Content – CanonBlogger

The Smart Phone Versus the SLR?

September 23, 2019February 18, 2020 JasonLeave a comment

Lately the internet has been teeming with people fixating on the latest iPhone release, and questions are coming through the woodwork asking the same question over and over. Everyone thinks they are coming up with an original question, just because they changed one word here or there, but essentially all these questions come down to smart phone cameras versus traditional cameras. I’ve answered the question so much via email, in forums, on Reddit, and in Quora that I finally said “enough is enough”. For all who want to ask the question, I am going to direct you to this post!

Smart Phone Cameras in a nutshell

Let’s break down this phrase a bit – smart phone cameras What does this mean? It means the phone vendors like Apple, Samsung, LG, Huawei and the rest are adding cameras as software applications to sit on top of these cell phones. I’ll say that one more time for clarity. At their core, these devices are cell phones. So, on that basis alone, why would anyone want to draw a comparison between an add-on feature to a device designed with photography in mind?

The answer lies in dollar bills. That’s it – money! Vendors want to sell more devices, and if the phones can’t really be improved (let’s face it, cell phones are merely a function of the network they are on), then sales plummet! Think about it – iPhones, Androids, and the rest all must be on a cellular network for their original designed purpose of making phone calls, right? So, off the top of your head, how many cellular providers can you name? Not regional ones. I mean Tier 1 providers! I came up with 4/5:

Verizon

AT&T

T-Mobile

Sprint

US Cellular (don’t really wanna count these guys, but ok…)

I think the phone makers agree:

iPhone Carriers offered

Samsung carriers offered

The others, like metroPCS, Cricket, Go Phone, etc. are really just smaller ones that piggyback on the major providers networks (and many are actually owned by them!)

So, don’t fall for the hype. iPhones, Samsungs, and every device out there as far as their phone service goes, is only as good as the network it lives on. They can’t sell products that way, because the experience will be different for everyone, based on the network and where the customer lives relative to the towers. So, cell phone vendors try to stand apart by their add-ons. That is the only reason why every vendor tries to hype their accessory apps like cameras, computer speeds, and media storage aspects of these ridiculous tiny devices (of course tongue in cheek when you consider that these devices have more processing capacity than what we had when sending a rocket to the moon!).

But, everyone likes cameras, and photographs are a part of our lives. We are a visual society, so everyone wants a camera they can always have with them. Naturally, since we always have our cell phones with us, it’s sheer brilliance to make the camera feature the selling point.

But the cameras are crap.

There, I said it. Cell phone cameras are crap compared to dedicated cameras. Don’t believe me? Check this out:

Here is a photographic representation of various camera sensor sizes ranging from a medium format camera, all the way down to the sensor sizes of point-and-shoot cameras, with their actual dimensions (courtesy of Wikipedia):

I don’t even see a cell phone camera listed, so off to Google I went in search of the actual dimensions of a cell phone CCD sensor for capturing images. Here’s what I found…

From https://improvephotography.com/55460/what-is-the-focal-length-of-an-iphone-camera-and-why-should-i-care/ )

So, the sensor in a smart phone is about 7mm x 6mm in physical size. The author claims that’s “about the same as a 1/2.5″ sensor”. I actually think it’s closer to the 1/1.7″ range, but that’s miniscule…

A meaningless measurement from the outside looking in, but it looks to me based on the lens that the sensor is about 1/3 of an inch. Interesting that this sort of information is not readily available from Apple, Samsung, or other phone vendors. I wonder why?

The answer is because at the end of the day, the sensor on these cameras are teensy tiny miniscule little things that are crammed into the innards of a phone, trying to get you to buy into the fact that the CCD sensor of the phone (thus making it a “smart” phone) is better than the sensor of an SLR, or even a point and shoot.

I’ll go to my grave saying that it’s not better, and never will be. Simple physics prevents it.

Lenses

If you ask any photographer the question of what camera to buy (excluding talk of the smart phone cameras), invariably, they will tell you that it’s not the camera you buy into – it’s the camera system. More specifically, it’s the glass that matters. The reason for this is because the camera is just a box that houses the sensor, and it’s the lens that defines the clarity of the shot, your aperture range, and even the sharpness of the glass comes into play. I know photographers that refuse to by Tamron or Sigma glass because they claim it’s “not as sharp as Canon” lenses. I’ll leave that argument aside for now, because the point here is to highlight that even if we were to exclude the sensor as not being as much of a factor based on this concept, we need to now look at the lenses in these phone cameras.

