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?

Mission San Antonio de Padua is located north of Paso Robles in the central coast region of California. It is largely restored to it’s original condition. This is the inside of the chapel from the back.

I had just seen an HDR of Trey Radcliff’s and was inspired to try to recreate it inside the chapel. Using five images each taken with a one stop difference, I put them together in Photomatix. I tried to get the look to be more real and not the surreal, painted affect that you see in most HDR images.

The image was taken with a Nikon D300 and  a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 lens at 16mm. The exposure varied in duration, but the aperture was at f8 and the ISO was at 800.

I’ve been on a bit of a hiatus recently. I haven’t posted as much as I’d like and I haven’t been out shooting much either. I sat down a few nights ago and asked myself why. The answers that came back were the same as most of us have when we find ourselves not working up to our expectations; personal issues, family problems, lack of funds, lack of inspiration and motivation, and no organized plan.

I decided that personal issues and family problems will always exist and everyone has them. They make a weak excuse for not doing what I like to do. I find it hard to believe that every photographer except me has a perfect life. As a matter of fact, if you really pay attention to Twitter, you will find that everyone has these issues. Nope, that I can’t fix, so I’ll just have to get over it. I can do that.

I’ve always known that lack of funds is an invalid reason for not shooting or posting. Yes, I could say that I can’t afford to travel to the places I want to shoot and, as a matter of fact, a four week trip that looped the western United States was cancelled/postponed this summer due to the funding issue. But there are still great shots and opportunities to shoot without leaving my home town. This week’s photo of the week is one of those. I walked out my back door and into the shot.

That brings us to the lack of inspiration. I thought that by staying home, I would find some way to be inspired. Nope, that didn’t happen. I had to go look for the inspiration. I found it in two places. Google+ and 500px. Both are great sites to find some awesome images from amazing photographers. I recommend that you visit 500px just for the images alone.

After looking at the images on G+ and 500px, I have found a lot of new things I want to try photographically. Macro, lighting, different points of view, etc. and I’ve started pursuing those challenges.

I’ve also started going back and looking at my images from the past and reevaluate images that I didn’t think were good enough. I’m trying to use the photographic eye that I’ve learned from  looking at G. Dan Mitchell’s work, things I’ve learned in LightRoom, and Photoshop to find images that are good. Not just good enough, but good.

As for the  organized plan I am reevaluating my websites, their purpose and what I want to do with my photography. I have already started formulating some of the changes that I want to make in both my photography and on my sites.

When I was coaching, someone once told me that there are only two directions in life. You are either moving forward or you are moving backward. Nobody ever stands still.

There are changes in the future.

Hearst Castle

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to fly over Hearst Castle with a life long friend who passed away earlier this year. This is one of the shots I got on that flight. Looking at it reminds me of him.

The image was taken with a D300 and a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 lens at 90mm. The exposure was 1/320 of a second at f9 and an ISO of 1000.

Taken on an extended trip through Northern California and Southern Oregon, this picture of the Painted Hills Unit of John Day Fossil Bed National Monument. The sun was setting and I was looking for an image that captured the feeling of being there. I liked the patterns of the zig-zaging shadows and the texture of the soil.

The picture was taken with a Nikon D70 and a Nikkor 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 lens at 70mm. The exposure was 1/90 of a second at f6.7 and an ISO of 200.

Oak Branches in the Fog

Shot in Atascadero, CA during a really foggy morning, I liked the way that the branches weren’t really defined and produced a nice pattern.

The image was taken with a Nikon D300 and a Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 lens at 70mm. The exposure was for 1/200 of a second at f5.6 and an ISO of 200.

Roots in Jedediah Smith State Park

Jedediah Smith State Park is one of the most beautiful places in the state of California and, as far as I’m concerned, an place I’ve been.

This roots of a fallen redwood now support a multitude of fungi, ferns, lichens, and a host of small animals. They also make an interesting image.

The picture was taken with a Nikon D70 and a Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5 lens at 18 mm. The exposure was for 1/15 of a second at an aperture of 3.5 and an ISO of 800.

DSLR Camera Bubble Level

This is one of the best thirty dollars I have ever spent. I have a real problem when shooting keeping the camera level. Especially when hand-holding it for my shots. But even on a tripod, what appears level to my eye is off level just a little bit.

When shooting landscapes, I want my camera perfectly level so that when I compose the scene, I don’t have to worry about any edge being lost when I straighten the image in Lightroom. The JOBO Dual Bubble Camera Level does a great job.

It slides into the hot shoe on the top of the camera and has one level each for horizontal and vertical shooting. All you have to do is attach it to the camera, compose your shot, check the level, make any last adjustments to the camera level, and take the picture.

I have found that by using a tripod and the bubble level, my work has slowed down and I take the time to think my images through a little better.

If you are looking for a simple way to improve your landscape photography, this is a well spent thirty dollars.

I have read/heard a lot about the auto-ISO function on cameras lately and everyone of the “experts” claim that it should never be used. I disagree. I think that sometimes, you have to trust your camera to make the an adjustment on the fly.

The picture above is from a community theater production of C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce. I shot the dress rehearsal for the troupe and had full access to the theater. Even with the full access, the lighting wasn’t good. Stage lighting never is.

I work with my camera on manual. That way I can set the aperture wide open to get the most light and still have a fast enough shutter speed to stop the performers movement. By using Auto-ISO, I only have to worry about the aperture and shutter speed for the image I am trying to capture and the camera will choose the correct ISO to get the exposure correct. As the lighting changes in the scene, the camera adjusts the ISO to compensate for the increase or decrease of light.

There is a danger in allowing the camera to choose the ISO. As the ISO goes up, the amount of noise in the image goes up also. The secret to using Auto-ISO is to know the limits of your camera. My Nikon D300 can produce good quality images upto ISO 1600. Above that, the noise gets to a point where it is noticeable.

At ISO 1600 and lower, the noise isn’t a big factor. Yes, the images aren’t great quality, but they are usable and that is the goal of shooting.

In answer to all of the experts who say not to use Auto-ISO: I agree, unless that is the tool that you need to capture the image you need in the situation you find yourself. Learn to use your camera as a tool and trust it to do the job it was intended to do.

I woke up early to try to shoot the sunrise, but it was completely socked in with fog. There wasn’t going to be a sunrise and, as a matter of fact, the sun wouldn’t show its self until past noon that day.

Instead of going back inside, I focused on what I could see or what I could barely see. Once in a while the fog would lift enough to faintly see the trees on the opposite hill. I took those moments to capture the scene above.

I wanted enough detail to make sure the viewer knew what they were looking at, but not enough to make it ordinary. I think I accomplished my goal.

I think the lesson is that if the image you had in mind isn’t there, make the best of the situation and look for another one.

The photo was taken with a D300 and an 18-70 f3.5-4.5 lens at 31mm. The exposure was for 1/100 of a second at f8 and an ISO of 200.