Stormy Days

I happen to like storms. I don’t know why – I just always have. Maybe it’s because I feed, somehow, off of the electricity in the air, or am excited at the prospect of watching something absolutely awe-inspiring and terrifying, with powers on display far greater than my own. Who knows. I’m weird like that.

So, on Friday, we had a whopper of a storm cell move through. I was fortunate enough to catch a couple shots of some thunderclouds in the distance, as well as those boiling (yes, I mean boiling) overhead, and then some shots once I got home. So without further ado, here’s some of the shots from the storm:

Storm clouds in the distance; power lines in front. I don’t think my city ever lost power, but I bet someone did… 

Thunderhead up close and personal. Except, he’s actually several miles away – closer to Aurora, IL. The shape, however, was what most intrigued me – hence the shot. 

And this – this was what was boiling directly above me. Yeah – fun stuff! At this point, though – no rain yet. I didn’t begin to see any lightning until I hopped back in my car and continued on down the road a while. Even so, I didn’t take a million pictures of this stuff. Better safe than sorry, right? 

The view out my car as I pull into town. Rain, rain, rain, rain. Everywhere rain. And the wind. Goodness-gracious-me. At this point we were under a Severe Thunderstorm Warning – mostly for the wind gusts – which were, in some areas, over 60 mph. I don’t know that it was that bad in town, but leaves and other debris was definitely flying around, so it was strong, regardless. 

After I parked in front of my apartment, it was pouring torrents and torrents of rain. So, to wait a little while in the hopes that it would slow down a bit, I snapped some shots out the car window. This was a clear one with a slow shutter speed so that the movement of the trees in the wind can be seen very clearly. This was probably the height of the wind part of the storm as these poor things were going all over the place.

Needless to say, I finally made it back into my apartment (else I couldn’t have processed these images), but it was quite the nasty storm cell. It went on to do quite a bit of damage closer to Chicago, from what I heard on the news, which just goes to say how dangerous these severe weather events can be. And how lucky I was to have made it close to home before really getting pounded by the wind and the rain!

Resources: Software Tools and Utilities

As I find new software that I find useful, I’ll add it to this post along with a short description and the price (if it costs anything) as well as a link to the company.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.3

I use, love, adore Lightroom. It is just flat-out the best workflow and RAW/Image manipulation software for me. (That’s not to say it fits everyone – just that it works for me.) It’s a bit pricey at $299, but if you are serious about managing and processing your photographs, then it is money well spent. 

It has a fantastic library module where you can import, manage, categorize, label, and essentially keep track of all your photos. Once categorized, you can take a picture into the develop module to apply any number of various effects to the image – control the white balance, the saturation, the sharpening, vignetting, etc. While these effects aren’t something you couldn’t achieve in any other photo-editing program, the ease with which Lightroom allows you to make the changes is, in my opinion, what sets it apart from everything else – especially if you are working with RAW images – there’s just so much you can do creatively. Beyond the Develop module, you have web, print, and slideshow modules to play with as well.

As far as the images on my own site, nearly all of them will have been processed via Lightroom. Occasionally something will need to be pushed into Photoshop, but believe me – it’s rare that I need to go that far.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is available for a free 30 day trial, after which you can purchase it for $299 from Adobe directly. View more info…

Adobe Photoshop CS4

Adobe Photoshop CS4 pretty much goes hand-in-hand with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. They integrate very tightly, and LR has support for PS’s smart object feature. If you can’t do something in Lightroom – you can do it in Photoshop. It supports everything you’d ever need in a photo editor, and includes something of large import for those who wish to print their creations – soft proofing. This enables you to get a “preview” of the photo as it might look on paper. It also lets you know if there are any colors that may not be printable (called “out-of-gamut”).

It’s a tad bit expensive at $699, however – though well worth it. However, if you can’t quite spring for that, you should look at several other tools, including Corel’s Paint Shop Pro, Photoline, Paint.NET, and more.

Adobe Photoshop CS4 is available for a free 30 day trial, after which you can purchase it for $699 from Adobe directly. View more info…

Microsoft Web Expression 2

This is a fantastic tool for publishing websites. While it does support a WYSIWYG method of creating pages, I prefer to work solely in the source view.

While the tool has its quirks, it also makes editing and maintaining my sites very efficient. The full version is $299, but if you’ve ever owned Frontpage, Office, or several other programs, you can get it for as low as $99 as an upgrade. You can try it for free, as well, for 30 days. View more info…

 

Note: all trademarks are owned by the respective companies. The product images are © their respective owners. My evaluations of the software are my own and based solely upon my own experience. There is no connection between the companies making this software and me promoting the software – just my genuine appreciation for a well-made product I happen to enjoy using.

