ceiling with a diffuser and you'll get some lovely shots of the kids. And you can get that kit lens, speed light and diffuser for much less than $500….probably more like $200 or $250 total.</p>

<p>I'm going to agree with Michael's post here. If you don't have a tilt-shift lens to control perspective and minimize keystone, then embrace it--make it clear that it's intentional. Otherwise the viewer gets this unconscious subliminal uneasiness caused by subconsciously seeing the lines converge.<br>

Be a bit more of an artist with your shoots. The straight-on exteriors don't sell the house as much. Look for shots that emphasize views and space, minimize pictures of "gee, look how close the neighbors are." So change angles not only to provide a little more interest in the photo but also to increase the perception of space with the lot or emphasize some landscaping or highlight a nice feature (like the water).</p>

<p>I've been shooting for over 40 years now. Most of that time I used a Nikon and am a big Nikon believer. But there are plenty of great cameras by many different brands. Anyone who wants to push Nikon--or Canon--on you is being a zealot. At the level you're at, brand is totally irrelevant.<br>

Get a body that feels right for you and you're comfortable operating (b/c the earlier post about operating the Canon and the Nikon is accurate--they operate differently…making adjustments and changing settings are different with each). Then look at what you can afford. There is always a "better" camera out there (read "better" = "more expensive with far more features, most of which you'll never use").<br>

I've got the Nikon 35mm f.18. It's a great little lens. Tremendously undervalued. B/c it's a prime lens (i.e.: fixed, not zoom), it's very sharp. Some chromatic aberration at the extremes. Light weight, reliable, very good in low light. If you're just starting out and want to shoot indoors with natural light and do not want to use speed lights, it's a great choice to make. Also, lots of instances (street photography, sports, wildlife) where a zoom is essential. But for indoor settings (especially around the holidays) I'll take a prime lens any day--you can always crop in post-production edits. Sharpness in low light is a winner and the 35mm f1.8 will give you that. BTW, just to state the obvious but you're not going to be be able to use Canon and Nikon lens with the other bodies. So if you get the Nikon lens you don't want a Canon body (and vice-versa).</p>

<p>Okay, this post is post-shoot so it's really more just to add to the forum rather than provide a possible solution to your challenge.<br>

1. The comments I've heard about strobes/speed lights and babies isn't as much about any health damage, it's that flashes might produce some crying or a cranky baby. So if you've got good continuous lighting, that'd be the preferred option. And yes, you can also let lots of good results without the baby crying by using speed lights or strobes.<br>

2. Single biggest tip is nice soft light. Whether you get that by using natural light and a scrim/reflectors, or a couple of gigantic soft boxes and bouncing light….soft light is your friend for baby shots and boudoir photography. Soft light with no or minimal shadows will flatter the skin, make everything look more romantic.</p>

<p>Not a dumb question at all. Now…let me make a couple of general generalizations about lens for DSLRs that lead up to my answer.<br>

1. Prime lens are usually sharper then zoom lens. Lots of reasons why and it also depends upon the quality of the lens we're comparing. But generally speaking, a zoom is a compromise lens…you get the ability to shoot from a wider range of distance and crop but you almost always give something up.<br>

2. The wider range the lens covers, the more likely you are to have some distortion, loss of accuracy and sharpness on the extremes. Again, lots of reasons why. But ultimately what you're asking one lens to do is to mimic the human eye--and we don't have lens that are perfect at that yet.<br>

3. A lens is very much about what specific task you're asking it to do. Take a 200mm zoom…you can get them so they aren't that big and provide reasonable sharpness at 200mm. But ask it to shoot in low light (f2.8) and suddenly that zoom becomes the size of a small tree trunk (b/c you need to let in more light).<br>

You can get lens that will do 18-200mm. And if you're willing to pay a couple of thousand dollars, you can even get good ones. But with any lens that has a wide range of focus, there will always be some major compromises. Either it's going to weight a ton…or it isn't going to be able to shoot in low light…or you're going to see sharpness drop off sharply at both ends of the lens.</p>

<p>Well, at lower elevations, you've got peak or near peak foliage in a lot of mid-Atlantic and Southern parks--I"m guessing that Smokey Mountains are superb right now, we just barely passed peak foliage for the Shenandoah and Skyline. This is also the time of year that we get the best sunrises and sunsets for the mid-Atlantic.<br>

I spend my honeymoon in Yellowstone in October and it was superb…the geysers and hot springs in the cold child of the morning…what a visual sight! For both Yellowstone and Yosemite, peak crowds will be past so a lot less people.<br>

If you're looking for warmer weather, than Southern Utah and Southern Arizona have some spectacular national parks that won't have 100 degree temperatures at this time of year.<br>

The list of options is endless.</p>

<p>Eric--I have to laugh at the Bob Krist suggestion on the "large official looking ID." I've had a number of times where b/c I have a large, colorful, laminated ID dangling from my photo bag that I often take, I've had PR directors or press liaisons say "oh good, you're here, the press conference hasn't started yet" or guide me in past the line and in the door. I've yet to get in to a serious sporting event that way. But gallery openings, press conferences, key speakers, book signings…it's happened a bunch of times.</p>

