carlosblog

Test blog for Mark's Lawn Works

2011-05-27T07:13:00.001-07:00

I just wanted to demonstrate how quickly it is to set up a blog and get something going on the web. You can insert photos and videos here quite easily. Formatting is kind of a problem for now. But that can be worked out later.

Same ol', same ol'....

2011-05-11T06:08:00.000-07:00

Yet another round (sort of) of Carlos whining about "People with Cameras".

So I took Allie for her softball team's photo day. They shot individuals and group shots. As I suspected (feared), the "photographer" was using a Canon 40D, a tripod and camera-mounted flash.

Now I wanted to continue the long-running argument about people with cameras taking away work from professional photographers and not providing quality images, so on and so forth.

The 40D is a good camera. It's older, but still a solid imaging device. She (the photographer) seemed to have a reasonable Canon lens attached.

I began to think maybe she really knew what she was doing. I, after all, shoot a lot of my work with substandard (i.e. not professional-looking equipment).

She did a pretty good job of posing the kids and taking time to make sure props like bats, glove, etc. were positioned well. Her demeanor behind the camera was pretty good. She joked and kept them smiling. Perhaps her flash settings were honed from years of knowing exactly what distance, lighting conditions and other factors contribute to the proper settings. She certainly did not have a light meter handy.

However, I did not see her taking a lot of time to check the images as she shot them. "Chimping" can be a distraction for the subjects but it is sometimes necessary when you're concerned with having eyes open and smiles all around. I didn't see her adjusting her flash to adjust to group versus individual shots. I especially hated seeing her turn her camera vertically with that flash turning with it as well.

Their prices for the various packages was surprisingly inexpensive. That can be good or bad. I'm certain they were using a third party for providing an array of photo-imprinted products like coffee mugs, faux magazine covers, trading cards, etc. But I paid $12 for a 5x7, 8x10, two 4x5s, 4 wallets, and something called "individual player".

I'm also concerned because her company did not have a web site--not that having/not having a web site makes you any less a photographer--but there's still an added amount of credibility when you at least make some attempt of having web presence. Even a FaceBook page is reasonable these days.

So now I wait. Not sure how long it will be before I see the images. They will be mailed to me. I'm guessing two weeks, but probably longer. I'll get back in touch when they surface. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Maybe I'll yet have more to whine about.

White balance

2011-04-18T06:02:00.000-07:00

I recently blogged about white balance and left little explanation. Hence, here's a low-tech quickie primer on white balance for DSLR (and possibly point-n-shoot) photography (also applicable to video cameras as well).

Every shooting situation requires your camera adjust to the color of the light that is being used for making the exposure.

You've no doubt seen different color casts on your images when shooting in certain situations. This used to be more prevalent when shooting film but now, digital cameras are much more adept at handling the situation with some exceptions.

However, for people wanting to take the next step up in controlling their images you need to consider "telling" your camera what color or temperature of light you're shooting with.

Instead of using the "auto" white balance, you can choose to select a variety of situational settings like "cloudy," "daylight," "incandescent," "fluorescent," and "open shade" amongst others.

These are handy for quick calculations and when you're shooting on the fly.

But to get really serious, you need to purchase a white balance tool such as a diffusion screen or white/gray/black card or some such.

I prefer a white/gray/black card. It works very well for me. You need to check your camera's manual for instructions on how to exactly do the procedure. Essentially you hold the white/gray/black portion of the card directly in the light you are shooting in and take a closeup photo of the white portion while in the white balance mode as directed by your camera manufacturer.

This sets the camera's white balance for that particular setting. If the light changes, you simply redo the procedure and adjust for the changing conditions.

It's a hassle and it's easy to just pick a preset white balance, but I've found many of the presets are not very accurate because they cannot account for all kinds of situations. They are just averages.

This is just a quickie to get you started exploring white balance. I will add more later about including the white/gray/black card in your photos to further help with white balance.

4x5 Yea!!!

2011-04-17T04:35:00.001-07:00

I'm back up and running with the Cambo. Props go to Jason Heitsman for selling me the camera a few years ago. I don't get to use it as much as I like, but when I do, it's a ball.

I'm sad I can't get Polaroid 55 anymore. That really weakens my arsenal.