My Perfect Compact Camera

Is there such a thing as a perfect anything? No, but it would sure be nice to have something awfully close, wouldn't it?

If you were paying attention to any of the new camera announcements made this past week, you probably heard an awful lot about the Olympus E-P1 (image on the right, from the Olympus website). It looks very retro and stylish, and sports a sensor larger than most point-and-shoot cameras, although a tad bit smaller than most dSLRs. (The exception would be Panasonic G1 and GH1, but neither would I classify either of those models as a true dSLR - mainly because there's no mirror in them - but enough quibbling.)

I've been looking for a compact camera to replace my aging Panasonic Lumix LZ8. It's a decent camera, but it is also a few years old now, and, to be frank, didn't take great pictures (very, very noisy). It works as a P&S, but I want something better. And so I have refrained from making any decisions until Olympus made their announcement, in the hopes that their new camera would be the one I would buy.

I was all set until I found out the following things about this beautiful camera:

• It has no flash. It has a hot-shoe, but no flash. (Granted - this is not a deal-breaker. But for the price - which you'll see in a moment - it should have flash!)
• No optical viewfinder. Yes, you can buy one that sits atop the hot-shoe, but it does not represent the true image capture. (Granted, most OVFs on compacts don't either, but they are at least a bit closer to the lens. This thing won't be.)
• No electrical viewfinder. This means the only way to frame my image would be to use the LCD - which, frankly, leads me to my next point...
• Lousy LCD. Seriously. For the price, this thing should have 930k pixels on it. Instead it has 230k. Not. Sufficient. At. This. Price. Range.
• ... which is $750 minimum. That's no lens - just the body. No extras. Huh? What? !!!!???? If you want the 3x zoom the price is $800. If you want the ultra-compact pancake 17mm lens instead, the price is $900. If you want to add a flash, add another $200. And if you want the optical viewfinder (which, btw, you can't use if you are using the flash... this should be obvious), add another $99. A fully decked-out camera is going to cost something like $1,200. Um. No.

That's not to say that this thing isn't gorgeous. It is. That's not to say that I wouldn't love to have it. I would. But can I justify laying out $1,200 on a compact camera when I could put that money towards a nice "L"-series lens, or towards a new dSLR body? No. Could I justify it at all, knowing what my compact is really intended for? (And this is the intention: a throw-in-your-purse camera you can take everywhere and anywhere but still takes great pictures...) No. Not at $1200. Not at $800. Not even at $700. $500 and you might get there. (Honestly I'd prefer $300. But that's not likely realistic. The companies do have make some money.)

I understand the sensor is expensive. But at $750+, this thing should've been decked out from the start. Glass isn't cheap either, but at least include the 3x zoom in the price, or go fixed-length only. Include a crappy flash. Include a superior LCD screen. And include an EVF or OVF so that I don't have to rely on a 3.0" LCD screen to compose my photos. (Believe me, there will be a point, no matter how anti-reflective that LCD screen is, that it will be unusable in the light you have available. Not good.)

Okay - this is coming off more as a rant than anything, and that's not really the intent. My intent is to find the best P&S that I can get for a price that won't break the bank. Nothing out there will be perfect. But is it too much to ask a camera maker to make a $500 compact that has all of the features below? Then it would be perfect:

• $500 price point
• Large sensor (no smaller than 1/1.6", but preferrably APS-C/micro-4/3rds sized)
• Nice zoom lens (does not have to be interchangeable for me...)
• EVF/OVF. Absolute Must. I can't rely only on the LCD.
• Nice LCD screen. But it no longer has to have 930k pixels on it at this price point, esp. when I'll be using the EVF/OVF 90% of the time.
• RAW output
• Full manual controls (or, at least Aperture Priority, though the smaller the sensor, the less useful this becomes for controlling DOF)
• Manual focus
• Flash. Seriously. There's no excuse not to have a little flashbulb in there. Yes, it will produce harsh, horrible light, but that's better than nothing.
• Hot-shoe. Because I'll want to put a better flash on it.

I could add a lot more to that list, but then this post would be longer than it needs to be. (It already is.) At the moment, then, it seems my only possible cameras are the following:

• Canon G10 (or G9, but oddly enough, the G9 is more expensive than the G10 is, at the moment)
• Panasonic Lumix LX-3 (More $$$ than I want to go, but gets good reviews. Note that it has no EVF, but it does have a 460k LCD. Still, I'd prefer an EVF/OVF.)
• Sigma DP1 or DP2 (Except for the fact that the LCD is 230k, no EVF/OVF, and handles like molasses.)

