Max wanted a photograph for his website. He wasn’t interested in portraits, but something that stood out from the website, and was a three quarter length body shot. He mentioned that another photograph may be needed to be displayed in a video, and that the background would essentially need to be transparent. After looking at some sample shots of how people used these types of shots on their websites, I saw a few that I liked, and I decided to go with more of a high-key photo. When a high-key photo is placed on a white background for a web page, the subjects just seem to pop right off of the page.

I prefer natural lighting, so we did the shoot outdoors. The location was a roof-top balcony. The day we chose was cloudy, and there was limited natural light, so I brought my mobile studio lights along with me. The natural light was a bit blue, but it still added to the overall light level, and cloudy light is a great flat light. I brought two different backdrops. I had decided to pick up a green screen as an option as well. I had never shot with a green screen before, but I know they are good for video. Max mention video, so I figured regardless if it would help with a video rendition, the background is easy to drop out anyway.

My lessons from this shoot were to be sure to bring extension cables! I have a huge bag I throw everything in. On the roof top there was a little bit of wind, and even the little breeze was enough to knock over the light weight backdrop. I really needed to have some weight to help keep the backdrop from flying away like a kite, so sand bags are another item to add to my growing list. All-in-all, the shoot went well. The 800E really did well with capturing so much depth in all of the tones.

The high-key lighting really makes Max shine, and dance off of the page. I have my favorite, I really like the photograph where I froze him in what appears to be a small dance step. I am very pleased with the professional look Max has, he still seems serious, but at the same time, his smile and energy of light makes him bounce off of the page. Max was great to work with and he is a writer, and lecturer. Check out his site, and learn more about his book at http://www.maxjmiller.com.

There are major differences between the D200, my old DSLR, and the D800. The first difference is the 36 megapixels, compared to the D200′s 10. The new lens for the D800 is a FX 300mm zoom, while the D200 is a DX 200 zoom. The 800, with a 300mm and the 36 megapixels meant that I could zoom out farther, and I could crop which gave me significant advantage over the D200 to get close up. The 300mm was still not quite as much as I truly needed for some shots. In comparison, the result is essentially zooms I was not able to achieve before. While at the zoo, I contemplated not taking some of the shots because the distance was still too great for my taste. Too much angle at a zoo means people, buildings, fences, and other objects that were not helping the composition at all. I am glad I decided to take the shots. If I were on my D200 with the shorter zoom, I would not have taken the shot. The D200 could be remedied with a better zoom, but the crop factor would not have been there.

The next major difference definitely was the light. I was able to shoot under 200 ISO. This was a cloudy day. A cloudy day similar to the gray cold days I had during the Alaska trip. In Alaska I was primarily shooting landscapes. At the zoo, I was zoomed all the way out. In Alaska I was shooting at speeds at or below 400 ISO. I noticed that I gained at least 2 stops of exposure. On the old lens in similar light, I would have been trapped. I did have the VR on for both lenses when shooting. The Alaska photo is ISO 160, the Panda is ISO 125.

With all of that being said, the next huge difference was in the way each captured the range, especially in the darker areas of the photograph. Both images have been adjusted in Aperture. I generally follow the same regiment when editing. I noticed when I lightened the darkest shadows that the D800 had detail. The D200 photographs generally always lost their detail in the dark areas. The one thing that I noticed that seemed odd to me was the exposure on the

800. The 800 seemed to me to be more sensitive to the light than the meter had expected. I often shoot with an exposure compensation of a third, maybe more, than what a default meter reading suggests. I always fear the strange white dot I somehow missed when viewing the subject. When dealing with clouds and skies, I increase the exposure compensation. Even though there is no sky, I noticed the image seemed light in review. I used an exposure compensation of 2/3 a stop for the panda shot and the white fur of the panda was still a bit too light for my taste, but it was able to be corrected in post processing.

