Photography Tips No. 1

Ok, so... Im going off on a tangent today for some tips on photography for beginners. The reason for this post was because far too often I've had to sit through the "photo journals" of my family members trips around the U.S. My grandmother in particular loves to show an "anotated" photo guide of their travels. Lets just say after the first few photos they all begin to look the same.

Since I'm sure most of you have had your own similar experiences I'd thought I'd start by explaining a few basic photographic "rules" or "guidelines" for beginners when taking photos (in this case, travel photography).


The first thing I want to explain is context. The reason why a lot of travel photos fail to really entertain or catch the viewers attention is due to context. If you have no way of putting people into an environment or a location to mind, then what is the photo really showing? To the photographer (and photographees), the memory of their trip will suffice. But what about everyone else that you show your photos to? We have no idea where you were or what the location looked like. One of the biggest mistakes I see is when the photographer places the people in the dead center of the frame. While this is fine if you are doing certain types of portrait work or simply want to take a phootgraph of your friends or whatever, it doesnt work for entertaining people about your travels. Most of the time we want to see photos of your travel to see what it was like. How was the environment? What kind of people and things did you see?

So the first thing you can do, is to give us context. Show us the surroundings. By using scale such as the photo below, you are able to give us a much broader and in many ways "grander" scale of your travels.

Here is an example (albeit not the greatest but it's all I could find in my library of photos).


Bad:



Better:




Ok, so while these are not the best examples they still illustrate a point. Most would be photographing themselves or their family. But the general idea of placement of subject, etc should still remain the same.


So we're going to use this image for our next example. It's very simple yet also very eye catching:




One of the general "guidelines" to learn when taking photographs is the "Rule of Thirds". This rule states when taking a photo, you want to position important visual objects in one of four locations. The way we get these "locations" is by 'virtually' splitting up what we see in to thirds.



We see that by dividing the image up into thirds both horizontally and vertically, we are given with four points of intersection. You can see that the girls face is placed practically in the lower right intersecting point.

The reason for this is that more often than not, by composing your photos this way it gives the eye room to move around the image. In most cases, by placing your subject directly in the center of the frame you are more likely to create a very stagnant image. That isn't to say that you will always get boring or stagnant images by putting your subject in the center of the frame (as in some cases you can create breathtaking imagery), but in general its a good idea to stay away from it as a beginner.

In any case, these are just guidelines for your photography. They are used as a starting point for beginners in order to help move you onwards in terms of creating more visually appealing photographs (and imagery). Just like with any rules of "art". The rules are simply foundations to build upon. Once you know the rules, you will know when and how you can break and bend them to your own will.

Film vs Digital

Ok, so I already posted some financial reasonings, but one thing I really wanted to talk about was the arguments of digital vs film.

Digital photography and camera sales had a hard time in the beginning. The cameras were slow, big, and the quality of the images were simply not that good. However just as everything else, technology grew. Camera's were faster, the image quality got better, and they got smaller. Now with the saturation of digital cameras on the market and with many consumer and pro-sumer cameras sporting full frame digital camera sensors, there are many who claim that digital is simply better than film. Because of this attitude there have been many myths and misconceptions that been sort of implanted into many people's psyche.

1. Digital Makes You A Better Photographer
This is something that I think many people take for granted. People assume that by having a digital camera or a new piece of technology they will somehow be better. This is no more true as it would be for the traditional photographer who thinks that by having a better lens that his or her work will be better. It's just not true.

The interesting thing though, is that digital does open up some new possibilities for individuals. Those who are just learning are able to experiment and see the results much quicker through digital. It's just the nature of the game. Digital has that "instant gratification" that film does not. This inherently draws people to the aspect of digital. We always "want it now". Human nature does not like to wait for things.

That is one reason why so many children snoop through their parents closet only to find all of their Christmas gifts and subsequently find out that there is no Santa Claus at an early age. What? Don't look at me like it didn't happen to you too.