I'm not sure, but I think the mind just got made up. Canon G10. I want (no, need) an EVF/OVF, and the G10 has an OVF. It won't be like the captured image, but it's better than relying totally on the LCD. And that LCD? 460k pixels. All at around $500. It's not my perfect compact (small sensor, slow lens, ...) but maybe it is close enough.

If I get one, I'll let you know. If I get something else, I'll say so, and give the reasons why. And if I totally lose my mind and get the E-P1, well, you'll never find out, because my credit card will kill me!

Pictures Everywhere

Even in the most innocuous of places there is a world of pictures just waiting to be taken. This is why it is so important to take your camera (or one of them, at least) with you all the time – there’s undoubtedly a picture waiting for you around the next bend, in the next room, or waiting to pop out at you five minutes from now.

Case in point: my recent stay in a hotel. It was late at night – after 9pm, and I was bored watching the TV. So as I wandered around the room, I discovered a plethora of interesting angles and objects. Here’s just a few:

An interesting angle from the bedroom into the living area and the door of the suite.

 

The reflection of my bed (prior to having been slept in, obviously) in the bedroom television screen. I think it gives it a rather lo-mo effect, even before the post-processing was applied.

 

This is just a lamp. But aren’t the textures on it gorgeous?

 

These happen to be my shoes. Not sure why, but they looked an interesting target for my camera!

So, even though it was late and I was in an unfamiliar place – there were pictures to be taken. I could easily have missed these (and others) had I not had a camera with me, or an eye for trying things. I’m so glad I had both with me – my camera, and my eyes – and I’m ever-so-pleased with the results.

Here’s the moral of the story, I suppose: have your camera with you, and experiment. You never know what you’ll capture! Until next post, keep on writing with light!

P.S. The above happened to be a wonderful reason to have some fast glass on your camera. I have the wonderful Canon 50mm f/1.8 II lens which, aside from being cheap ($80), is also sharp and faster than any of my other glass (f/3.5 and f/4). While the room appeared bright to my eyes – it was nothing compared to sunlight – so most of the images above were taken at ISO 800 with exposure times between 1/40 and 1/80 second. If you don’t have fast glass, but have image stabilization, you should be able to achieve similar results.

P.P.S. One more footnote: this also happens to be a really good reason to have a dSLR or a compact with a large sensor size. ISO 800 returned eminently usable results, but on a smaller sensor, the images would be gritty, full of noise, and lacking in detail. Take the noise you do see in the images above and multiply it by a few times to get a good image of what they would look like on a small point-and-shoot with a small sensor. That’s not to say you can’t get great results with a small sensor, just that it takes more work to do – and you probably won’t be shooting at ISO 800, either.

Very nice site for designers - I always need more textures! http://ping.fm/l5ZdT (via @designshard)

What Is Photography?

I’m a word buff, and I think I got that legally from my mother, who took the time to look up what the word actually means. We often consider a photographer as an individual who has taken the time to study, learn, and perfect their understanding of light, composition, film, post-processing, etc., but if we actually take the word apart, we might find something just a little different.

photo- means “light”, or “produced by light”, as given by Merriam Webster’s definition:

photo- (fōt′ō, -ə)

1. Etymology: < Gr phōs (gen. phōtos), a light: see phosphorus

   of or produced by light photograph, photosynthesis

The postfix –graphy, means the following, again as given by Merriam Webster’s definition:

-graphy (grə fē)

1. a process or method of writing, recording, or representing (in a specified way) calligraphy, photography
2. a descriptive science or a treatise dealing with such a sciencegeography

Etymology: L -graphia < Gr, writing < graphein, to write: see graphic

So photography literally means “A process or method of writing, recording, or representing (in a specified way) light.” I like to think of it in a simpler term: writing with light. And a photographer is simply someone who writes with light.

Photography is simply a means to record (write) the light coming into the camera. There is a science to that, and an art to that, but in and of itself, photography is nothing more than making a record of the light present at that very moment in time. It’s how we manipulate that light, how we position our camera, how we post-process that record after-the-fact, how the photograph is presented to the viewer, etc., that embodies the art of photography. It’s the understanding of the physics involved in how light travels, how it is bent by lenses, how chemicals or silicon can record that light, etc., that embodies the science of photography.

We are in a world today where making a photographic record of an event is easier than ever – we have cameras in our cell-phones, we have small cameras we can slip in a pocket, we have cameras that can go underwater, and we have larger, more complicated cameras. We have cameras that record to film and cameras that record to a digital medium. All of this can be done without the art or the science of photography.

There is no definition of what makes a good or bad photograph. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the recording mechanism, the photograph represents the light the camera saw correctly (even if it is a shot of the lens cap). It is when we compare it to what the photographer wanted to express that we can move into the territory of “good” and “bad” – or more accurately, whether the photograph successfully conveys the story and context and ideas that the photographer wished it to express, or if it did not.

