I have listened to a lot of podcasts recently that discuss variations on photography. They talk about time lapse, macro photography, maps, aerial photography, or panoramas. All are different forms of photography in one way or another.

And yet they are the exact same thing as “basic” photography. Photography, if done well, allows the viewer to observe a moment in time in a way that they can’t ever do in real life. They can look at the image for as long as they want and examine the minute details that make up that moment.

For instance, if you look at a shot of a bird flying, you can look at the body position, the way the feathers bend, the range of colors in the feathers, and other things that you can’t see with the naked eye. Why? Because it is a bird in flight frozen in time. You can’t do that while standing and watching a bird fly by.

Photography catches one moment and freezes it to look at later. Time lapse, macro, panoramas, etc. all do the same thing. They take an object or a scene and present it in a way that we can’t see with our naked eye.

A crowd entering a stadium. If you just stood there and watched, it would probably be boring. But make a time lapse of that scene and you could watch the ebb and flow of the crowd and  observe the patterns of movement. Just as slow motion allows the viewer to observe the finite motion of something at a speed in which their brain can process it.

A map or aerial photography seems to fascinate people because it shows spacial relationships people can’t see from the ground.

You have probably seen a sand dollar before, but in the macro shot above, you can see the details that aren’t really visible to the viewer with out the help of the lens. The size, shape, and patterns of the holes become more apparent.

The reason that all of these are popular and people take a moment to look at them is because they get to see the world in a new way. It is seeing differently and people are fascinated when they get to view the world from a different point of view.

I try to keep that in mind when taking a photograph. How can I shoot this that lets the viewer see the scene differently?

The last few months have been interesting to say the least. Without going into details, I have had some life changing events take place that included the loss of three family members, a slightly serious health issue, and some sever monetary issues. Needless to say, I have been forced to take a serious look at my life and what I want from it and, important to this blog, my photography. Everything is getting much better at this point in my life, but I still haven’t accomplished what I set out to do with my photography.

I started to reevaluate my photography about two and a half months ago and posted my thoughts on my Moving Forward – Finding Inspiration post. Due to the health issues I haven’t gotten much past the state or thought process that I was in at that time, but having become much more healthy and able to get out and shoot, travel, and maintain a more “normal” lifestyle.

As a result, I have made some more concrete decisions about what I want to do with my photography. I have two websites that I will be using; this one and www.naturelightphotography.com. Again, I am truly inspired by G Dan Mitchell in his work and in his social distribution of his photography.

As a result, I will be using this website for my thoughts on photography, cycling, traveling/overlanding with my FJ Cruiser, and just life thoughts in general. Most of the posts will be photography related, but there will probably be a few that aren’t strictly for photographers. The posts won’t be daily, but they should be fairly regular.

My other site, Nature Light Photography, will be strictly my images. I’ll be honest and admit that it is patterned after Mitchell’s site, but I am hoping that it is different enough that people don’t see it as a copy or knockoff. I’m not sure why I think that would be bad, but it is something I want to avoid. My goal is to post a new image daily. I think I can do that because I can easily discuss my images since I was there when I took them and I know what the situation was and what I was thinking to produce the image.

This site will maintain it’s looks because I like the feel of the site, but there might be some subtle changes in the future. www.naturelightphotography.com will be undergoing a comprehensive renovation to facilitate a more photo friendly site to view.

I will be posting some of my ideas and thoughts about my reasons for change and where I’m headed in the future, but until then the bottom line is that I’m restarting the engine and heading down a different road, but I hope the results will be the better this time.

Half Dome

I have noticed a lot of debate online and in podcasts as to whether or not it is a good idea to shoot icons.  Is it acceptable to capture an image of something that has been shot a thousand times before?

I think everyone recognizes the subject above; Half Dome in Yosemite National Park. I took this from the valley floor, which gives it a slightly different perspective on a subject that has been shot probably millions of times before. Is my image different? Yes. I think so. Was it even a worthy subject? I don’t know. It’s been shot before, but maybe not from where I shot it and maybe not in the same situation.

That is the question. Do you shoot a subject that is famous and has been photographed before or is that considered being unoriginal?

First, I’d like to know your opinion.

View This Poll

Two or three months ago, Jon Cornforth tweeted  “…you would have a hard time finding the holes left by my tripod…” I thought it was a great quote. He was saying that he looks for the shot that is new and hasn’t been done before because he strives for originality. Is it wrong that he passes up the iconic image? I don’t know.

Recently, Jim Goldstein had a post on his blog discussing this very same subject. He states that shooting the iconic image is safe and a “lower risk” effort and that finding your own, different image can be difficult. He goes on to say that he does shoot the iconic image, but looks at doing so is “the first step in a longer creative process.” Is he being unoriginal? I’m not sure.

