Shutterfinger

The Value of Experience

It's quite possible to use electronic flash in a dark room without creating harsh shadows, black backgrounds, and overexposed foregrounds--if you know what you're doing.

There are a lot of drawbacks to growing older, but one of the benefits, at least if you've been paying attention along the way, is experience. It came in handy a few days ago when my wife asked me to photograph an event she was participating in. I wouldn't get paid, but I still intended to deliver professional results. I knew from experience that crappy work is bad for one's reputation, regardless of how little the client paid for it.

I also knew to check on the venue. In this case it was a bar above a popular restaurant. Bars tend to be dark and this one was no exception. I would need not only a portable flash unit, but also a diffuser; one that would spread light in all directions. Even though the walls, ceilings and furniture were dark, they still reflected some light, so the more light bouncing around the room, the less it would look as if I was using a spotlight in a coal mine. If I were doing this sort of thing regularly I'd have bought something like a Gary Fong Lightsphere. Since a Lightsphere costs $49.95 and I wasn't getting paid, I made something similar out of a frosted plastic report binder. (I'll show you what it looks like and how to make one in my next post.)

In addition to a portable flash and my Canon EOS 30D, I brought my 30mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and a tripod. They all came in handy. Because of the fast maximum apertures, I could set the camera to ISO 400, shoot at f/4, and still get razor-sharp images. (Ever try focusing an f/4.5 zoom in low light? It ain't easy, my friend.)

Experience told me that there would be a "money shot"--the one that would matter most to the people sponsoring the event. In this case it would be at the end of the evening, when the sponsor would hand an oversized check to one of the attendees. I found out where the shot would be staged and who would be in it. These were details that the sponsor had, up until that point, overlooked.

As the evening progressed I basically just documented the activities, stayed friendly, polite and sober, and kept out of people's way. By the time I left, three different people had asked for my business card and whether I was available for future work. So you see, age and experience can pay off--though I suspect youth and experience pay off even more.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM EX--A Short Review

Almost any lens should be able to do a good job rendering an image like this, but here is where the Sigma 30mm f1/.4 excels. Unfortunately, this JPEG doesn't really do it justice. I bet you'd ooh and ahh if you saw the print, though.

I recently returned from a week-long vacation in New England, which allowed me to try out my newest acquisition: a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 prime lens. (When traveling, "light, fast and simple" is my motto.)

With my camera's 1.6X crop factor the effective focal length with this lens worked out to 48mm, which allowed it to perform the same function my 50mm f/1.4 would on a 35mm film camera. The main attraction for me was less the focal length than the fast maximum aperture. Neither the camera nor the lens have image stabilization, so fast apertures and high ISOs allowed me to maintain reasonable shutter speeds in low light. By "reasonable" I mean 1/30 second and above.

 

Hopefully, the gleam of these aluminum deck chairs is so alluring you don't notice the barrel distortion on the railing above.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 did not disappoint. I could actually shoot at f/1.4 and expect high resolution and contrast, at least in the center. Corner resolution isn't great at maximum aperture, but then again, all it takes to significantly improve corner resolution is to stop down to f/5.6 or so. Also keep in mind that when you're shooting in low light the corners are often dark or not within the plane of focus anyway.

I was consistently impressed by how little effort it took to produce the types of images I like: sharp foregrounds with creamy, muted backgrounds; flat objects that are sharp from center to edge; high flare resistance, and colors that are nicely saturated but not garish. Other benefits include relatively compact size, sturdy construction, a focus scale, a full-time focusing ring that doesn't rotate during AF, and quick internal focusing. I definitely felt as if I was using a high-quality optic that could deliver the goods, come rain or shine.

I can't very well rave about how a lens reproduces colors and then show only black and white pictures, now can I?

But as with any lens, it's not perfect. Aim it at a strong, direct light source and it's prone to flare. Aim it at rectilinear subjects and you'll see slight barrel distortion. Aim it at evenly lit subjects at apertures wider than f/2.8 and you'll see vignetting. I consider these issues minor and fairly easy to correct; a fair sacrifice in exchange for the types of photos accompanying this review. Whether you feel the same way is, of course, up to you.

Pre-Vacation Mode

I'm in pre-vacation mode at the moment. You're probably familiar with it: You spend large amounts of time planning where you're going to go, how to get there, what you'll be photographing, and what equipment you'll use to do it. If the equipment you own is "inadequate," you'll spend additional time deciding what you need. If you buy something new, you will of course have the foresight to test it before you leave. Murphy's Law is always in full-force during vacation travel.