<p>Alex, it totally depends upon what I"m shooting.<br>

--for nice events, I"ll typically go business casual with clothes that I can kneel with or lay down on the ground and not look that much worse. So I"d rarely wear khakis (usually dark pants). <br>

--if I'm going to be tromping around or outdoors or hiking to a location, then I'm dressed for some physical exertion, usually have a hat, layered clothing, lots of pockets.<br>

--portraits, I'll often wear a white shirt or polo (which serves as a modest reflector and fill.<br>

--knee pads are critical for a lot of sporting events.</p>

<p>Holly, I"m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. And copywrite and usage rights vary somewhat from state to state. Those caveats noted.</p>

<p>1. You take the picture, you own it. Unless there is a signed contract indicating that you've sold the rights to that photo.<br>

2. Right to use that photo publicly? That's a different matter. If it's a "public figure" (like a photojournalist taking a picture of a star or politician), or it's in the public (street photography), most states assume you don't need a release. If it's for your portfolio, you generally don't need a release. But if you plan on selling it or putting it on the cover of a book that is printed for the public or it goes on a poster that will be on the side of buses in the city or in an ad in a magazine with thousands of copies....you will almost always need a release (except for the exceptions I mentioned earlier).<br>

3. Separate from what the law says, as a new photographer you're going to get a lot of your first business through referrals. So even if the law says you can use the photo and disseminate it, there may be times when you chose not to do so b/c it will piss off a family member or alienate someone who could give you good referrals. Here's an example: you cousin (mother of a new born child) finds herself in a park and her baby starts to cry. She looks around, sees no-one else (other than you), pulls out a breast and quickly nurses her baby to quiet her. You, seeing a great photo, pull out your camera and--shooting from a distance with your 200mm zoom (so she doesn't know you took the picture), take a lovely shot of a mom nursing her infant. She's surrounded by colorful flowers, rays of sunlight filter down between the trees, the park bench is rustic, she looks positively golden in the photo. In short, you've got a spectacular picture. She was in public, her head is down so she's not identifiable, and let's suppose you're in a state that therefore concludes you don't need a release from her. AND...you've got a La Leche League rep eager to pay you money for that foto for a national or regional ad campaign to promote nursing in public. Or maybe you want to use it for your website to promote your fledging photo business. But your cousin screams bloody murder about how the picture violates her privacy, you never told her you were shooting and she'll never talk to you if you publish a shot "with my boobs hanging out for everyone to see!". In that case, it doesn't so much matter if you have the law on your side. And it sounds like some of the examples you're talking about (family members and acquaintances) would fall in to a scenario like this. Very difficult for a new photographer starting out to have all or most of the family saying "here comes Holly--watch yourself--she's a snoop!" So even though you're around family a lot (will some of your best work may come with them), they're also often a bad source of photos to start your business out for exactly the issues you laid out in your post.</p>

<p>I know there have been a variety of threads on subsets of this subject--people posting about apps for picture books or editing or a specific app question. I'd like to make this a more open/broader thread. What are your favorite photography-related apps for a mobile phone (I have an iPhone)? There are a ton of editing ones for phones (which I'm not wild about--I'll save my computer with a big screen for the post-processing work). But here are a couple of apps that I've found useful:<br>

1. EveryTrail: http://www.everytrail.com/iphone.php which you can use to identify good outdoor shoot locations and interesting landmarks (abandoned buildings, waterfalls, etc.).<br>

2. Pocket Light Meter: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pocket-light-meter/id381698089?mt=8 exactly what it claims to be.<br>

3. Nikon Learn and Explore: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Learn-And-Explore-for-the-iPhone/index.page Great resource for learning, inspiration or just fill deadtime as I"m waiting to board an airplane.<br>

4. Heritage fotopedia: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id383327395 Collection of pictures of amazing or landmark places, good for inspiration.<br>

5. Flashlight (there are a gazillion apps for this). I used to bring a penlight or flashlight to every shoot. No more--just bring my iPhone.<br>

6. TPE: http://photoephemeris.com Sunrise and sunset times any day anywhere around the globe.<br>

7. 645 Pro: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/645-pro-mk-ii/id518235205?mt=8 The best phone app I've seen at allowing a DSLR photographer to adapt some of your skill to a phone and upgrade your phone camera capabilities.<br>

Five of the apps I mentioned are free (only the last two cost some coin--and both of them are cheap--I seem to recall $4.99 and $3.99 USD). Okay, what other apps do the rest of you like to use? And anything you post, if you can also provide a link, that's even better.<br>

Joe</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photographers are different. What works for Wouter may not work for me or Alan. So take my advice with a grain of salt and also an attempt to recognize that people are individuals.<br>

1. Look at the gallery here at this site. Look for examples you like and inspiration. Print some out or put together a "shot list" not b/c you're going to copy it but to use it for inspiration.<br>

2. Do a little research before you get to that City. You shoot in NYC or Chicago, you've got some tall buildings with interesting skyline options. You should in SLC or Denver, you've got nearby mountains. SF--an amazing bridge or two. LA--access to water, beaches and palm trees. Use some of those elements (or famous landmarks like if you're shooting in Philly or DC) to give you ideas.<br>