Chimping
In any sense, digital does allow for us to see what we do instantly. We are able to find out what works and what does not much quicker; however, there are downsides to this. One of which is what I like to call, "chimping". If you ever stand on the sidelines of a family get together when people take photographs, I guarantee you will see them huddled around looking at the back of the camera after they take a photograph. This is what I'm talking about. The running joke among film photographers is that you look like a bunch of monkey's in a circle going "ooh ooh" "ahh ahh" who are amazed at some treasure they just found. Everybody wants to see what it is.



The issue with chimping is not that it's funny to watch (and it is), but that it takes you out of the photographic experience. It is not uncommon when taking photographs over a period of a few hours to become lost in the moment. Many describe it as a trance. You forget all time and space and your mind begins to race as you move around from every angle to photograph the world around you. With chimping, you no longer focus on taking photos. You stop and look after every shot.

I read of one photographer comparing a film and digital photographers, stating that the film users could be seen taking photos practically the whole time, while the digital users pretty much just, "dicked around".

The thing about film is that it keeps you in that "stream of conscious" movement where the camera, your head, and heart are aligned on one axis. It keeps the ideas and energy flowing. Digital is a fragmentation of that.

Laziness
The other issue surrounding digital, is that its very easy to get lazy, especially during the editing process. Especially when taking a lot of photographs over a short period. I know for sure that I've been caught up in tweaking a photograph for five hours and then realizing, "Wow, this photograph really sucks. Why the hell am I even working on it? I should have thrown this out."

Unfortunately, I think that it is this very laziness which has caused much mediocrity in the area of photography. Too many crappy photos simply because people don't take the time to slow down and pick their photos (both in taking them, and which to make 'prints' of). It brings the quality of work down.

With film, you spend more time thinking about the photos you take, so thus you have a much smaller range of photos you have taken, and in the end you also take more time to pick only the very best photos out of the bunch.

I can easily say that when looking at my digital photos in comparison to my film photography, the film photography has so much more thought and determination behind it. I find my film work to be so much more creative in many ways and in the end I see it as being much richer in both meaning and visual elements.



2. Cost Savings
Another big issue I so often hear is in regards to cost savings of digital photography. True, the initial reaction is that "Oh, I no longer have to buy and process film! Wow, that's so much cheaper", and at first glance, it is cheaper. However, whatever gains you expect from not having to buy film is quickly eaten alive by the price of digital.

Oh, the price. The wonderful price of digital. It's expensive as hell. You want a full frame digital camera (full frame meaning it has the same size digital sensor as a 35mm film frame does) is going to set you back about five grand. Yes, Five thousand dollars. Oh, did I mention that in ten to twelve months your camera will be obsolete and will only have a resale value of probably half the price you paid (if even that). Digital camera's depreciate in value. Just as all other electronic devices. Whereas you go out and look at a nice Nikon film camera that is all manual with all the controls you need can be had for maybe five hundred dollars (that's if you want all of the same features you could find on the digital version). An even more stripped down camera with only the real necessities would only run you about $200 or possibly even $150. The resale value of said camera would be at least anywhere from 75% to 90% (hell sometimes even 100&) of the original price of the you paid for it.

Say you purchased a film camera for 500 bucks and you did mainly black and white photography with it. The 4,500 bucks you saved could buy you over a thousand rolls of film. Say you shot twenty rolls of 36 exposure film each month, you would have enough film to last you four years.

Granted, this is not taking into the account of processing, but even so... say you buy a new digital camera in three years or so because the quality of it's images have become much better... There goes enough few thousand dollars.

In the end, the two really are probably close to the same price as one another. You are just trading one cost for another.

However, it can be said that with film, the cost can be considerably cheaper, especially if you develop your own film.


3. Digital Saves Time
Yeah, digital is quick, it's instant and we get more photos is the amount of time and we have to spend less time to use them.

Wrong.

I already mentioned how easy it is to get wrapped up in editing images down. Especially when taking higher quality images, it can often take much longer to process the photos in photoshop just to get them to the look that they might be with shooting certain types of film, etc. Hours spent on the computer adjusting your photos is just the same as hours spent in the dark room making prints. It's all the same.