So, let’s do that for the iPhone 11:

That’s actually better than I would have thought, because most predecessor phone cameras had fixed or nearly fixed aperture sizes on their lenses. But a range from 1.8 – 2.4 aperture opening is impressive, as it’s nearly a full stop (read more about apertures and F-stops here) so I’ll grant that. Now let’s compare that to the absolute cheapest lens for a Canon lens at B&H Photo (I looked at the EF and EF-S lens mounts). I also could have picked Nikon, Pentax, or another maker, but I am CanonBlogger for a reason: 🙂

So, for $125, I can get a lens that goes from an f1.8 all the way up to f22? (That’s about a 6 full F-stop range by the way, for those of you keeping score..) A smart phone camera will never compete with that. Now, for the average Joe (or Josephina) consumer, what does that matter or mean? It means from a smart phone, you’ll always get images that look like this:

And never get images that look like this:

Now, with my rant over on the differences between the camera apps and sensors in phones versus the dedicated SLR and even point and shoot cameras, I need to clarify something.

Software

The way that phone cameras are able to get some apparently stunning imagery is not because of the camera – it’s because of the software. So, if you really want to compare apples to apples, the comparison should be between phone camera software and standalone software. And I will grant you that the software the developers at Apple and Samsung have done some amazing work as to what’s baked into the computational algorithms. The problem lies in the fact that it’s baked into the phone. We have no control over it.

Now, devil’s advocates will say “There’s an app for that” and sure, there are tons, but that’s not a fair comparison, now is it? Comparing a software app from a phone camera to a dumb SLR that has the sole purpose of capturing images makes no sense. So, if you want to get into a discussion of software comparisons, we can do that, but we need to make it an apples to apples comparison. Which one would you like to start with? We could start with a comparison to Lightroom, Photoshop, and others…

But if anyone tries to tell me that the hard baked software for photo editing in a phone can compare with Photoshop, Lightroom, or any of the above, I’ll… well, just don’t! 🙂

Printing

Does anyone print images anymore? I am not sure about that to be honest. With social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and LinkedIn (and probably a whole host of others that I am not hip to), we often are looking at images through this medium rather than by prints. So, my argument here could be meaningless, but…

Take a photo with a smart phone camera. Take the same photo with a point and shoot camera. Try to print them at your local print store. My guess is you’ll be able to print up to perhaps an 8×10 photograph from the cell phone. From the SLR camera – you can go billboard and poster sized effortlessly. Why? Because of the sensor and the pixels.

You see, cramming pixels more tightly together in a small teensy sensor is going to produce something called artifacting, which ultimately translates to bad pictures when you try to print to a larger medium. So, there’s that too…but again, perhaps I am long in the tooth because I don’t know anyone who prints photographs anymore. 🙁

Conclusion

So, there you have it – the full explanation as to why a smart phone camera will never truly compare with a dedicated camera. The SLR will always win. In any category.

What say ye all, interweb citizens of the world? Agree with my assessment? Hate it? Sound off as to why you like what I have to say, or where I am just flat out wrong in my preconceived notions. Otherwise, I’m ready – what’s the next question…?

How to Hold Your Phone Camera

August 26, 2019September 30, 2019 JasonLeave a comment

How you hold your camera is so important, yet so many of us take our camera grip for granted, assuming that we will naturally hold it in the most stable way available. For some, it does come naturally, but for most of us, bad habits can take root before we even know it. To that end, there’s a couple pointers I’ve put together on How To Hold Your SLR and How To Hold Your P&S. To wrap things up, today I’d like to share a couple tips on How To Hold Your Phone Camera.

Video seems to work for demonstration purposes, so again, YouTube to the rescue:

The takeaways from the video? Three simple ones:

1. Finger Curl – curl your middle fingers around the front lower side of your camera phone – this will add stability and will help subconsciously you to keep your armed tucked in

2. Arm Tuck – Since I just mentioned it, avoid sticking your arms out – either to the side or in front of you. Extended your arms reduces stability and tends more toward camera shake. Keep your arms tucked in, elbows into your tummy by your waist.

3. Double L – Make an L with both hands and cradle your camera phone into the corner of each hand. Position the phone so that your camera lens is on the topside. That way, your thumb (either left or right depending on phone model) will be at the ready for the trigger on the edge of your phone (don’t use the on-screen one).

As always, there is no hard and fast set of rules to follow – using these techniques will not guarantee a stable shot. If you watch the video – notice even as I demonstrated, the camera shifted slightly even in my grip. The best way to hold any camera is not with your hands but with a tripod!