In any case, below is a very small album of the photographs I was able to take of the few animals that were out and about. I am still stunned at the detail and quality. I am excited to be able to get out and shoot in some better conditions, but still extremely pleased with what I got even in the poorest of conditions.

National Zoo

11 photos

I have wanted to be more creative work with my photographs for quite some time. I have always been disturbed by the idea that the only tool available for artistic effects is Photoshop. One truth holds true for me, if there is software specialized at doing something, then it is most likely confusing, difficult, and expensive. Well, Photoshop is nothing less than a nightmare that holds to that truth. If you have to take a class to figure out how to open a program, somethings wrong. I really did not want to spend endless hours learning and attempting to take photographs and make them into something other than what they were. I like to take photographs, not spend hours behind a computer creating them.

This is the original image that I started with.

Yesterday I ventured out into cyberspace again to see which tools are now available for applying artistic effects to photographs. I found FX Photo Studio Pro. I downloaded the App from the App Store for $20. To use the application, I exported a JPEG image from Aperture, and dropped it into FX Studio. FX Studio has 173 different predesigned effects that can be applied to a photo. Since this was my first time, I did not use any customization options, except the occasional turning the dial up and down on an effect to tweak the effect to my taste. There are ways to edit the mask to apply to different areas of the photograph, and apply a combination of effects, etc., but this was again something I did not want to start to get involved in, at least not yet. Although I am not certain, there does appear to be a way to save any customization I may make for later use. FX Studio has a lot of filters that are not as artistic as others. Many filters are just that, a filter such as blue, green, and some combinations thereof. Other effects do more, such as give a charcoal or painted effect. There are also combinations of effects that apply a special look and feel to the photograph.

I used a photograph I took a couple years ago from Austin Texas. Using the photograph, I tried on a all the filters by clicking the thumbnail image for each filter. The filter is then applied to the photograph and I can review or turn the dials to tweak. There really is no work for the user at all, other than to sit back and watch the photograph transform. Unlike Photoshop, which I did try, I could easily apply a full range of effects in a single click with FX Studio. Also, I figured out how to use FX Studio without a book or a class. With Photoshop I spent a couple hours the first sitting to figure out how to add one color to a section of a photograph. I spent several days with PhotoShop and YouTube How-To sessions, until I got tired, frustrated, and annoyed. Well, my results with FX Studio Pro were quite different. I am going to explore to see what some of the other available software can do, since FX Studio is not the only option.

I chose 33 different effects from the FX Studio library that I felt were the most unique, and suited the photograph. I do not like all of the effect filters, some definitely did not work well with the photograph at all. I really did not see the point in doing a green filter, and then a greenish filter, or so it seemed as part of the images I have included. Color filters will probably have some use. In any case, I am very excited to at least be able to create some unique and artistic images. I cannot wait to see how these print out on paper.

Photographic-FX

33 photos

The X700 and D6006 are both standard 35mm film cameras. I always shot with low speed 35mm film. My staples where Agfa 100, Kodachrome 64, and Ilford 125 black and white film. The low ISO film, and 35mm frames produce great enlargements. As the digital age rolled in with the ability to print images, and post them to the Internet became standards, I tried to convert my negatives, and positives into digital files. The first results I received were nothing less than abominable. At the time, technology was certainly not capable of reproducing a good negative, and definitely a failure for positives. Even today conversion from negatives and positives to a digital format is a failure. The delicate highlights, subtle shadows, and dramatic contrast are quickly turned into solid white and black zones and even the slightest change in contrast destroys the photographs.

I looked at digital photography early on, but decided the quality was so poor that converting early to digital was not a good choice for my purposes. Not much time passed before I realized I would need to switch to a DSLR if I planned on ever using my photographs in the digital world. Nonetheless, I still waited a couple years to watch prices fall, and the technology improve to meet a level of standard necessary for a professional level of print. Early in 2007 I decided it was time to switch to a digital camera. Digital photography arrived at a point where I knew I could capture images at low ISO speeds, with a minimal amount of megapixels and produce decent enlargements. Again, I chose Nikon to be my camera and selected the D200 model. The D200 is a DX format camera, which unfortunately meant the sensor (frame size) is smaller than the standard 35mm. The issue with the smaller sensor was with the standard 35mm lenses I owned. Although the lenses from the 6006 would work on the camera, the lenses were designed for a 35mm plane. I decided to purchase new lenses for the D200, instead of worrying about image calculations, and other minor potential problems with exposure and conversions.