I have written about trying to duplicate the Ansel Adams shot of the memorial at the Manzanar interment camp.  I even went back and tried it again. I took the shots because I wanted to learn how to see in a photographic manner. Was I wrong to do so?

I think it comes down to the purpose of your photography and why you are taking pictures. Are you trying to show the world as you see it? Or are you trying to show people what they haven’t seen before? Or is it somewhere in between?

I like Goldstein’s approach. Use the known to help you find the unknown. I like Jon Cornforth’s attitude. Go out of your way to find the original.

Who is right? Both. Who is wrong? Neither.

I see it very similar to the way that Ken Rockwell discusses it in his post about the subject.
Neither is better on an absolute basis. The choice depends on your application. Once you know your application the debate goes away. The debate only exists when people presume erroneously that someone else’s needs mirror their own.

The question really is: What are you trying to accomplish when you take the photograph? Which do you like to work with?

In one of his posts, Chris Marquardt states that he has tested over 15 different cameras including different formats of both digital and film and admits that what he has learned has influenced his photography. The reasons he lists include aspect ratio, the focusing ability of the camera, the sound of the shutter, and the weight and size of the camera.

That all makes sense. Aspect ratio definitely influences how we see and view the world. The weight and size of the camera will determine how far off the beaten path we are willing to go for the image. The sound of the shutter may not be noticed in some situation, but will ruin the atmosphere in a scene in others. And the ability of a camera to focus can determine how quickly we can capture what we see and therefore determine what we shoot.

In a post on The Luminous Landscape, Charles Cramer discusses the quality of 4×5 inch film compared with a Phase One medium format digital back. He includes images showing quality comparisons. There is an obvious difference between the two, but in different ways. Film seems to have better resolution than digital, but digital has better color. Again, what are you looking for in a photograph?

With digital, you can shoot a lot without paying a any money for each image. If you use film, you pay for each exposure in film and development costs. On the flip side, digital requires a expensive software expenditure. If you buy a new camera, the current version of the software you are using may not support your model of camera. Digital cameras can become obsolete, while a film camera will continue to be viable as long as you have film.

Going back to Ken Rockwell’s statement, what are you trying to do with your photography? Once you have decided that, you can make the decision as to what medium you want to use.

The debate about digital vs. film will rage on, but remember, there is no right or wrong answer. There is a good, better, and best solution for you. Don’t let others tell you otherwise.

Do you like the grass in these rocks?

If you have been following me, you know that I got a very negative comment on one of my posts. You can read my responses here and here. The comment made me think about critique and it’s impact on the person being critiqued.

I think being a photographer is more than just taking pretty pictures. I think that we have a responsibility to help others with what they are doing and helping them look their best. It isn’t about being “better” than someone or making yourself seem more knowledgeable than another person. It is about becoming better by making others around you better.

Chris Becker does this better than anyone I know. His [b]school is all about helping others. He has set up the [b]school as a very friendly forum in which he helps photographers solve problems and in a manner that others can also help. He offers a “Study Hall” most every Thursday at 4pm Pacific time in which he has guests or talks about subjects that are important to photographers. He can be critical, but never in a way that makes you feel like you have been attacked or that it is something personal. Becker almost never talks about himself, but about what others are doing.

Scott Bourne is another person who I admire for the way they deal with critique. I have seen him in person critiquing images a couple of times and he is very positive in the way he gives his opinion. He points out the parts of the photo that impress him and then identifies the one thing that could be improved the most and suggests a way to improve it. and he almost always ended the critique with the statement similar to “Overall, I really like the picture.” or “Other than that, I think it’s a great image.”

Those are the two secrets about giving good, helpful critique. One, don’t make it personal or about you. If you are critiquing someone’s image, talk about the image not the person or what you have done. Two, when you are critiquing an image, be positive before you suggest ways to improve the image. And when you do make a suggestion about how to improve the image, also offer a solution about how to execute the improvement or suggestion.

Giving critique well is something that you should work on. By being able to critique a photo well, you can enhance your place in the photographic community as someone who is honest and helpful.

Lastly, remember that you opinion of the image is not shared by everyone. That is one of the things that makes photography and all art so unique. What is attractive to you is ugly to others and the other way around. Just because you don’t like some aspect of the image, doesn’t mean that others won’t find that particular feature a key part of the image. Lens flare would be a great example. Some people don’t like lens flare in any image. Others find lens flare adds to the feeling of “being there”. Neither is wrong.

The bottom line is that critique is necessary for an artist to improve, but the person giving the critique has to offer the critique in a way that does not attack the artist and also offers solutions to the problems with the image.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

I got this comment on a post recently and wrote about it and how it affected me. I think there is another, more important lesson to be learned from “Jordan” and that is that criticism is an important part of the growing process as a photographer, but I think there is a proper way to do it.