The fact is that because I've got three small kids, the time I'll have available for solo photography is limited. What I need most is a kit that's reasonably small and lightweight but does well in low-light without a flash. Unfortunately, that rules out most compact digicams. What I'll be taking with me is my Canon EOS 30D, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.4. I'd rather have two primes with fast apertures than one slow zoom with image stabilization. In my experience, with all things otherwise equal, IS is no substitute for a wider aperture and a faster shutter speed.

For what it's worth, I'll be vacationing in Troy, New Hampshire and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. I've had good luck in both places in  the past, but nevertheless, wish me luck.

Concentrate On the Unquantifiable

The lens I used to take this photograph was slightly decentered and suffers from strong chromatic aberration in the middle apertures. Can you tell? More importantly, do you care?

I love a good lens as much as the next photographer, but I've learned over time not to obsess too much over them. It's easy to spend more time reading reviews, soliciting other people's opinions, and testing lenses than taking real pictures. Fortunately, I've had the experience of having a close look at original photographs by some of the world's best photographers. There were optical flaws aplenty if you know what to look for--but then, what kind of idiot would point to the soft corners in a 24"x30" Ansel Adams print while ignoring the subject in the center? So when I find myself getting too caught up in test results, I remind myself that it's more important to create great photographs than to buy a "perfect" lens.

What Value Do You Add?

Photo courtesy jj8rock at Flickr

Back in the days before camera automation and digital photography, it took a fair amount of skill to create a well-focused, properly exposed image. These days you can do it with the cheapest point-and-shoot digital camera, simply by pushing a single button. You don't even have to have your eyes open (but it might help). Visit a photo sharing site such as Flickr and you'll see this thesis proven tens of thousands of times over.

Given this fact, the question becomes "What value do you add as a photographer?" What is it that you do to make your photographs something more than just a purely mechanical process? Is it your subject matter, your color palette (or lack of it), your lens choice, your framing? What is it that makes your photographs worth looking at, not just for a few seconds, but for months or years at a time? When you start tackling issues like these, you start to realize that the answers aren't in your equipment; they're located somewhere between your ears.

Organizing Your Photos: Step Two

These names on these print boxes reflect the most common themes of my personal photography. The matching negatives are in dust-proof binders with the matching titles. It generally takes me no longer than five minutes to find the negative or slide I'm looking for.

Once you've decided what major groups to sort your images into (slides vs. negatives, Raw vs. JPEG, year, etc.) it's time to decide on sub-categories. Your guiding principle should be the same: To choose sub-categories that aid in filing and retrieval. Here's where working with digital files really comes in handy. You can use a basic digital asset management application (Adobe Bridge for example) to assign metadata tags to your images. To search, you simply enter the tag you're looking for and all images with that tag will appear in your image browser. Your files can otherwise be organized by year, month and day. Date information is automatically appended to digital files in the EXIF data, so if you use a date-based system it's always easy to know what folder an image came from and where it belongs.

Things are a bit more tricky for photographers filing 35mm transparencies. In this case I'd suggest sorting them into pages and folders based on subject matter. The larger the storage unit, the larger the category. For example, if you have hundreds of images of birds they might be stored in a file drawer named "Birds," with separate folders for each major species. On the other hand, if you have only a few hundred photos of animals in general, they could all go into a single folder or binder named "Animals."

The trickiest task is coming up with a system for strips of negatives that have several subjects per strip or per filing page. In this case you're not only setting up a system for filing and retrieving negatives, you need to match negatives with prints and vice versa. In my case I use more than one system. Negatives related to specific jobs, such as portrait shoots, weddings, and locations are filed in separate binders labeled as such. The "keepers" are outlined on the file page with a black Sharpie. My personal work is filed by date, with the older stuff in binders labled "1960s," "1970s" and so on.

Again, there's no one right way for everyone. The most important thing is to come up with a system that works for you. It should be whatever helps you find what you're looking for in as little time as possible, but without being so complex that you never give up on it.

At some point I'm going to write a part three, which will focus more on digital organization and back-up. In the meantime, if you're seriously interested in digital sorting and archiving, you could do a lot worse than to buy a copy of "The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers," by Peter Krogh.

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.
 

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.