I used the D200 for 5 years. In my opinion technology does not make a photograph. With enough pixels, knowledge, and low ISO settings, I g0t great results. I shot in all kinds of scenarios from portraits, to landscapes, weddings, and more with the D200. Despite great results I achieved with the D200, I did have difficulty capturing quality

photographs in low light situations. Obviously, small sensors alone have limits with low lighting conditions. My preference is to keep the ISO under 400 due to the amount of visible grain in a print with anything higher. The limit on the ISO at or below 400 is not always possible. On dark days, early mornings, late afternoons, and indoors, an ISO of 400, in some circumstances, was too low to afford taking the photograph. The problem was noticeably amplified when shooting indoors. I prefer natural light for most situations. I often I had to use a flash indoors, which at distances still does not produce adequate light, and in situations where lighting cannot be controlled, distracting shadows would appear. I always kept a tripod around, but on hikes, even a very light carbon fiber tripod begins to feel very heavy.

I continued to keep an eye on technology as it matured over the years. The improvements that most concerned me were the ability to capture images in lower light situations, and finer grain. I decided that I would wait until full frame sensors became available in reasonably priced cameras. Recently I took my D200 with me on my trip to Alaska where I started comparing the results of my camera to other photographers when we shared photographs. I noticed the marked improvement in their images. The difference in technology was quite obvious when I found that I was not able to shoot under the same conditions as others, and my camera at low ISO levels, with underexposure, was grainier than their photographs at much higher speeds.

In 2012, Nikon released the D800. The D800 is definitely the camera for my type of photography. The D800 is a full frame camera. Nikon calls their full frame DSLR cameras FX, and they are equivalent to the 35mm cameras at 35.9 x 24 mm. The D800 also features an amazing 36.3 megapixels. Essentially, this camera has moved into the quality of the medium sized format cameras. The D800 has a sister camera, called the D800E. The cameras are essentially the same, with one main difference. Most cameras come with filters to prevent moiré from occurring on photographs. The D800E removed the low pass filter. The purpose of the filters are to improve the images, but it also removes detail from the photograph. In the event of moiré, the corrections can be made via software. My preference is to take the best image with the highest level of detail and make any changes in post processing. This is a philosophy I held on to from inception. Once an image is captured with a starlight filter, a diffuser, or any type of modification, there is no option to go back. On the other hand, with a perfect high quality image, I can add a starlight, diffuser, and perform any type of modification or have them all.

So, I found the technology I wanted is available, and at a reasonable price. I was not able to buy a new lens for the camera, so I am going to use the old 35mm lenses from the D6006 until I pull together all of the accessories, and a modern lens for the D800E. The 17 year old lens actually works quite well, it is a CPU lens, so all of the important features work correctly. Although, I plan on buying a new lens for the camera, the two lenses for the old 6006 will suffice.

I wanted to compare the results of the two cameras. Although I chose not to reproduce the images exactly, I used very similar settings. Both cameras were using zoom lenses.  Both exposures were done at ISO 1600 (The D200 max ISO is 1600, the D800E has a max of 6400). Below are the settings for each camera. Note that the comparison images were cropped to also be of similar pixel size.

D800E: Focal Length: 78mm, Aperture: F/5, Shutter: 1/100 sec., pixel size: 1359 x 906

D200: Focal Length: 85mm, Aperture: F/5.6, Time: 1/100 sec, pixel size: 1361 x 907.

D200 image at the same pixel size as the D800E image.