In the end, Digital has it's hand in the market. It is obviously one of the more dominating sales figures as far as new camera purchases go. However, I think it would be stupid and irresponsible to claim that film is better than digital or vice versa. In reality they are two completely different mediums. Hell, they even have different looks to them. There are some things with digital that you just cannot get with film, without a massive ammount of work (and vice versa).

Film is not dead, and I don't think it ever will. There is a magic to traditional photography that digital does not, and never will have. Seeing your very first photograph magically appear on paper as you drop it into chemicals is something that will continue to amaze many to come.

Film is Dead?

Over the past few years the digital camera/imaging market has boomed dramatically. Almost every cell phone today has a digital camera, it's no wonder that the market has become so saturated with digital photography of some form or another. Hell, even professionals such as sports, stock, and photojournalist photographers completely rely on digital cameras to get their work quickly and efficiently. So obviously with such a market for things digital, it is no wonder that many would quickly jump to the conclusion that film is dead or dying.

Yet even with the growth of digital sales, there are still a heavy portion of income generated by the sale of film products.

I found some numbers from Kodak's SEC financial publication (publicly available document):

Net Sales From Continuing Operations, 9 months ended Sept 30
2005
Consumer Digital Imaging Group: $1,883,000,000
Film and Photofinishing Systems Group: $4,124,000,000
Graphic Communications Group: $2,048,000,000
Health Group: $1,955,000,000

2006
Consumer Digital Imaging Group: $1,766,000,000
Film and Photofinishing Systems Group: $3,143,000,000
Graphic Communications Group: $2,658,000,000
Health Group: $1,837,000,000

Earnings (loss) from continuing operations before interest, other income (charges), net and income taxes, 9 months ended Sept 30
2005
Consumer Digital Imaging Group: ($171,000,000) LOSS
Film and Photofinishing Systems Group: $489,000,000
Graphic Communications Group: ($69,000,000) LOSS
Health Group: $283,000,000

2006
Consumer Digital Imaging Group: ($149,000,000) LOSS
Film and Photofinishing Systems Group: $281,000,000
Graphic Communications Group: $84,000,000
Health Group: $192,000,000

When taking a look at the actual financial postings, it seems pretty clear that Kodak is still making quite good profits from film, even if the market for film has dwindled over the past five years due to digital photography.

Just the other day, Kodak published a survey among professional photographers and their use of film. Among their findings, over 75% of photographers surveyed claimed that they would continue to use film regardless of their usage of digital. Those in favor of film claimed their reasonings for digital included:

* film’s superiority in capturing more information on medium and large format films (48 percent);
* creating a traditional photographic look (48 percent);
* capturing shadow and highlighting details (45 percent);
* the wide exposure latitude of film (42 percent); and
* archival storage (38 percent).

Needless to say, there's definately still a market for Film. For me obviously I'm happy for the news.

Photography: Rights, Privacy, 9/11

“Hey you! Who are you!? What are you doing!?”

Ignoring the guard, I continue to take photographs.

Guard runs over quickly waving his hands around energetically spouting, “Hey you! What are you doing with that camera!? I asked you your name?! You can't take photos here!”



Looking away from my camera's viewfinder I turn my head to him, “What was that?”

“You can't take photos here! It's illegal to take photos of anything dealing with transportaion or industrial since 9/11. I'm gonna have to ask you for your film!” he claims.


So, it's quite possible that some of you may have experienced something like this before. I have, numerous times. The funny issue here is that most of these rent-a-cops have no idea what the laws regarding photography really are. So here I am to explain them very quickly.

As mentioned on USATODAY, the laws are extremely clear cut within the U.S. The only real restrictions in the U.S. Are:

“• Certain military installations or operations.

• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.”

For the most part that is the jist of the laws. Further more, if some security guard or even police officer asks for your camera, film or digital memory card, do not give it away. A police officer can only seize such items if you are being arrested for a criminal offense. Otherwise, any entity attempting to take your equipment much have a court issued warant. This is guaranteed to you through the writings of the U.S. Constitution itself.

Anyone trying to take your photographic equipment in such a circumstance without a warrant has a very high possibility that they are committing a crime. These actions constitute coercion or a chrime of theft. It is your right to inform them of the situtation as well.