When a photograph is viewed by anyone but the photographer, any opinion is subjective – there is no right or wrong answer. One person may not like the image, while another may praise it as the best they’ve ever seen. Some may critique the image on its technical merits, but again, this is subjective – the photographer may have had something else in mind. Therefore there is no one “right” answer to what makes a photograph “good” and another one “bad” – it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

That said, learning the art and science of photography can help you become a better photographer – that is, it can help you more easily create a photograph that captured what you wanted to capture (not just what the camera wanted to capture). Rather than relying on the camera to make all the decisions for you, you can start to take control of the camera and record what you want to record. This doesn’t mean you’ll have to learn a set of rules and stick to them – no. Most photographic “rules” are made to be broken – but it helps to understand the underlying reasons of why a rule became a rule so that you know when to break it for the best effect.

Over the next few weeks, I hope to help you learn more about the science and the art of photography. I’ll try to avoid getting terribly technical, nor will I indicate any rules – just “guidelines”, that once you’ve learnt, you’re welcome to break!

With that said, let me present to you two very important guidelines. The first guideline in photography is this: experiment. Think outside of the box. You might be surprised what you create! (And the second guideline? Write what you did down – unless you happen to like not remembering how you achieved a certain look or effect.) You are welcome to break these if you wish – but try them out first – you just might surprise yourself!

So, until the next post – have fun writing with light!

What kind of camera do you have?

Really? You want to know what camera I have? Aw.... I'm blushing.

But really - it doesn't matter. Why? Because it's not the camera that takes great (or poor) pictures. It is entirely the person behind the camera that's taking those great (or poor) pictures. (Okay - I'm going to be optimistic from now on... all the pictures are going to be great, right!?)

Think of your camera as a tool - a tool that records light, yes, but it isn't really any different from a piano or a hammer or a computer... All of these things help you (the wielder of the tool) do something. Can a better tool sometimes make your job easier? Yes. But the tool does not determine the final result - even if you might have had to work harder to get there.

The cameras of today are far superior to those fifty and more years ago, and yet the photographers of those eras took fantastic pictures, even given the limitations of the technology of the time. And, in a hundred years, I'm certain photographers will look back on us and say the same thing - that we took fantastic pictures, even given the limitations of our tools.

But picking up a fantastic camera doesn't guarantee a fanstastic picture. You as the photographer have to know the right settings to use, the right composition of the scene, how light works, etc., and then you've got to know how to post-process (develop) the image, and then figure out how to present it to your audience. All of those things are things you know - and the camera is only a small part of that equation. It can take fantastic pictures given the right inputs (from you), and it can take horrible pictures (again, given your input). (And there goes my optimism!)

So, regardless of the camera you have with you - even if it's a lowly camera phone - if you take the time to compose your image, use the right settings, light the scene effectively, etc., you can come out with a great shot. And if you find that you really want that big, expensive camera that you've been lusting after, then fine - but understand that it won't make you a better photographer - after all, that new camera is one more new tool you'll have to learn how to use effectively!

On this blog and in our workshops, we try not to aim our content at a specific type of camera. If you have a point-and-shoot, then the content in this blog should be of use to you. If you have a dSLR, then the content should be of use to you too. If you only have a camera phone, well - you might be a little more limited in your settings, but that doesn't mean you still can't learn something and take fantastic pictures with it.

And with that, our next learning blog post will be the start of a series on the basics of photography - something anyone can use regardless of the type of their camera! Hope to see you then!

We're Live

Well, after a lot of hard work getting three different sites to look essentially the same, I'm officially declaring that photoKandy Studios is live. It's not perfect yet - some of the design needs a little tweaking, and some of the wording will doubtlessly change over the course of the next few weeks, but it's up - and lets you see some of my work, which is, at least, half of the point. The other half of the point is the education standpoint.

Photography isn't a trade to be horded - but a skill to be shared, in my opinion. And following that meme, I will, from time to time, post "learning" articles about photography. With some luck, I'll make sense, and you'll find it interesting. Hopefully!

I'm also working on several upcoming workshops in partnership with Nazarene Pages and The Rusty Shutter (their site is still in progress). These workshops will focus on the basics of photography, initially aiming at those individuals who are scared as all get out of the buttons and sounds their new camera makes. Look for an upcoming announcement regarding these workshops.

This isn't the only place you can follow me - I'm on several social networks (as seen on my contacts page), and you're welcome to follow me and send messages and comments or ask question. Or use the contact page to send an email to me.

Okay - here's to a year of great photography, meeting great people and clients, and a year of fantastic learning together!