3. When I'm in a city, there are a couple of genres that just scream out to be in practically every city I've been in....architecture (especially B&W with a wide angle--emphasize form and lines)...and street photography. You're shy around people? Then get a fast 200mm zoom and shoot from a distance. Go out around lunch time when some people will be grazing or escaping from work, a range of different dress. Many cities have great parks (St. Louis is known for their parks) and/or sculpture gardens...very cool places to shoot. Or farmer's markets and open-air markets (like Portland) that are a fascinating mix of people and weird stuff. Shoot food or dining experiences (from the outside of the restaurant. All of that metal and glass in most cities....you can get some interesting reflection/refraction shots and when it's sunrise or sundown, some very golden or red colors. Or treat your shoot like a journalist shooting a story...have a beginning, use pictures to send messages, have an end to the story. Is it a young adult coming to the big city in wonder full of promise only to have dreams crushed and head home? Or a family experiencing everything in one day? Or the slow start and then hectic pace of a day that eventually crashes to a crawl and people head home or hit bars? Let your pictures of the city capture a narrative. National Geographic is often a great example of this. Some wedding photographers use a journalist approach to their shoots.<br>

4. Time lapse? Yep, that's an option. Get up high (a roof-top cafe) with a tripod. Or near a stop-light and catch passing tail-lights. Get someone to do some light painting around a statue at night. Catch the street lights reflecting off of a wet street or an urban river. Catch blurred motion as commuters hurry by on the street or bikers race by so you capture speed and activity.<br>

And if you don't like what you've shot so far, critique your work. How could you make your architecture shots more interesting or powerful? Why did you take the shot in the first place--what was it that you "saw" (other than, "gee, that's a tall building").</p>

<p>If you want waterfalls, than go to the Smokey Mountains. <br>

And I get that you're not in to advance planning but you at least want to check stuff like water flow and sunrise/sunset b/c little things like that make the difference between a shot of "oh, that's a pretty waterfall" vs. "OMG--is the water on fire? How did you shoot that? Is that done with photoshop? OMG!" b/c you shot the waterfall as the setting/rising sun glinted off it. Or shot the pool of water as the morning fog and mist burned off.</p>

<p>Use some of Gaudi's work as a backdrop and ask people to emote/express/show how they feel when they see some of Gaudi's buildings.</p>

<p>Fall foliage peaks vary with the season.<br>

1. Here's the official foliage website for the State of Virginia: http://dof.virginia.gov/fall/<br>

2. NC....you'll get a different peak date if you're in the Smokey Mountains rather than if you're on the coastline or piedmont--they could vary as much as a month b/c of substantial differences in temperature, rainfall and altitude. Here is a website for foliage on the Blue Ridge Parkway: http://www.blueridgeparkway.org/v.php?pg=286 and the closest I know of for NC is one for Asheville: http://www.exploreasheville.com/seasonal-fun/fall/<br>

3. Not sure what you're looking to see or do other than foliage. Be aware that as long as the Federal Govt. is shut down, so are rest-stops and facilities on Skyline Drive in Virginia. I find the Smokey Mountains fascinating in NC--even without foliage changes (though keep in mind that the Smokey Mountain NP is a Federal Park and thus closed for now). Asheville is the arts capital of NC--tremendous art options (shoot a ceramics artist or someone blowing glass). NOC (Nantahala Outdoor Center) which is where the US Olympic kayak trials are held, is in SW NC. The Biltmore Estate is in Asheville. As far as SW Va, Roanoke is a nice place. Floyd is a tiny town that is a bluegrass hub. Natural Bridge is a pretty cool sight and definitely worth stopping at as a photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hector--Arizona just worked a deal with the Federal Govt. to pay for all operating expenses so the Grand Canyon will be open to visitors. I believe the deal was sealed Thursday (Oct. 10th) around 8pm. Obviously, your friends should check on deals but it should be open for them to visit now.<br>

That said, most other national parks are still closed and tickets are being issues for people who enter them.</p>

<p>I've always been a tremendous admirer of a couple of the shooters in this exhibit: Lynsey Addario and Amy Toensing in particular. Good stuff. </p>

<p>It is true that the West Rim of the Grand Canyon (with the skywalk) is still open. It's highly unlikely that funding for the parks will occur before other entities. Without delving too much in to the politics, the GOP has proposed limited funding (CRs for only some entities like the National Parks) which are visible to the public. If the Senate agrees with this then it allows the House to effectively cut areas (by passing resolutions only for the areas they wish to fun and then never pass funding for any areas they don't want to fund). What the Senate has discussed is thus amending any such bills that come before them (so a bill that funds only cancer programs for children in NIH, or only funding for National Parks) is amended to fund the entire govt. At which point it would be returned to the House. Which already as a CR before it to fund the entire govt. But the House leadership won't allow it to go to the floor. So talk about separate bills to fund things just like the National Park Service or NIH cancer programs are just PR. They're not going to be passed.</p>