Shutterfinger

Organizing Your Photos: Step One

Setting up a system for organizing your photographs can be overwhelming, especially if you aren't the sort of person for whom systems and organization come as second-nature. There's also the concern that you may do it the "wrong" way, resulting in wasted time and effort. The system I'm suggesting should address both issues. It's logical enough that you or anyone else who uses it should be able to understand what's where and how to find it. It's also flexible enough that you can tweak it to suit your individual circumstances. If you're a pro or you already have a successful system set up, more power to you. Feel free to chime in with any suggestions or lessons-learned. So with that preamble, on to step one.

I have found that the key to successfully organizing your images is to build a structure that starts with the largest logical categories and moves downward to progressively smaller sub-categories. Step One is therefore to decide what you want your largest categories to be. For example, if you're working with film negatives and transparencies, you might decide to first divide them into black & white and color. If they're all color, you might decide to divide them into color negative and color transparency. If you have different formats, you might decide to separate them into 35mm, medium format, and large format. If they're all digital, you might separate the original Raw files or JPEGs from files that have been Photoshopped, re-sized, backed-up, and so on.

There's no one right way, but you should have no more than 3 or 4 major categories, each of which can be sub-divided into smaller sub-categories. In my case, I separate my film archive into black & white, color transparency, and color negative. Each type of film stock is kept in separate binders with different colors. Digital files are stored on my hard drive in folders separated by year and shoot date (month and day of download). Depending on what kind of image I'm trying to retrieve, I can instantly narrow my search to one of three groups of binders or to a single folder on my hard drive.

The beauty of this system, especially for those of you who don't already have one, is that the fewer major categories you start out with, the quicker it is to do the initial sort and thus the more likely it is that you will do it. If you're shooting digital, the added benefit of having a logical file structure is that it's easier to back-up--and without back-ups my friend, you may one day discover you have no images at all.

My next post will explain Step Two: How to set up sub-categories. In the meantime, feel free to share any questions, comments or suggestions you may have.
 

Is It Worth the Wait?

One of the constant issues on photo forums is whether to wait for an upgrade to whatever DSLR seems close to the end of its product cycle or whether to buy now, when prices are at their lowest. Product cycles these days range from 16-24 months, depending on whether the camera is designed more for amateurs (faster cycles) or enthusiasts (slower cycles).

As always, the answer is "It depends." If you simply must have the latest and greatest, then you might as well wait--but with the understanding that you might be waiting longer than you expected. There's often a lag between when a camera is introduced and when it's actually in stock. Once it's available and the reviews start rolling in, you may discover that it falls short of your expectations. Dreams and reality seldom coincide. Finally, you'll be paying a price premium. Most retailers charge close to list price when a camera has just been introduced. Rebates and discounts appear only after a camera has been on the market for a half-year or so. Still, if you can't stand the thought that you could have had a "much better camera" (though not necessarily better pictures) if you had only waited, then by all means wait.

On the other hand, if you buy now, you'll be getting a proven commodity at a price that's about as low as it's going to get. For examples you need look no further than the Canon EOS 40D, which is now selling in the U.S. with a $200 instant rebate, and the Nikon D80, which is now selling for $200 less than when it was introduced. You can find similar examples among the other brands as well. For many photographers, $200 is the difference between being able to afford a camera and not. For others, it's the difference between having to settle for the kit lens or upgrading to something better.

There is, of course a third option: Keep whatever you've got now. It costs nothing, strengthens your character, and demonstrates that you are an independent thinker, immune to the enticements of the marketeers. Whatever you decide, rest assured that that camera you own today will take much better photographs than the one you hope to own one day.

You Shot It, Now Can You Find It?

A few days ago my niece asked for a copy of a picture I had taken of her as an infant. She recently gave birth to twin boys and wanted to see if she looked like they looked as babies. This particular photo had been taken about 32 years ago on E6 slide film. I was able to find it because I had placed it in a transparent slide sheet, stored in an enclosed 3-ring binder labeled "70s Family." My niece was lucky: I would have had a harder time if it had been shot on color negative film because I tend to be more casual about filing what I consider snapshots.

My point here is that in our zeal to produce new photographs, we often don't pay enough attention to the ones we've already taken. We leave them unsorted, in unlabeled envelopes in unlabeled boxes, or with obscure filenames on hard drives that are never backed up. Poorly stored photographs are much more vulnerable to being lost, damaged, erased, or accidentally thrown away. With them goes your visual record of the people you know and love, the places you've been, and the things you've seen.

