Test blog for Mark's Lawn Works

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'....

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

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!!!

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

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

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.

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.