I included two images for reference. Since the D800E was not zoomed in as much, and then needed to be cropped significantly to get the same framing. I did choose a section of the photograph that was not the focus point to get a better examination of the grain.  The images were both captured in RAW format. I did use a white balance correction on the D800E, so ignore color, even though I have noticed that the D200 does seem to be more sensitive to the warmer colors. Nonetheless, with all things being virtually equal, there are two obvious things to look at. The grain on the 200 is definitely larger, but also there is the appearance of a greater variance in the gamma.

The same image as the D200, but at the same crop as the D800E

I am excited to use the new camera going forward. I am confident that I will see quite the improvement in my photographs, and I will finally be able to capture images in lower light situations. I did take a shot with the 6400 ISO. The quality at 6400 was reasonable, almost comparable to the D200 at 1600. I was able to capture an image at 6400 on the D800E, an image that I could not capture at all with the D200. I took the shot with the D200, but it was virtually a black frame, so there was no reason to show it here.

The last trip was to Alaska. I spent a lot of time on the road, which is impossible to avoid in Alaska, but even more complicated when I really decided to scout the region for a future trip.

Alaska was definitely an incredible trip, perhaps the most amazing experience yet, for a nature lover. Most of Alaska is pristine nature. I’ve never had the opportunity to experience nature in the way I experienced it in Alaska. Even places and parks like Yosemite are developed and overrun with people in comparison.

On my trip I visited several locations in a relatively short period of time. I camped all but two days, the night of my arrival, and the night before my departure. The series of photographs are of Denali, Exit Glacier, and a cruise around Prince William Sound. The photographs are mostly of the areas of Mt. Healy and Wonder Lake in Denali, the Exit Glacier, and a few from the cruise.

The Alaska trip, and recent shoots made me realize, that as much as I love my camera, the technology is truly outdated. I compared the technical capability of my camera to the abilities of the cameras of the people around me that were also taking photographs. The changes in technology, primarily around the ability to capture light, as well as detail, did show me how weak my camera is even in what should be relatively light situations.

First, I noticed that other cameras were able to capture images in areas where my camera was in the edge of being too dark for my camera, due to the second factor. The second factor was pixelation. I prefer to shoot at low ISO speeds, such as ISO 100 because otherwise, the grain already starts to show in enlargements. Most recently, I performed a quick, simple test with another photographer to compare pixelation, and light. At ISO 400, the pixelation on my camera seemed to match that of 1000+ on his camera. I never chose to shoot over ISO 400 on my camera because it created to much grain for my goals. On my camera, ISO 400, even at a low aperture, and the lowest possible time was still sometimes not enough light for handheld shooting. I would actually attempt speeds as slow as 1/30 sec by hand. With the telephoto lenses I used most often and vibration reduction, I would attempt speeds as slow as 1/30 to 1/50 seconds. Even slightly zoomed, or not zoomed at all and positioned as still as I could, the smallest movement would still often cause blur. I realized, for my purposes, and the many situations for which my photographs were often a fail, it is time to upgrade the camera to the latest technology. There have been too many situations where I had to take photographs in shade, or indoors, and the quality has been too poor for professional purposes, and it has been noticed.

My camera, and the low light days of Alaska made shooting in Alaska without a tripod very difficult. There were several times where I had to just give up on taking photos because I knew the quality would be poor and not worth the effort. Hiking with a tripod was equally difficult, even with a light carbon fiber frame, and is was not always a smart idea. Looking back on the experience I had with my DSLR technology, which at one time was great, I am now mildly disappointed with all of my previous photographs. I knew quality was not as great as my even older film camera, but the switch then was due to the need for digital prints, and the conversion of my film to digital was much worse than the quality of the digital cameras at the time. I perhaps waited too long since I know what I could have been able to do with the light and quality with more recent camera technology. However, there definitely is a benefit as well, the prices have dropped, and the newly released cameras include 1080p video capability, and definitely a hug improvement on light, and detail.