If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you start investing a few hours a week to organize and back-up your photographs. I find it most efficient to start with broad categories and then gradually work down to the more specific. For example, you could start by sorting your photos into folders according to what year they were shot, and then the month.

If any if you are interested in this subject, let me know. I'd be happy to provide more suggestions for how to ensure that, 30 years from now, you'll not only have all the wonderful photos you've taken, you'll actually be able to find them.

Tripods: The Ultimate Image Stabilizer

One of the hot features these days is image-stabilization, a.k.a. vibration-reduction, shake-reduction, etc. The idea is that either the optics within a lens or the digital sensor itself will move in such a way that they counteract the movement from hand-holding a camera. I've used both systems and can report that they perform reasonably close to their inflated advertising claims. So is image stabilization (IS) useful? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it indispensable? Well... I wouldn't go that far.

The problem is that IS doesn't eliminate the effects of camera shake, it just reduces them. At some point your shutter speed will be so slow you'll see a noticeable blur from camera motion, subject motion, or both. IS also doesn't help much with macro work, where the slightest motion forward or back can knock the subject out of focus. The fact is that no matter how useful IS is, it's still no substitute for a good, reliable tripod; one that, for all practical purposes, eliminates camera motion from the equation.

Are tripods bulky and inconvenient? Yes. Does a good tripod/head combo cost at least as much as a high-quality lens? Yes, again. But I can tell you this: Once you've seen what even an average camera and lens can do when mounted on a good tripod, you'll understand that while IS can often substitute for a tripod, it can't replace one.

Keeping Up My Portrait Chops

 
Portraits like this were my bread-and-butter ten years ago, when I lived in Los Angeles and could rely on a steady stream of actors and models as subjects.  I shot everything on film and processed it in my darkroom, which doubled as my bathroom. Now  I'm living in Philadelphia, married, and the father of three young kids. I have less reason or excuse to do portraits of anyone outside of my immediate family. Nevertheless, when the opportunity arose, I hauled out my old Dyna-Lites, light stands, softboxes, and backdrops. The only difference this time was that I shot digital. As good as the results look on screen, I know they would have looked even better printed from a film neg onto a piece of silver-gelatin paper, but hey, I'll take what I can get. As the saying goes, it's all good.

Farewell to the Olympus E-510

I recently bid farewell to an Olympus E-510 DSLR. I had bought it with a 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko, with the idea of using the combo as my "travel kit." The E-510 accompanied me to London and back. It rewarded me with many fine photographs, but in the end we had to go our separate ways. Its design quirks--a small viewfinder, limited dynamic range, high noise at ISOs above 400--had become tiresome, especially with so many more flexible choices available. Apparently, Olympus itself agrees, because just today it introduced the E-510's successor, the E-520. I'm sure it's a better camera. Good enough to gain market share over Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax? I doubt it, but there will always be a soft spot in my heart for Olympus.

There Is Honor In Shooting JPEGs

Can you tell whether this was originally shot raw or as a JPEG? Do you care? One thing is for sure: Whatever its origins, it will have to be a JPEG to be uploaded to the web.

The party line among the digital cognoscenti these days is that you're not "serious" about photography unless you shoot raw. JPEGs are supposedly only for the point-and-shoot crowd--people who lack either the knowledge or the ability to control how their images are output.

Do not listen to these people. If your camera does a good job of producing JPEGs--and most do--then why go to the added time and expense* of working with raw files simply to document your everyday photos? Shoot in JPEG mode, file and print your photos, and be happy.

The one catch with JPEGs is the image is "baked in." You don't have much leeway for changing things like exposure or color balance without  noticeably degrading  the image quality. When you're shooting in JPEG mode you therefore have to be careful not to overexpose the highlight. You should also remember to adjust the color balance setting to suit the lighting conditions.

In challenging or once-in-lifetime situations you can always set the camera to raw or raw+JPEG, but for the majority of your photos you can shoot happily in JPEG mode and nobody--including the digital cognoscenti--will be the wiser.

*By "expense" I'm referring to the fact that raw files are much larger than JPEGs and therefore require higher capacity memory cards, more hard drive space, and more sophisticated photo editing software.

An Economic Argument in Favor of Color

My good buddy, Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer blog, recently wrote a post on--and I'm oversimplifying here--what a shame it is that more of today's digital photographers don't print their work in black and white. When I use the word "print" I'm referring to the screen as well as a sheet of paper. Mike and I see eye-to-eye on most things photographic, but on this subject I must say that he is woefully behind the times.