I like criticism. I have offered my portfolio many times to several people whose opinion I consider valuable and listened to what they had to say. Honestly, it wasn’t always easy. I don’t think it is easy for anyone who is passionate about what they do to listen to criticism. We have our heart and soul vested in our work and we think it is good or we would not have put it out to be reviewed.

A negative comment is like someone saying “your work sucks and therefore you suck too”, but not if the comment is well phrased. “Jordan” was mean and spiteful. He made it personal and that is why it hurt.

A positive criticism would be something phrased like “I like the lighting, but I don’t think you need all of the material on the right side of the picture. Maybe a different crop would help it.”or “I like the pose, but I think you need to work on your focus. It seems that her face was not as sharp as it could be. You might want to check to see where the focus point is located when you take the shot or work on your technique.”

Those comments point out the positive and also explains the negative and offers a way to fix it. That is what criticism should do. It should let you know what you have done right and discuss areas that need improvement and offer a way to work on those areas. When you have been critiqued like that you usually feel like you have been energized

When you get constructive criticism, you should be willing to listen and learn from it. The person is trying to be helpful and offer advice, based on their experience, about how to improve your photography. If you ignore them or tell yourself that they are wrong because they told you that they found something they didn’t like in your image you are doing yourself and them a disservice. You are wasting their time and you are fooling yourself.

Hopefully the person giving the critique is being honest. Listen to them. They are probably not the only person who that particular thought about your image. If the purpose of you seeking critique is to improve, you need to be willing to be honest about your work also. They are seeing the image without the passion and emotional attachment that you have about the effort went into it.

They are telling you about the finished product. They don’t know the effort that it took to capture the moment. They don’t have the memories that are attached to the image. They are telling you about what they see and how it makes them feel.

And that is what photography is about.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

That was the critique and comment on a recent post by someone named “Jordan” (I assume that the name is as fake as the email address “Jordan” left with the comment).  When I first read it, it hurt. A lot.

I didn’t post the comment because I thought it was mean spirited, but then I started to think. “Jordan” is right. The images aren’t that good and that’s why I am not a professional photographer. I’m not as good as I’d like to be and I’m still learning. I hope that I always will be learning.

“Jordan” is right, I have some good equipment and I am learning to use it. That is the purpose of the photo shoot; to learn how to use the equipment in a real life situation. Julia didn’t pay for the session, but she did get some images that she liked. No harm done and a win-win for both of us.

“Jordan” talks about me stating the obvious concerning lighting and lenses. Again, he is correct and those are some of the skills that I am working on improving. I am learning the limits of my equipment and how to use light (flash or ambient) to help capture the image in my mind.

I agree with “Jordan” about the pictures. They aren’t great. I don’t think that I agree with all of his reasons, but I am not elated with the images. But that wasn’t the point of posting them. This blog’s subtitle is “The Journey Through a Photographic Life”. My photographic life. The point of posting them is for me to verbalize what I have learned and document that journey.

Trust me, the first shoot was atrocious. Julia was pleased, but I wasn’t. I wouldn’t even post them in public. Posting the most recent images is my way of documenting my progress in photography and I am making progress. Also, by posting my images and discussing them in the blog, I am teaching. I am teaching readers the mistakes I made and lessons learned from those mistakes just as “Jordan” suggested.

I’ll be coming back to “Jordan’s” comment in the future because I think there are other lessons to be learned from it, but until then, I have reaffirmed that I am still learning and I still enjoy the process.

And for that “Jordan”, I thank you.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

In a completely completely different format of his podcast, The Candid Frame, Ibarionex Perello had a conversation with Jeffery Saddoris of the Faded and Blurred podcast about a very different aspect of photography. The topic was the role they wanted photography to in their life.

Their messages were simple. One of them was: Be more afraid of not doing anything than of the result of doing something and failing.

This struck a cord with me. It is better to fail at something than never try to do it in the first place. I can’t tell you how many times I have not done something because I would have been upset that I might fail at it. I should be looking at how I would feel if I never attempted the challenge in the first place.

There are a lot of goals that I have for my life. I haven’t accomplished most of them. Why? Probably fear of failure.

I have posted my goals for the year. I haven’t accomplished most of them Why? Fear of failure.

I think we all have that fear, but the fear of non-action should be stronger. As a water polo coach, I knew that the only way to get better as a team was to challenge ourselves. We have to step outside of our comfort zone in order to improve. We should never look back at a situation and say to ourselves that we thought about doing something, but decided against it because we might not be successful.

What is the motivation for getting off of our butt and trying something new? That motivation should be the opportunity to learn.

Nothing is learned from inaction. Learning only takes place if we have a result to learn from. Action gives us the result from which we can learn and improve.