This is Stephanie. She's model living here in Gastonia. I love her versatility. She can do fashion, punk, art nudes and anything in between and make it look easy.

I like my 4x5 images to be kind of grungy and less than ideal. This one may be a little oversharpened, but I still like it.

The image is from a series I made comparing different photographic formats. I shot a range of images using everything from a 4 mp point and shoot up to my 4x5. I particularly like this image. I love lots of tilt shift and getting close to my models' eyes.

This is one of my last sheets of Kodak TMax 100. I'm going to be switching over to some Ilford HP5 Plus 400 for a while.

For the techies out there, I'm planning on rating the Ilford at ISO 200 so I can pull process the film and hopefully create some better shadow detail and control the highlights a little better. This is what I call a poor man's Zone System. The negs should scan a lot better using this tonal range anyway.

I'll keep you guys posted.

Getting lazy with white balance

2011-04-16T04:06:00.000-07:00

One of the most dangerous things about digital photography is that it makes the photographer a lazy technician. The ease of fixing things in post production becomes an alluring path when you're out shooting.

I recently photographed my daughter's first softball game. OK, it was a scrimmage. But she dressed in her uniform and they played in game conditions, so I consider it her first "game".

Anyway, I dragged out the big lenses and really just shot for fun, but I ended up shooting a gallery of images of her and her teammates. The problem was that I shot much of the action using the "auto" white balance. Naturally as I framed images, the color balance changed slightly throughout the range of images as the camera "saw" different backgrounds and foregrounds. Additionally I could see color shifts as the daylight changed temperatures.

So when I got home and starting editing the images for a web gallery, I spent way too much time correcting for all the variations in color. And, of course, I can't get very consistent color across the spectrum of images on my own.

If I was going to be really diligent I would have whipped out my handy white-balance card and performed the manual white balance every 30 minutes or so. At that time of the day, even overcast light changes temperature fairly quickly. Even as I changed from the auto white balance to the "cloudy" white balance I saw changes in the consistency of the color balance.

So, I can't say the lesson is learned, because I knew the lesson already. It's just a matter of not getting lazy. It's probably OK if you're just looking for two or three images for the family album. But when you start putting tens or hundreds of pictures out there for people to consume, then things become a bit more serious.

Plugging away

2011-02-05T14:35:00.000-08:00

I worked with a makeup artist a week ago. As is my usual motive when I move to a new city, I try to surround myself with talent who can support and add to my photography services. I found Tim Ferrell on Model Mayhem and subsequently we met over coffee and started bonding right away.

It took us a while, but we finally arranged a shoot with a model so both of us could get a sense of how the other works.

We all had fun and Tim did a great job of makeup with Emily, the model.

The image posted here is one of my composites. I added the background and the foreground. The makeup is all Tim and Emily.

2011-01-18T05:58:00.001-08:00

I recently tried my hand at submitting to a stock photography business.

I figured I would try submitting to Shutterstock. So I carefully selected 10 varied images (as per their requirements for initial submission) from my archives.

After submitting the images, I was rapidly and bluntly turned away. With the exception of one photo, each image was rejected for aesthetic reasons: "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition."

The other image, a tasteful nude, was rejected because I didn't attach a model release (even though you could not see the model's face).

This has been a valuable learning experience. As I posted my initial dismay on Facebook, other photo friends shared their input regarding their attempts at uploading photos to Shutterstock or other agencies. Their comments gave me pause and forced me to reconsider the shot to my ego.

The crux of the matter is that I should have researched Shutterstock's style and needs a little more. The photos I uploaded were too needy of context and not at all within the style that Shutterstock displays in their portfolio.

It appears, after some discussion, that the current stock photo business is in need of the simplest of compositions; very flat, bright light; uncomplex visuals and an aesthetic that is very different than I am accustomed to shooting.

I was offered some solace from Rob Haggart's blog (www.aphotoeditor.com). Some time ago, he posted a list of stock agencies he considered worthy of a professional's attention. At the bottom of the list under the category of "Crap," he listed Shutterstock.

So I'm licking my wounds this week. Some would say just move on, but I've decided to alter my style and make an attempt to reshoot a set of stock images that may more closely align with Shutterstock's aesthetic.