There are options out there for phone cameras now too – I like this one:

Got your own tips, ideas, or suggestions for hand holding a camera phone? What works for you? Do you use a tripod or a monopod? What gear would you recommend?

The Rule of Thirds in History

March 18, 2018March 25, 2018 Jason3 Comments

We’ve been looking at the Rule of Thirds in photography for compositional approaches, and I commented on what seems to be a trend toward the former being more popular in portrait work and the latter being more popular in landscape type work. The idea makes sense as portraits have subjects within the picture, while with landscapes the subject IS the picture (the entire scene). Click here for the full blog post with examples.

Well, today, I am taking advantage of the open sourced nature of Wikipedia (all images link back to the Wikipedia pages they came from) for some well-known works of art that have survived the test of time to see how they measure up under the Rule of Thirds. The results are kind of interesting:

The first is from Picasso, from his Cubism work, titled Three Musicians…

A super-imposed Rule of Thirds grid is rather telling. While this construct is somewhat different, because of the style of Cubism, I found it interesting to see the lines that he painted also fell into roughly the same places as those of the Rule of Thirds. And the hot point in the upper left is kind of close to the “face” of one of the musicians. Does the rule of Thirds apply here? Given the linear composition, my vote is Yes – what’s yours?

Next up, is Van Gogh, with a painting titled “Street Scene in the Montmartre”:

Here, hot points are very much at play, with the people walking down the street, coming in at the lower left hot point, and the red splash of color on the windmill is very close to the upper right point. The fence line also roughly follows the lower third so elements of both compositional styles are present here. Does the Rule of Thirds apply here? I’d say yes! Do you agree?

Lastly, let’s take a look at one of the more abstract artists in history: Monet, and one of my favorite works of his, “Impression, Sunrise”…

The sun – pretty close to the upper right hot spot, and teh reflection in the impressionist waters, almost as in line with the right third line. The boater shadow, being an opposing color, stands out anyway, but it also helps the composition that the lower third intersects it to a degree. Remember, art is not an exact science, and creativity wouldn’t have variation if subjects were always right on the hotspot. Equally, it wouldn’t spark or inspire us to always place things on the thirds lines. These are guides, meant to help you compose in aesthetically pleasing and appealing ways. Does the Rule of Thirds apply here? Without a doubt, is my answer! Am I wrong? What’s your take?

These are but three single instances of works of art that have survived the test of time. There is so much history to art and its creative appeal, but I would venture to guess that much of it has some elemetns of composition in common throughout the ages. Yet, there will always be exceptions. That is the challenge for today – do you know any famous works of art historically that break the rules? What makes them work and why? Share your comments here in the blog.

A few other tidbits to share today outside of the main focal point (get it? 🙂 ):

Three more days to the Worldwide Photowalk, hosted by Scott Kelby and with tons of sponsors and prizes. Have you registered? Some cities still have openings so check cities near you – there’s still time to register! (It’s free!)

A fellow NAPP member had started a community forum thread asking about the graphics tablet pen as a useful tool, and Dave Cross stopped in to share that he made a blog post scheduled for yesterday. I made a mental note to stop over and read it – great thoughts, and definitely worth the 30 seconds (I read his blog daily anyway)!

Last, but not least, I got an email recently about this new site where photographers of any background can upload images of their lighting setups or other creative perspectives and setups with light to share with the community at large. It’s a great outlet and you can get some pretty incredible inspiration from it…the name is Light Test and coincidentally, so is the web address. Check them out here.

As a final note today, as I always like to share sources of creativity, I’d like to give some special thanks to Elizabeth Gast (a.k.a. Firgs), of Design by Firgs. She has been instrumental in helping me think outside my own box of creative limits, and in working hard to improve both the quality of work and how I present that work. Today, she featured me on her site as a “Hot Site!”. While I am always going to take the self-deprecating approach, here I must simply and humbly say thanks to her. Not only for the mention on her site today, but also for her instrumental help in helping me improve my own web presence with regard to branding and design styles (see my Twitter background for an example).

That’s enough for one day, doncha think? Happy shooting and we’ll see you back here again tomorrow.