Even with the limited capabilities my camera has, and the limited ability to take photographs, the beauty of Alaska, and the opportunities that I did have to shoot still prevailed to bring to life some of the beauty of Alaska. Regardless of the issues, I am very pleased with what I was able to get. I was also forced to learn about the latest capabilities of the most recent DSLR cameras, and I will be prepared for another trip to Alaska with a new camera to take even more photographs. Please enjoy my latest album.

Alaska

79 photos

My trip was still short, but I took advantage of all of the light I had. I took photographs of the major buildings and other places and sights of interest. The trip started out walking down Duke of Gloucester, over to the Governor’s Palace, back up to the Duke of Gloucester, where I stopped for a photograph of the Magazine. After the magazine, I had lunch with my parents in Chownings. The fair is very simple, but we had a great root beer, and an excellent short rib. After lunch, I continued down the main street toward the Capitol. From the Capitol, I walked back up the one street up that passed the prison, and back up to the Governor’s Palace.

Along the entire trip, I took brief steps up and down some of the side streets looking for things of interest, and took photographs. The rich colors of the buildings, the slowly warming light, granted an opportunity for very dramatic lighting. With the updated site, I am able to finally share photographs a lot easier. Some of the photographs are below, all of the photographs can be seen in the Williamsburg Album.

Williamsburg

94 photos

There are a lot of questions about the Photo Stream, and I agree the Photo Stream does seem a little weird. The Photo Stream is intended for use in a manner we are accustomed to, but it has been wrapped in a new package. I am a photographer, and next to my DSLR, I choose my iPhone as my point and shoot. Like my DSLR the photo stream is my memory card. After I finish a shoot, I upload my photographs to my library, and clear my card for the next shoot. I will cover more about how I use the Photo Stream, as I believe it was intended later, and why a delete really is not a good option.

Photos in the Photo Stream are available to all devices. The Photo Stream is meant to be, well, a stream. The stream ensures that all devices can have access to recent photographs taken on a mobile device, or added to the stream from a library. The stream is not meant to be an online gallery. MobileMe had a photo gallery, but the MobileMe Gallery will be removed June of this year, 2012. The MobileMe Gallery never took off, probably because Flickr seemed to be a more popular online photography sharing site. Flickr is available for all devices, and is also accessible from Apple TV. Other photo sharing websites are available for various purposes such as sharing, selling, and more.

Many users have realized the problems with using the stream for photo management. Include is the more popular gripe, the inability to remove photographs from the stream. The Photo Stream is an initial container for holding photographs much like a memory card. For the most part, I ignore the stream, I will explain why later. I too have a feature I would like added to the Photo Stream, but my desired feature is a matter of convenience and does not interrupt my workflow. My suggested enhancement would be to arrange the Photo stream so the most recent photo is first at the top of the stream. I am certain additional features will be added to the stream in the future as photo management is enhanced on mobile devices. For the users that want to delete, delete is not an option. I would not expect to see delete, at least not at this point. In my opinion delete is not a needed function. Delete is actually a detriment for the Photo Stream. I will also explain why later as I cover my workflow.

The Photo Stream keeps photographs for 30 days, or up to 1,000 pictures, etc. All devices have access to the stream. You can pluck photographs from the stream to save to any device. I take photographs with my iPhone all the time, and not just for keep sakes or artistic purposes. Looking over my stream, I have a lot of photographs I do not want to keep. I have accidental photographs. I have photographs I took for SMS messages, and Facebook. I even have a couple photos of gift ideas. As a quick aside, since the holidays are here, taking pictures of gift ideas is quite helpful. As far as photographs go, I do not want or need to keep any of these random photographs in the future. This is the point in which most people want to be able to delete photos from the stream, and the reason why I say I ignore the stream. There are many different ways to use the stream as I believe it was intended, a memory card. Fortunately, photographs in this memory card cannot be accidentally deleted. What makes the stream so great, is that the photographs we take are not initially saved to the device. This is great because I do not want to have to delete photographs that I do not want to keep. I find it much easier to go through my library when I have photographs I want to keep, and add them to my device. Nobody should want junk photographs to take up precious iPhone memory. After all, if you need a junk photograph for more than 30 days, you may want to consider adding it to your library. For photographs that we want to keep there are a few options. I may not think of all of the ways to use the stream, but I will cover those that I do know and use.