Seriously now, why would anyone buy a digital camera--a machine that shoots natively in color--photograph a subject which is also in color, and then strip all the color out? Because that's what artistic photographers in "the good old days" used to do? Let's not forget that in the old days you had to buy and process film, black and white film was less expensive than color, and that artists tended to be impecunious (i.e. broke). Do you think guys like Robert Frank, Ansel Adams, Walker Evans and Margaret Bourke-White shot in black and white because they wanted to? Hell no! They shot in black and white because it was all they could afford. Commercial photographers, the ones who made the big bucks, shot color and passed the expense on to their clients. Sure a few shot black and white, but that was only for the sake of maintaining their street-cred as "artists."

These days, shooting color costs the same as black and white and sometimes less. (Ever price an inkjet printer capable of making true neutral-tone b&w prints? If so, you know what I mean.) Since you're getting color essentially for free, why not take full advantage of it? The color advantage only increases if you own a copy of Adobe Photoshop. Whatever is wrong with a photo can be removed or subdued. Whatever is great can be enhanced, often by moving a few simple sliders as far as they will go. If the whole idea is to get noticed and praised then, why show restraint? I say go for it.

Did the original scene look like this? Sure, after I pumped up the color saturation and vibrancy in Photoshop. One could argue that the exaggerated colors are more carnival-like and therefore appropriate to the subject.


Here's the same image converted into black and white. Zzzzzz.

The examples I've provided above should help to illustrate my point. Some of you may prefer the black and white version, but keep in mind that it exits only because I was willing to take the time to strip the color and adjust the curves. The color version took a lot less time and delivers more bang for the buck--and that's really what it's all about, isn't it?

(By the way, for those of you who have read this far and are wondering whether I'm being ironic, the answer is yes.)

Low-Hassle B&W Film Processing

Here is an example of what a correctly exposed and developed negative should look like. There's is detail in the shadows and highlights and neither area is too thin or too dense.

There are a lot of photographers who have a deep and abiding love for the esoterica of film processing. If you're such a photographer then pay no attention to what I'm about to say. It's not written for you. This is for the folks who shoot black and white film only on occasion and who want or need to do their own processing, scan the resulting negatives, and print them digitally.

Since digital printing lets you do a lot more tone tweaking than you could in a chemical darkroom, your goal should be to produce properly exposed, properly developed, spot-free negatives with a full tonal range and that are relatively easy to scan. Here are a few tips on how.

1. If you use roll film, use a film tank you can invert for agitation. Stainless steel or plastic reels work equally well, but if you opt for plastic, make sure they're bone-dry before you attempt to wind film onto them. If they're even slightly damp they will cause the film to seize, which turns an otherwise pleasant procedure into a major pain-in-the-ass.
2. Use fresh chemicals. If you don't develop film often, you'll be much better off mixing small quantities of fresh chemicals (especially developer) to use within a day or two. This way you know they're at full strength and your results will be more consistent and predictable.
3. Avoid over-development. It emphasizes film grain, increases highlight density, and makes the film harder to scan. As long as you don't exceed the recommended development time and temperature and agitate gently, you should be in the ballpark.
4. Keep it clean, from start to finish. Anything floating in your chemicals, rinse water, or the air will find its way onto the surface of your negatives, where it will show up as dust spots. The more pristine your negatives, the less time you'll have to spend spotting them. Even if you're scanning negs or slides you shot years ago, taking a few seconds to clean them before scanning can save many minutes of spotting later.

In a nutshell, the more you do to eliminate or minimize the defects that will cause problems and cost time when you scan and print, the more you'll enjoy shooting with film.

Are You Ready?

I had a 35mm point-and-shoot dangling from my wrist when I saw this couple approaching from the opposite direction. I stopped in mid-stride, raised the camera to my eye, and released the shutter. Total time elapsed: two seconds. Was I "just lucky?" Sure, but as always, luck favors the prepared.

If I were asked to boil the essence of candid photography down to One Thing, it would be this:  Be ready. Be ready to snap a picture in a fraction of a section. Have your camera turned on and in-hand, not just dangling from a shoulder strap. Have your exposure and focus pre-set, so that all you have to do to take a picture is raise the camera to your eye and press the shutter button. If you're using a zoom lens, have the focal length pre-set as well. Go for speed over accuracy: There's little value in a perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp picture of the-moment-after-something-amazing-happened.

Needless to say, this takes practice. It also takes a willingness to try and fail; but if you fail, so what? If you're shooting digital a bad image costs you nothing. You delete it and move on. The important thing to remember is that unless you risk failure, there's little chance of success. See. Frame. Shoot. If you're ready, it should be just as quick and simple as that.