Learn from Other Photography Authors

Mr. Zuckerman begins by describing the importance of depth of field in photography, something that you must consider in every photograph that you make. With a dozen or more images to illustrate depth of field concepts, he answers questions such as:

• Which parts of an image should be sharp, and which can be soft?
  
  
• When do want maximum depth of field and how do you get it?
  
  
• Do soft foregrounds work, and in which situations?
  
  
• Which lenses give the most depth of field?
  
  
• Does depth of field always matter?
  
  
• What is the relationship of tripods to depth of field (a bit of a trick question on my part, but one which he answers well)?
  
  
• And more...

There is more to depth of field than you may think ... but, of course, no more than meets the eye.

Zuckerman's in-depth analysis complements the ImproveYourDP descriptions of depth of field and focus concepts.

This is truly an article where pictures speak louder than words. Mr. Switek, after only two-and-a-half years as a photographer, has demonstrated an amazing ability and apparent personal focus (of mind) to capture close-up images of insects as we have never seen them - covered in dew and in dazzling color.

Swietek doesn't reveal what equipment he used, so we can't learn from that (but it's not about the gear - see "Film vs. Digital" review, below). Still, we can learn from the brief commentary that tells how and when he finds his subjects. And, by looking at the photos, you can't help but believe he has worked hard and persistently to get his sharp, quality results.

Persistence and attention to detail are the lessons to learn from Mr. Swietek.

So, take a gander at his photos and see them speak for themselves!

Want to drive a fine arts photographer crazy? Yeah? Ask her what camera she uses. I asked this question of a half-dozen photographers at an art fair in summer 2007. And what answer did I get? Inevitably, it was some variation of:

"Whoa, man!!!
It's not about the gear, its about how you use it!"

I've got to say I agree 99% with that point of view. After all, that's what ImproveYourDP is all about. So, what was I doing even asking that crazy question?

It's because I was looking to choose my first DSLR. I had used Nikon film equipment (FTN and Nikkormat) from 1970 until 2002. I was getting tired of lugging lens and constantly swapping them out, so I switched to a Minolta (remember them?) Dimage 7Hi digital camera - a good compromise between SLR and point-and-shoot.

Five years later, a friend of mine had recently purchased a Nikon D200. Shortly after, he started reading about the D300 with a bit of buyer's remorse for not waiting for the slicker model (It turns out that The D300 and its sister, the professional D3 model, were the cameras to launch Nikon back into contention with Canon in the DSLR wars). His enthusiasm rubbed off on me, and I decided it was time to move back to an SLR - digital this time.

Can a Nikon guy really buy a Canon?

Despite my Nikon roots, I wanted to explore options. I knew my limited collection of glass would be of limited use on modern Nikon equipment, so I was not fixated on Nikon gear, or so I thought.

I read lots of photo reviews, all of which were giving the D300 high marks even months before it's release. On the flip side, photo credits in the same magazines were going largely to Canon. That ambiguity drove me to the art fair with my "oh-nice-pictures-so-what-camera-do-you-use" approach to striking up conversation with photographers baking in the the 90 degree, 90% humidity of midwest summers.

Guess what. Once we got beyond "it's how you use it", I learned that 5 out of 6 were using Canon gear. So, it's a no-brainer, right? Buy Canon.

But in the end, the education didn't matter. Much as I tried to get comfortable with Canon gear, the Nikon felt better in my hands. But, I did gain a healthy appreciation for Canon and the role they have played in advancing digital photography.

Irony: I'm back to swapping lenses again, and heavier lenses at that. But, the quality is wonderful and I love it.

An argument for film

By now, you may be wondering what this story has to do with the film vs. digital debate. It comes down to the one photographer of whom I didn't ask the question. I'm not even sure I met her, but her photographs were exquisite - truly evocative portraits of people in out-of-the-way countries. The colors were rich and saturated. The images were sharp and well composed. The images had an intensity that made me wish I'd been with her when she met her subjects. I can't tell you the brand or format of her camera, but I can tell you that she used film to capture the images.

You may be thinking I have a keen eye to be able to make that deduction from her prints. No way - that's not me. Instead, I read a statement she'd posted beside one of the photographs, which is where she averred her dedication to film. And this is where I learned about the depth of passion in the film vs. digital discussion.

To me, it's all about what you are comfortable with and what you can get the best results from, as there are exciting works coming from both media. I just happened to switch to digital, no big deal. As you might imagine, though, some people are more passionate about this than I.

And two for digital

For many, such as my anonymous photographer friend, the debate is tied to the subtle perceptions of image quality. for others, it is about technical qualities and ease of use. There are advantages and trade-offs with both approaches. These articles in Outdoor Photographer address the technical qualities.

Film vs. Digital speaks to the difficulty of comparing the two methods. It starts with the question of whether Ansel Adam's equipment was an asset or liability, at least when judged by today's standards. It concludes with an observation about how working without the constraints of film costs, and without the development delay before seeing our images, impacts our ability to pre-visualize our results. Is it just too easy to takes hundreds of pictures and delete the losers?