I'll keep you posted.

reflecting on photography past

2010-12-27T06:32:00.000-08:00

I was reading a columnist this morning who was reflecting on changes he's noticed over the past decade. It got me to thinking about how photography and photojournalism has changed since I started doing it professionally about 25 years ago. And, yes, I have photographer friends who are older than I and certainly their starting point of reference is different, but here goes.

It goes without saying that film was the norm. But the standard for newspapers was black and white Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP5. At newspapers, most of us also carried color transparency film like Ektachrome or Fujichrome in addition to some Plus-X if we wanted some really fine grain.

One camera held black and white film; the other often contained color.

To process these films meant using any combination of machine or hand-processing method with a variety of chemicals. It would take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes--after driving back to the lab/office--before we knew if we hand any "good" images. There was no such thing as a monitor on the back of the camera to check focus, color balance or exposure.

Changing ASA (now ISO) meant changing out an entire roll of film and/or developing a second batch of film in a different chemistry/time combination.

Shooting something at ASA 3200 meant really grainy black and white images often using bleach and a cotton swab while printing under a dim amber bulb just so you got detail in some portions of the image.

If we ran out of film, we were pretty much done for the moment. You couldn't erase an image to make more space. You either begged a roll from someone or found a drug store or grocery store for more film if you didn't have some rolling around the floor of your car.

You used to be able to drive up to booths and drop off film to someone and return a few hours or days later to get your photos.

Looking at your images with any kind of urgency often required a good light table and a nice loupe if you were in the print media industry. Nevermind using a slide projector two weeks later if you shot Kodachrome at National Geographic.

Most every photojournalist carried two camera bodies and a bag with four, five or more prime lenses and had to change lenses OFTEN to get a good variety of images. Zoom lenses were not considered professional lenses.

Oh...and there was no autofocus on ANY of those lenses.

Seventeen millimeters was an exotic lens.

We carried one or two flashes and often had to dial in the best possible setting using a vague guess of red, blue or yellow setting on that flash to accommodate the distance/ASA/situation variables.

Motor drives were add-on devices. They often shorted out in wet weather. I used Band Aids over the button of my Nikon MD-12 to keep rain out of it.

Nikon was the undisputed king for Photojournalists.

Thirty six was a magic number.

More camera buying tips

2010-12-14T07:43:00.000-08:00

As promised, here are a few more random camera-buying tips.

Be sure to consider exactly what kind of photography you plan to do with this camera. Keep that in mind for things like choosing what kind of lens you need, what kind of zoom, video and other critical features that might be relevant to you.

I advise not to buy anything online that is the cheapest price unless you are getting that price from a known retailer. If you get a dirt cheap price from some unknown seller, you may be setting yourself up for a disaster. Don't let a $20 price difference push you toward a poor purchasing decision.

Some of those low prices can mean you're not getting a full warranty or any USA warranty. You may not get a full kit or you might be buying refurbished equipment. You may have a very difficult time returning an item or you might have to pay a restocking fee.

A good rule of thumb is to alway get the camera in your hands and physically look at the features and how the camera feels. I always encourage buying locally. Give your local camera store the business. They are super helpful and their prices can get to within a few dollars of online retailers. They often will toss in a camera lesson or two. And certainly you can always go back with the camera to ask questions.

Another good rule of thumb: don't buy anything that is packed in those plastic clam shells. Just don't.

Also, generally any kid camera sold in the toy aisle or toy store is just junk. Yes, you can spend $35 and get her a "camera". It will frustrate them and you. Trust me.

Enough for now. More to follow

Camera Buying Tips

2010-12-14T06:33:00.001-08:00

I've written a lot of camera tips, but I've decided not to recycle old ones. I'm freshening them and making updates. Here's one that's a little late in coming but still valuable for this time of the year.

Buying a digital still camera is high on people's list this Christmas. Here are a few random things to consider. I'll add to this list soon. But also, do your own research by using independent reviewers like Consumer Reports or some other authority.

I've preached this before, but don't be fooled by big numbers and low price tags. Just because a camera features a lot of megapixels, bunches of zoom and loads of internal memory doesn't necessarily make it a great camera.