Grab the Feed

Hardware Review – Sigma 50-500mm

March 11, 2018March 25, 2018 Jason12 Comments

A while back I teased about a forthcoming lens review (nearly 3 months ago actually, in the Teaser Alert), and after several project shoots, the holidays, and scheduling delays, I am finally getting my act together to bring you the latest gear review…that of the Sigma 50-500mm. As a word of caution, you should be forewarned that the Sigma line-up of lenses that I have reviewed has become quite extensive. Right away this should tell you two things:

Sigma has been quite generous with me in terms of making a variety of lenses available. They likely are doing this for a number of reasons, but primarily because they know that I will give a fair, honest, and 9 times of out 10, a positive review of their equipment.
I like Sigma lenses! It should be no secret by now that I do like their lenses. They are optically on par with what one would expect from lens manufacturers by todays standards. Heck, sometimes I think the optical quality even exceeds that of the main brands out there (of course here I mean Canon and Nikon). The price is almost always right on – sometimes the price tag is a little high for my taste, but the advantage that Sigma has is that they are what is considered a “third party lens”, and because of that designation, their pricing is a notch below comparable lenses made by either Canon or Nikon for equivalent glass.

So, when Sigma came calling (actually I called Sigma), with the 50-500, the game face was put on. Right off the bat, here Sigma has been more than generous because I have now had this lens in my possession for nearly 3 months! I’ve posted a few photos from this lens over the past three months, so you may see some repeated images here, but they serve the purpose of demonstrating the various settings that I have used to shoot and test this glass. Having set the stage, let’s get started with the review. In the past, I’ve talked about things in terms of Pros and Cons, listing first the things I like, then the things I was not as much a fan of. While it has worked to a degree, I am trying to make things more uniform in the review section, so will start adhering to some more concise points and then indicating whether it is a pro or a con. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the

Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 Review

1. Focal Range: The focal range is how lenses are most commonly identified, and this is the measure of how much “zoom” there is in the lens. Here, the description says it all. This lens ranges from a widest point of 50mm to an impressive “zoom” of 500mm. On a crop sensor camera, that means you are looking at a range of 80 to 800mm! By any standard, this is a pretty wide range, encompassing a difference of nearly 700mm in focal adjustments. I am going to call this one a Pro.

2. F-Stop Range: The f-stop range is the measure of the minimum (or maximum depending on your way of thinking) aperture the lens can handle at various lengths. When dealing with a zoom lens, as you move further out, the elements have to compensate for the change in the length by increasing the size of the opening of the aperture, so you will see adjustments as the lens “zoom” increases. The Sigma 50-500mm is dialed in to a minimum aperture opening of f4.5 to f6.3. So, at the widest zoom of 50mm, the lowest aperture setting you can get is f4.5. Likewise, if you zoom this all the way out to 500, the minimum aperture is f6.3. So, don’t be misled by the numbers, shooting this lens at 500mm will not afford you the f4.5 that is capable at the widest setting any more than the f2.8 is available on a 70-200 at the longest zoom. When you have zoom lenses, there is a compromise in aperture capabilities that must be met when zooming out, and such is the case here. I did some experimenting at various focal lengths, and here are some apparent limits at different zooms:

Focal Length	Minimum Aperture
50mm	f 4.5
70mm	f 5.0
100mm	f 5.0
135mm	f 5.6
200mm	f 5.6
250mm	f 6.3
300mm	f 6.3
400mm	f 6.3
500mm	f 6.3

Given the technology of aperture limitations in zooms, I would say that the Sigma is on par with what the expectations would be for this range. To build this lens for any lower aperture settings would make the lens both heavier and longer. I don’t even want to think about what it would do to the price either! It’s not the greatest in aperture abilities, but it’s no slouch either. I’m going to have to thrown an “Even” flag on this.

3. Noise: I brought in the noise consideration based on my first Sigma lens I ever purchased, the 70mm Macro (f2.8) which did not have HSM. The inclusion of HSM in almost every lens since has been a Godsend. This holds true for the 50-500mm as well. It’s super quiet and has convinced me that I will never stray off the Hyper Sonic Motor (or USM on Canon glass, ever gain! ‘Nuff said. Pro

4. Size/Weight: My last big lens I reviewed here was the 18-250. It was a respectable weight, but this is by far the heaviest lens I’ve ever tested. Weighing in at a shade upder 4.5 lbs (that’s 1970 grams for you Metric folks), it can cause some serious arm strain after extensive shooting. I would recommend using either a monopod or a tripod for this lens whenever possible. It also bears mentioning here that due to the weight of the lens, you want to support it in the provided collar. Supporting the rig by the camera can result in some serious shear force, which can rip the lens right off the camera. Other size considerations involve the length of the lens both fully closed and fully extended. This will draw some eyes at either end…whether it be the short side (8.5″) or the long side (12″)! Here’s a comparison shot with it next to several other lenses so you can get an idea of its relative size:

Another consideration to take into account about this size is the filter required. For those interested in using the ND filters to protect front elements, you will need a 95mm filter to cover this – not a cheap thing to purchase by any means. Ultimately the size/weight considerations really will depend on your personal ability to handle it effectively. For me, most of the time it was not a factor, so I’ll acquiesce and call it a Pro.