Transforming Large Format explores a surprising technical advantage of digital. Writer William Sawalich (his name was left off of the on-line version of the article) describes landscape photographer Jack Dykinga's migration from a career dominated by 4x5 view camera and film, to one that is largely built around a DSLR. Using a Nikon D3X paired with a Nikkor tilt-shift lens, he is creating 300 megapixel images. How? By shifting the lens through its full range of offsets, then stitching the multiple resulting images together with Photoshop's photomerge tool. He can take a series digital images in this process faster than exposing a single 4x5 negative.

You can skip the expensive tilt-shift lens and achieve a poor man's version of this technique with photo stitching, either from your tripod or handheld. You'll lose some precision by having to rotate the camera instead of shifting the lens. And you'll lose the increased depth of field provided by the tilt aspect of the lens. Still, you should be able to experiment with stitching for purposes of higher-resolution normal aspect ratio images, as opposed to the usual use, which is for stitching panoramas.

A final case for film photographers

These are compelling technical discussions. What really moves me, though, are not discussions about the technical merits of film vs. digital. Instead, I find articles by and about film photographers more enlightening. The good film photographers have elevated their craft to an art form, and their discussions focus more on what they see and how they use light than on the mechanics of shooting. Those are universal concepts equally applicable to both sides of the film vs. digital divide.

I don't mean to say that good digital photographers don't achieve the same quality. They do. It's just that we are saturated with digital articles and the film articles tend to give us a fresh insight by taking us back to basics.

At the time I write this, mid-January, we're already at the point where 97% of New Year's resolutions are forgotten. So, what better time to think of new ones!

Dave Johnson writes the "Digital Focus" blog on PCWorld.com and suggest five resolutions. Yours may not be the same, but read his and I'll bet you'll think of one or two of your own. I'll add one or two of my own after his. First, though, here are some observations about his key points:

1. Get Organized
   
   Dave says don't just rely on folder names to categorize your photos. That won't help you find every picture you have of Aunt Matilda when you want to honor her on her 75th birthday. Use photo organizer software. He recommends a few titles, I'll suggest a few more:
   
   
   • ACDSee: less than $100, great organizing and editing
     
     
   • Adobe Photoshop Elements: also less than $100, strong organizing and more advanced editing, although I've only used it for editing
     
     
   • Apple iPhoto: comes with your Mac, has an interesting face recognition feature, but is otherwise less functional than others I have looked at
     

   One thing to remember is that it is hard to switch from one organizer to another, as the storage mechanisms between organizer software is different for each system. On the other hand, you can switch photo editors at any time - read on...

2. Update to a Better Photo Editor
   
   This sounds like you should consider a different, or more advanced, software product. But, Dave starts by reminding us that we may benefit merely by upgrading to a newer version. My latest version of Photoshop Elements is version 3. Version 8 is much improved. If i actually used Elements (instead of ACDSee, which I've used to edit most of the photos on ImproveYourDP), the learning curve would be reasonably easy as compared to switching from Picasa to Elements, where I'd have to learn a whole new way of organizing and editing photos.
   
   How do I know this? I've been slowly learning Photoshop and Nikon Capture NX to edit my more complex photographs for printing. These are powerful programs, but it takes time to master the tools.
   
   
3. Get Backed Up
   
   Yep! See my commentary on "Backup for Photographers".
   
   
4. Enter the Hot Pics Photo Contest
   
   I'm not familiar with this particular contest, but preparing photographs for contests is an excellent way to make you consider the quality of your photographs. That's where ImproveYourDP photo critique comes in handy.
   
   Want to see if your photos are at their best for a photo contest? Submit them to ImproveYourDP for an impartial critique.
   
   
5. Learn Something New
   
   Nothing makes you improve your digital photography, or anything other pursuit, like moving out of your comfort zone. Dave offers a few tips in his article. I'd also point you to your camera's manual or books written about how to use your camera. Camera's are packed with so much power these days that it is hard to even remember what all the controls and options are. If you are looking to add punch! to your photos, one of those forgotten features may do the trick for you
   
   As for me, I don't keep all my resolutions either. Last year, I was going to do cooler things with my Halloween photos, but just couldn't muster the energy. This year, I want to focus on two things that go hand-in-hand:
   
   
   • Flash photography with remote flash, specifically with the Nikon CLS (Creative Lighting System).
     
     
   • Portrait photography, both with natural light and flash.
   
   We'll see this time next year how far I got with these two New Year's resolutions. How about you?

None of these are pushing your hot buttons? Try browsing the ImproveYourDP Digital Photography Tips for ideas on improving your digital photography.

What thought do you really give to shutter speed? Do you follow a particular rule for minimum handheld shutter speed? How about shutter speed for action photography? How fast is fast enough to stop motion?

As I shoot mostly still (or slow) subjects, I tend to focus on the criteria to avoid blur from camera motion, without really thinking about how to stop action. This article, describing the work of British Columbian Jordan Manley, a specialist in skiing photography, was a gentle reminder that I need to expand my horizons and work more with moving subjects.