Avoid camera brands you're not familiar with. When in doubt, stick with traditional camera manufacturers. Sure, some off-brand cameras are great. But they are few and far between. I love Canon and Kodak for inexpensive point and shoots. Olympus and Nikon are great if you want to spend a little more on a point and shoot or middle-of-the-road camera. I'm no shill for any of these companies, I just know what I've seen and liked. I still carry around a 4 mp Fuji from six years ago that's an awesome little point and shoot.

Also, remember that upgrading to a new digital camera means you'll probably be making images that have larger file sizes. That means your computer might slow down while grinding on these new photos. You'll need more memory to store these images (via internal or external hard drives; more on this later) and you might need to add more RAM to your computer. You might even consider buying a newer machine if you're not happy with your computer's performance.

If you're upgrading cameras for someone, you might be careful what kind of memory device the new camera uses. If it's got a slot for some sort of memory card, you might consider buying a camera that uses the same type of card as the old camera. This keeps the camera's owner from having to buy new cards immediately. Again, if this new camera makes larger file sizes, the old cards won't hold as many photos as before and the cards will eventually need to be replaced with ones that hold more data.

Video is a big feature on many digital cameras. Be aware that on most digital SLRs, you CANNOT use the autofocus when shooting video.

Again, video takes up a lot of space on the computer--especially if you start shooting high definition video.

Oh, you'll need software for that video. Sure your new camera might come with some freebie software. It'll be OK, but your inner Orson Welles will compel you to go get a beefier software which might require some upgrade to your existing computer like the addition of a video or sound card, etc.

That's a lot for now. I'll add to this in a day or two.

Inexpensive vs. "cheap" cameras

2010-12-01T15:48:00.000-08:00

A close friend recently decided to buy an inexpensive camera that would basic digital still photography and video. He wanted a digital camera so he could make notes on job sites and record some information for work purposes. David is an accomplished photographer but he's not a techie so he turned to me for advice when he started picking out cameras.

He was really wanting to keep the price low. The camera, after all, was only for documentary purposes and not for art or anything serious. He ended up buying a $39 Vivicam made by Vivitar. The features of the camera, taken at face value, were reasonably attractive: 14 megapixels; video; SD card memory; built-in flash; plus a carrying case and cute table-top tripod.

I have never bought an inexpensive camera like that and was curious--if not dubious--of how it could really perform.

Sadly, the camera was worse than I could have imagined.

The most glaring disappointment was that the video recorded no audio. Period. The lag time on the shutter was pathetic and the quality of the images was stunningly poor. The camera body was toy-like. The slot for the SD card was not even behind a protective cover. It simply slipped into a slot like the front of a computer or card reader.

I wish I had kept an image from our brief experiment. But we packed it back up and returned it to the store for a refund.

Lesson learned. Not all 14 megapixel chips perform alike. There are a lot of valuable algorithms, mechanical and electrical features that make a camera perform well. Don't be fooled by big numbers and small prices. My old, old Fuji 4 megapixel $150 point and shoot outperforms this clunker by far.

Soccer Action

2010-10-05T21:13:00.000-07:00

I dropped in on a Gaston Day School soccer match versus St. Anne's from Rock Hill on Tuesday. This is a gorgeous setting for a soccer match. The field is dropped in a pretty scenic location. The only bad view happens to be the one from where I was shooting most of my pictures. With the setting sun behind my back, I was forced to shoot mostly into the side of the pitch where there is an annoying white fence and tops of houses in the background. Still this was a fun match to watch. I found it interesting the St. Anne's team had several girls playing on their team against an all-male squad from Gaston Day School. But St. Anne's held their own quite nicely.

Foggy morning

2010-09-13T12:50:00.001-07:00

We had a nice bit of fog a few days ago. As I walked to get the paper I snagged four frames of our front yard and stitched them together for a little panoramic. Again, it's nothing extreme. It doesn't even look very panormic-like. But I'll be getting to those soon enough.

Panoramic attempts

2010-09-12T11:10:00.000-07:00

This is an old structure near my house that I've been looking at and wondering how to shoot it. I did this using my home-made panorama gadget and Arc Soft's Panorama Maker. It's not a very extreme panoramic--just something to play with and test out the system. This is only four vertical frames stitched together probably approximating about 100 degrees.