To make things a little easier, here's a link to the Photographer's Rights" card for the U.S. Do yourself a favor and print it out and keep it with you if you ever plan on taking street photography. You might be surprised how it might be of use.

Here are a few other rights cards as well:

Canada
U.K.
Australia

For other information regarding a photographer's rights, check out this site.

The interesting thing about all of this, is that most of these issues would have never been issues to begin with before 9/11. Prior to the event, chances are guards would not harass you, and even if they did they most certainly would not have such an excuse to ask you to leave. More often than not the reason why guards approach you are because their employers' tell them that they do not want people taking photographs of their business.

Another interesting development is a recent movement to ban public photography in New York. According to the New York Times, the new legislation if passed would require a city permit and a $1 million for liability insurance purposes. Now, at first you are probably thinking, “Oh, well I'm sure it's only aimed at professional movie production shoots.

Well not so fast. According to the NY Times Article and the ACLU,

“These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.”

City officials claim that the proposed legislation is directly aimed at such professional shoots, yet the language of the proposed bill is so vague that it leaves the individual police officer to interpret the rulings itself. Isn't this what we do not want? Without clear language it allows for the interpretation of law to differ vastly from officer to officer. The point of law is to give very clear and set definitions as to the legality of certain issues.

In any case, this is a very important issue. One which I'm sure the photographic world and the citizens of New York will be following closely.

The Types of Photographers

I was looking through flickr the other day when I started thinking about all of the reasons people take photographs. So, I thought about it and I began to categorize them based on two issues. Who they photograph for. The first group photographs for themselves. They have no client or person to please but themselves. Their subject matter can be anything from trees, cars, dogs on the street, or found objects. Most of you will recognize these types of people as the family historians in many ways. Your mom of dad might take on this role.

I call these types the “Firsts”. They will be there for your first crawls, your first steps, your first birthday, so on and so forth. These are you “mementos” photographers. They take photos to document a moment in order to reminisce later in life and quite possibly in order to leave a legacy of historical items for future generations. Other's take photos to bring to light Truths about society. Documentary photographers and in many cases, photojournalists can be in this category as well. The goal of these photographers (for the most part) is to widen the perception of others view of the world in a way that they may not have thought about before. These are the photographs that we often take for ourselves but also for the benefit of the rest of the world.

Then there are those that choose to take photographs for others. These are the types of people who most often take photographs for a living. These are your commercial photographers, the fashion photographers, and the family portrait photographers. The one exception here is that photojournalists can also be put into this category, for more often than not these photojournalists are paid for their photographs, yet still work towards changing the perception of others for a greater Truth. This is where things get complicated. In any sense, these photos are taken for someone else, and in most cases have a much deeper meaning to the 'client' rather than the artist themselves; however, that isn't to say that one can't gain a more rich work from taking photos for someone else.

For the individual who photographs for himself, it is so often a struggle to also find a way for their photographs to reach others. We as humans are so easily wrapped up in our own lives and experiences that in many ways we often find ourselves taking photographs that end up restricting their interpretation to only ourselves. To others the message becomes clouded and unclear. However for those who are able to photograph for himself (and I mean that in the sense of pleasing themselves, rather than a client), yet still have the ability for that message to reach others, their artwork can be very rich both in meaning and in visual representation.

Ultimately we all have our reasons for taking photographs. No one is to honestly say that one is better than the other, however as an artist I would say your ultimate goal is to create a rich and meaningful artwork.

Truth

When I look back to my first attempts at photography, it's pretty amazing how bad I was. In truth, I just didn't get it. I had no clue what it was that made a photograph great. I could always see it in others photos, but I was oblivious to why my photos always looked like crap. I knew how to use the camera in all of its technical aspects. I had read all there was about composition and “rules of photography”, but even then my photos always left me feeling empty. It took me a few years, but one day it just clicked.

It was people.

I was missing the human element. Once I realized this I began a much larger forray into documentary portraiture and street photography.