There are several options. I will start with mobile devices since mobile is the most common use for the stream. In my Apple device collection, I have a Macbook Pro, an iPad, an iPhone and an Apple TVs. Okay, I do have other Apple devices, but let’s not go there. All four of these devices have access to the stream. I do not use my mobile devices for managing my photographs, but if I were, I would only pick good photographs from the stream to add to my device. Although the option to push photographs to the stream, I do not have a lot of reasons to use it unless I find something in my main library that I want to push to my devices to store, but most of that is taken care of by sync. I will cover how I manage the stream later.

I do take some photographs on my iPhone that I want to keep. The photographs I want to keep I pluck from the stream and add them to the device. Keep in mind, I do not want all photographs in the stream, and I also do not want stream photographs hogging up my device memory. For photo sharing and bulk storage I use SmugMug. I also have a Flickr account, but most of my photo sharing for friends and family is on Facebook.The purpose for sharing is dependent upon the reason I want to share the photograph. When I am ready to add photographs to my local device to keep and manage I would do the following:

1. Launch the ‘Photos’ app on my iPhone or iPad.
2. Choose ‘Photo Stream’ from the top option menu.
3. Click the forward arrow or share arrow, which we Mac users should be familiar with. (Optionally, you can choose a single photo from the stream and click the arrow to perform the same actions.)

4. Tap each photograph I want to keep, or to perform some other action.
5. Then choose one of the actions from the menu.

Options
1. Share: Share photographs, by printing them to my AirPrint enabled printer, Email the photographs, or send the photo as a SMS message.

2. Copy: As with photos from an album, images can be copied from the stream and pasted to other applications where photos can be edited, added to blogs, inserted into email, and many, many other things.

3. Save: Save will save the photograph to the device in the default camera roll.

4. Add To…: Add to… will provide the option to create a new library to store the photographs on the local device.

Now that the photographs have been plucked from the stream and organized locally, you can use them for any purpose whatsoever. As far as the photographs in the stream, just ignore them. If you need the photograph again for any reason, say you accidentaly deleted a photograph from a library, you should have at time download it again. In any case, the locally stored photos are on the device and can be used just as they have been used in the past.

The above workflow is great for users that only use the iPhone or iPad, or mobile devices. I have a MacBook Pro, as well. There are photographs and libraries that I want to have on my mobile devices, and there are photographs that I do not want. I have more photographs than can fit on any one device. I use my My MacBook Pro like I use the stream. After I do a shoot with my DSLR, I upload photographs from the memory card to the Aperture library as locally referenced files. When I am done editing and uploading photographs to my website, I archive the photographs to DVD, and then I migrate the images to a large network storage device. I do the same thing for the stream. For the stream, photographs I take on the iPhone or iPad are instantly available on my MacBook Pro through iPhoto and Aperture. I use Aperture for all of my photo management, but Aperture, and iPhoto both have the option to automatically pull and push photographs to and from the stream. As I mentioned before, there are not a lot of reasons to add photographs all of the photos from the stream to the library. I do not want to manage photographs in the stream, and I really do not want to manage them locally either, unless I specifically have photographs I want to import.

I will not go into a lot of depth on all of the features available through iPhoto and Aperture. These two programs work with iTunes. If anybody wants to keep all of the photos from the stream and store them on their device, they can auto import from the stream, and set up syncing to those photos through iTunes. Since a lot of the photographs tend to be junk, I do not suggest this workflow. Just grab the good photos when you want them, and let the other junk photos disappear automatically. Work with the photos you want in iPhoto and Aperture, edit, crop, tag, add places, faces, then share them, or send them back to the device.