Why bring this up now? Because I have been paralyzed by the fear of failure. It is time to be motivated by the fear of inaction.

I will be discussing more of the conversation in the future. If you would like to listen to the podcast you can click on the image above or here: The Candid Frame #109 – In Conversation #1

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

I shot Julia’s senior portraits in October, but I did a TERRIBLE job!! I got the opportunity to shoot her again last weekend.

For the first shoot I traveled to El Segundo and for some reason, I just didn’t feel comfortable or competent. As a result, the images produced were not good. They were out of focus and poorly composed and I wasn’t satisfied with them.

My biggest problem was posing. I had no idea how to communicate how I wanted her to pose, what would looked good, what would work in different situations. The images were technically correct in regards to exposure and such, but they sucked as far as the subject matter.  Julia wasn’t the problem. I didn’t make her look good.

I spent the next few months learning how to pose subjects. I went to FEO meetings with Jen Disney and other photographers who taught me a lot. I watched Bambi Cantrell on CreativeLive. I went to WPPI and went to every posing workshop I could attend. In addition, I went online to photographers that I respected and looked through their sites for poses I liked and studied them for subtle hints and looks. Also, I learned about lighting. Hardly a posing workshop is presented where lighting is not talked about. I talked to Rob of Jessica Elizabeth Photography about lighting and how to best use it and learned a lot.

I examined the images and why they were out of focus. I was using my 50mm 1.4 lens which is tack sharp, but only under certain conditions. I learned that it doesn’t focus well in quickly changing situations. I watched what other photographers were using and a lot of them use a 70-200 2.8. So this time, that is what I used most of the time. The focus issue didn’t disappear, but it got better. A lot better.

Finally, I asked Julia if I could try shooting her again. This time we went to the Mission Inn in Riverside, CA. This time I felt confident and comfortable. I was able to spot good locations, good light, and was able to communicate how I wanted her to pose.

When the light wasn’t right, I was able to fill it in with  a touch of flash. I tried some different things after I got “the” shot. Some worked and some didn’t, but I was comfortable and learned in the process.

So? What were the lessons learned?

One, I still have a focus issue. I can get landscapes and wildlife in focus, but have trouble with portraits. I think part of it is because I rush my shots. I think another part of it is my method of shooting, but I will experiment and elaborate more on that later. The important part of that is that I am still working on it.

Two, identify your weakness and work on it. I learned how to get out of my comfort zone and pose people. I learned how to identify light and modify it for the look I want. Am I great? NO! But I’m getting better.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Washboard Road

I ran across this article a few days ago and it made me think. The article tells about a woman who used her car’s GPS to navigate to Death Valley NP. She ended up on a dirt road that I can’t even find on the National Park Back Country Roads map. She was stuck for five days without water, her son died, and she had laid down next to her car to die too. It was a situation that could have been avoided.

In normal situations, using your GPS is not going to cause any problems.  Sure, it can take you in some weird routes, but it will get you to your destination and it is a great addition to a vehicle in and around town. But if you are going to use it to travel, it can be a pretty useless device. The article above is a great example.

I am sure that there is a road where the woman was found and that it was on a map connecting her starting point to her destination, but it wasn’t a road that was practical or safe. She blindly followed the instructions and it got her into trouble.

I have Tom Tom mounted in my car and use it three to four times a week. But if I am traveling, I look at a map before I go. By looking at a map, you get an idea of the roads and the general direction that you want to travel. If your GPS unit is directing you on a different route, you should take a look at a map to confirm that you are headed into an area that you want to travel.

Likewise, when you plan on leaving your vehicle for a considerable distance, don’t rely on a GPS unit. Look at a map and have a general idea of the trail and the direction you will be traveling. I don’t hike far from my car because I count on my FJ Cruisier getting me as close as possible to my destination.

If you are traveling off road, NEVER use a standard car-mount GPS for navigation. It doesn’t know the limits of your vehicle or the true condition of the road you are on. Only a map can get you a real sense of the terrain before you actually get there.

I think the following rules should be heeded when traveling to a new location:

1) Look at a map of both the area and route. Know what kind of roads and terrain to expect.
2) Know your directions while traveling. Don’t blindly follow a GPS instruction if it doesn’t make sense.
3) Don’t become overconfident with either your vehicle or your ability. If you are in an area that you are not comfortable being in, go back.
4) Know where help is. After looking at the map, know where to get gas, food, and water.
5) When traveling to a new or distant place, carry supplies and have a plan. Carry extra water, food, and shelter and know when to use them.

My conclusion is an obvious one. We need to stay safe in our pursuit of our images. Know the limits of your equipment, both the photographic gear and the gear that is going to get you back home and keep you alive.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think.