Anyway, you probably wondering where am I going with this. Well, it is not uncommon for people to question the genre of documentary photography and whether or not is should be considered art anymore. It seems that many view it much in the same way as betamax. A dead ancient medium. In response to these types of attitude, I found a great article in defense of street photography by Jeremy Hogan:

Someone asked me … why are you shooting in that style of photography it’s dead? What she meant, I suppose is, since there was already a 100 year or so history of documentary photography then why should anyone bother to photograph what’s already been photographed in a played out dead art form. She also meant anyone can take a photo but only a genius can create things like “conceptual art” or make art based on “post-modern” theories. She said documentary photographs are just commercial art but not a fine art anyway. What she was also telling me is that just taking a straight documentary photo is a useless pursuit because photography has to be weighed down by intellectual gimmicks or it can’t competes with new forms of art … whatever those are. And then the last thing … she told me I was exploiting people with my photos just like those war photographers. “


Funny that she makes a connection between commercial art and documentary photography. I would argue to say that it's anything but that. Documentary photography (at least in my mind) aims to tell a story. To reveal a truth. It is to show the emotions and energy that we may so often miss in life.



Hogan goes on to say, “there is no other art form like it for helping us see our world in different ways and also to make us question our assumptions. Besides, reality is something often absent in our celebrity and entertainment driven media in America. “

If the last sentence doesn't sound familiar to at least somebody then I dont know what does.

If all else fails, I'm sure the masses will be fully content with the "reality" of upskirts of britney spears and the anorexic catwalk charm of Mary-Kate Olsen.

I'll stick with the truth of the ordinary human life.

If your interested in reading Hogan's full article, take a look.

Photography and the Creation of Icons

I was reading the BBC earlier today and came across a write up on a man and an image that most have probably seen at least once in his or her life. That being of course: Che Guevarra.



I am sure that most of us have seen this photo. It was taken by a famous photographer, Alberto Korda on March 5 1960 after an ammunition truck exploded causing the death of hundreds of civilians. The event itself was erroneously blamed on the U.S. by Castro. In any event, Korda himself labled the photo as, "Guerrillero Heroico" (the heroic fighter), as "encabronadao y dolente" - angry and sad. Shortly after Alberto Korda made his way into many publications in Europe which paved his way to success.

The thing that strikes me the most is that the photograph itself is not what most people associate with Che Guevarra. It is the image by graphic artist, Jim Fitzpatrick that most people recognize. BBC goes on to explain the creation of the image:

"I deliberately designed it to breed like rabbits," he says of his image, which removes the original photograph's shadows and volume to create a stark and emblematic graphic portrait.

"The way they killed him, there was to be no memorial, no place of pilgrimage, nothing. I was determined that the image should receive the broadest possible circulation," he adds.

"His image will never die, his name will never die."

For Ms Ziff, Che Guevara's murder also marks the beginning of the mythical image.

"The birth of the image happens at the death of Che in October 1967," she says.

"He was good-looking, he was young, but more than that, he died for his ideals, so he automatically becomes an icon."

I always find it interesting how this image is viewed by people around the world. For Europe, the image has a more through provoking meaning to many. During this same time Europe faced its own inner demons and struggles with "revolution"; However in places such as North America his image has taken on a more commercialized and capitalistic meaning. More of a way for clothing manufacturers to make money it seems. Most don't really know anything about the image or the person. In that same sense though, Fitzpatrick and Korda got what they wanted.

While college and high school kids--for the most part--have no idea of the image emblazoned across their chest, the image still remains. The "legacy" of this man has found its way into the homes and lives of thousands of people across the world. But, does it really matter anymore? If people see an image but have no way of putting it into historical context, doesn't the entire reason for the image lose it's value?

In a way I would say yes. In reality, it becomes what many famous portraits become. A legend. In this case, A man loved by many and hated just as much by others. Whatever true crimes or heroic actions may have become lost in translation. I'm sure that you can find hundreds of different books, all of which I'm sure have their own biases, stating the "vicious crimes against humanity", or his "great heroic actions for the people of Cuba", but for the average person on the street, I have a hard time believing that many people honestly know what the image is really about. I also think that you can probably take other prominent iconic portraits and get pretty much the same result.