Pear trees

2010-09-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

This is another location I'm eyeballing for a landscape photo. This is a few miles from my house, just near the South Carolina border. I think these are pear trees. The light here is tricky. I love the tall pines that create a shadowed backdrop for the backlit trees, but fighting off the lens flare is a real trick. I'm going to watch this sight as the seasons change and keep shooting it until I'm satisfied. I don't know what those pear trees do in the fall, but I can see the leaves starting to turn red. This might make a pretty dramatic shot come October.

Yet more soccer

2010-08-30T10:31:00.000-07:00

I hit more of the Gazette Cup soccer tournament on Saturday. I'm still shaking off the rust, but starting to get my groove back for shooting sports. Soccer is a great sports event for working out the kinks. Its got a lot of action, but it's not too hard to shoot. I also tried shooting some video with my new, little Canon camcorder. The video quality was OK, but the shakiness of the camera is hard to overcome even with stabilization. This kind of video is best done with a pro camera that is shoulder mounted and has an eyepiece. Shooting video essentially from the hip by using the camera's fold out monitor is just not very easy.

Moonscape from my front porch

2010-08-26T09:23:00.000-07:00

Here's a bit of fun from my front porch in south Gastonia. This is a moonscape about two days after a full moon. I've been eyeballing the light from a street lamp that pushes through my trees. It makes some great shadows on the lawn. But the picture has needed some extra kick.

I was on the phone talking outside late Wednesday night and noticed the full moon intermingling with the clouds and thought this might be a good time to knock off a few frames.

I noticed on the initial exposures how the moon was a little hot when I exposed for the lawn shadows. Instead of shooting a set of images for a high dynamic range composite, I decided to go old school. During the 15-second exposure, I used my hand to dodge out the corner of the frame where the moon was illuminating the sky. This effectively cut that part of the exposure to about 8 or 10 seconds, giving me a fairly well exposed single frame.

Soccer in Gastonia

2010-08-26T09:16:00.001-07:00

After a brief hiatus, I'm back shooting. I visited a soccer match between Forest View and Highland Technical on Wednesday to work out the kinks and check out my new Nikkor 300 f/2.8.

The lens performed flawlessly but I feel the need to add the Nikon battery grip to my D700 to increase my motor drive speed.

I had a ball shooting for the brief time I was there. The light in Poston Park is beautiful and it's accentuated by a gorgeous landscape that provides a great, clean background for sports action.

I didn't shoot any prize winners for sure. I'm still rusty and I've got to shake off some cobwebs, but I'm excited to be out and shooting again.

Visit to New Bern

2010-07-16T09:40:00.000-07:00

Visiting a new city is always exciting. And getting a chance to stroll a historic downtown like New Bern, NC is a thrill, especially in that magic hour when the sun is low in the sky and creating all kinds of wonderful visual effects.

There's a wonderful old church in the heart of downtown New Bern (First Episcopal Church). Old head stones poke out randomly in the lawn surrounding the church. I was toting my 7- and 2-year-old so the opportunity to really create images was brief for me.

But I did have a moment to watch the sun move in and out of the clouds just long enough to see some light sifting through the trees. I shot two frames--one with very flat, even light and this one with the rays of light tickling the shadows. The flat-light image was too blue and dull. The sprinkling of sunlight added just a touch of warmth and depth to the scene.

Shot at ISO 200 with my 17 - 35 f/2.8 Nikkor at f/4 @ 1/160.

First in line

2010-07-16T09:27:00.001-07:00

This is the inaugural blog on "carlosblog". We just relocated to Gastonia in time to escape the blazing hot Arizona summer. And don't believe this nonsense of "...but it's a dry heat." Arizona has a fair amount of humidity and when the temps reach 115 with just a tad of humidity, believe me...it STINGS outside.

This blog is primarily concerned with promoting good photography practices in addition to Photoshop tips and tricks. I'll be offering photo tips beyond your basic "keep sun behind you" and "use force flash outdoors".

Hopefully some of my friends will chime in and correct me and/or offer their own perspective or just tell me I'm full of it.

Along the way I'll post my musings about things related to media and pop culture just to keep it interesting. Look for photos and even the occasional video clip as well.

Thanks for visiting.