After all, I've invested in a camera (Nikon D300) well-suited to fast action photography. It sports a number of characteristics that you may find in your camera, as well:

• Fast, dynamic 3D auto-focus
  • to track moving subjects and keep them in focus
  • sounds simple, but takes practice to use well
    
    
• Moderately high ISO range
  • to allow for fast shutter speeds that freeze motion, even with smaller apertures
    
    
• Fast burst mode - up to 6 frames/second (8 fps in some configurations)
  • to help catch that perfect moment
    

Mr. Hart describes a number of photographer Manley's tips. Some are specific to shooting in snow (increase your exposure by one or two stops to compensate for the snow's brightness; keep snow off the lens; protect the camera body from snow when changing lenses), but it was the thoughts on shutter speed that got me thinking.

While I had learned the 1/500 second rule of thumb for sports shots, Manley shoots at a minimum 1/1000 second for skiing, generally shooting at 1/1600 second. If necessary, he increases his ISO setting as necessary to get these speeds. The only exception may be when the skier is coming directly toward him, then he might drop below 1/1000 second.

Your rules of thumb, for skiing or other sports, may vary. At these shutter speeds, Manley is trying to absolutely freeze the action of very fast-moving subjects. The sport you are tracking may not be so swift. Or, you may wish to see a little blur in your photographs. As with all rules, understand them, practice them, then tune them to your needs.

Pick up a copy of American Photo to see Manley's excellent photographs and to read his other sports photography tips about composition, sharpness, and exposure for his ski photography.

As we amass our thousands or tens of thousands of digital image files, the question of how to protect them from loss or damage looms larger and larger. If you are a casual photographer, this may not be something you think about, but as your commitment to photography grows, so should your concern for your images.

When I worked with film, I did not pay much attention to the risk of losing my images. Most were slides, so I had only one copy. If the house went up in flames, I would have been out of luck. Had I been shooting print film, I would at least have had the option of storing my negatives at a friends house or my office - but I never thought about that.

Authors Rochkind and Steinmueller attack this problem in the digital world, which presents some of the same threats, as well as some new threats and opportunities. In all, they describe six threats to your digital files as well as ways to protect against the threats. The threats are:

1. User error - accidental deleting of files
2. Equipment failure - disk drive crashes; viruses erasing files
3. Electrical surge
4. Disappearance - theft; losing a memory card; leaving your laptop in a taxi
5. Office (or home) destruction
6. Regional disaster - flood; earthquake; terrorism

Rochkind and Steinmueller describe these in excellent detail, complete with challenges and recommendations that should help any photographer, from hobbyist to professional. They got me thinking about how I protect my images now versus how I would like to protect them.

As an avid photographer shooting for pleasure and not for money, let me share my perspective. If you are reading ImproveYourDP, then you are probably in the same class, so I hope this helps you think about how to safeguard your own creative efforts.

I have approached image protection, together with protecting my personal financial and web site development data, as a data backup and data redundancy project. To that end, I do the following:

• I keep original files in an "Originals" folder and immediately copy them to a "Modified" folder, which is where I do all my editing work. That way, if I screw up I can re-copy from "Originals" to "Modified"
  • This addresses item 1, above - accidental deletion
    
    
• I use mirrored disks in my PC (Raid 0) - that puts the data on two disks in case of a drive crash
  • Item 2 - equipment failure
    
    
• I backup to an external USB drive, a 1 terabyte Western Digital "My Book". I backup all of my data to this drive, not just images.
  • Items 1 and 2
    
    
• I backup to an external USB pocket-sized drive, a 320 gigabyte Toshiba. This is more for portability. I only put my images and web site stuff on this drive, no financial data, so I can work on the web site or backup images from my laptop when I travel.
  • Items 1 and 2
    
    
• A year ago, I asked a friend a few blocks away if I could store a backup drive at his house. He said "yes", but I have yet to take advantage of this.
  • I have a plan for items 3, 4, and 5, but need to take action

Reading this, you can see that I have a great plan for addressing user error and equipment failure. Some might see this as overkill. After all, I have a minimum of eight copies of every image: an original and modified version on each of the two mirrored drives inside my PC and the same on each of my two external drives. Plus, the backup software keeps up to three versions of each file that I edit. I have taken advantage of all this redundancy on occasion after a poor edit or an accidental erasure.

But, an electrical surge or fire could wipe me out! And, since I keep my external drives near, and in clear view of, the PC, a thief might be happy to pocket those along with the PC. Clearly, lack of off-site storage is the achilles heel in my scheme.

As for item 6, regional disaster, I'm thinking that I'll have bigger issues than loss of my photos if that happens.

The words of Rochkind and Steinmueller have reminded me that with the relatively small expense of one more external drive and the modest effort of an occasional walk to my friend's house, I can have much better protection of my images than I have for the boxes of slides sitting in my closet.