5. Build Quality: In line with expectations, the Sigma quality showed here. Their now easily recognizable textured exterior exudes professionalism, and just feels good in your hands. Given the weight of the lens, you don’t want to hold this gingerly, but at the same time, if the body took a slight bump from another lens in your bag, the “other lens” would likely bear the brunt of it. No questions here. It’s a Pro.

6. OS/IS/VR: Due to the limited aperture range, and the weight, the presence of OS is invaluable. Using the OS allows you to keep your aperture value low, allowing for bother faster manipulation and shorter shutter speeds, as well as some nice bokeh in the background when your distances are good. What was extra nice about this is the ability to toggle between the vertical and horizontal planes to control vibration in different circumstances. When I was on a monopod, I switched to OS 2 to help control vertical (or up and down) vibration. When shooting handheld, I was on OS 1 most of the time, under the premise that my own face, body and camera holding helped to minimize the vertical and thus needed more help with horizontal. When I was on a tripod, I turned it off per normal procedures for when using OS/IS/VR. In my book, having versus not having OS/IS/VR is definitely a Pro.

7. Cost: The average retail market for this lens is approximately $1500. Given the focal range, the aperture range, and other considerations thus far, it seems to be pretty competitive. The Canon lens with the longest zoom range is their 100-400 and that factors in at $1800. Nikonians can salivate over their 80-400 for $1850. Both price in over the Sigma lens, and it still gives an extra 110-150mm of variable range. For my own personal budget, that’s a tougher call because while I would love to own this lens – I would have to sell something else to do so, and am not sure I want to dispose of anything else in my camera bag at the moment…the jury is out on this for me personally, but for those interested in purchasing any time soon: Pro

8. Image Quality: Image quality is always subjective to the viewer/shooter, so here I will just let everyone defer to their own tastes by sharing a few sample images taken over the last few months:

The Sigma 50-500 at 500mm f6.3 — Kissing Squirrels

The Sigma 50-500 at 113mm f5.6 — Chopper Series

Miscellany:

Other features that bear mentioning here include the locking mechanism and the focusing rings. I thought about including the latter in the build quality, but decided to bring it in here for discussion. First, the locking mechanism is a handy feature to have for keeping the lens locked in place to prevent lens creep. The idea is a good one, but for this particular lens, it would not lock in the “zoomed” position, where I would have thought lens creep would be more of an impact, than in the “closed” position. Having said that, from the lunar shots I did (as shown above), the fully extended lens did not experience much, if any, creep. This could be because the lens was recently brought back from a service stop where knobs and buttons and toggles were all tightened and such.

This brings me to the focusing rings. The rear focusing ring is the one used for fine tuning and the front ring is for zoom. This was an adjustment for me as my other zoom lenses have these rings reversed (where the zoom is on the back ring and the focus is on the front ring). it forced me to change my style of shooting a little, but since I was working off a lens-mounted setup most of the time rather than a camera-mounted setup, my shooting habits were already being adjusted anyway. The last part is that the zoom ring did seem a bit tight to move. Whether this is by design or because of the recent factory adjustments, I am not sure, but it was just a tad stiff to adjust.

Summary:

All in all, the Sigma 50-500mm is a great lens. It stood up for the challenges of both wildlife and aerial photography, as well as lunar and even a portrait shot of the canine companion. The compression it exhibits at the far end (which is characteristic of these long zooms) is to be expected, but I would probably not be using this for landscapes unless I was in a pinch and had no other lens with me. Still, it could be done, depending on what kind of landscape you are trying to capture. The zoom really had no noticable effect on image quality without going into some serious pixel peeping, and thus, meets or exceeds all criteria that I can think of. I would definitely make a positive recommendation on this lens for either a wildlife or sports shooter where distance from subjects is often greater than 10-15 feet. (The minimum focusing distance at 500mm is something like 6 feet!)

That does it for today – I hope you enjoyed the review and photo gallery from the Sigma 50-500. Here’s the final results/scores I give the lens:

Category	Score
Focal Range	8
F-Stop Range	7.0
Lens Motor Noise	8.5
Size/Weight	7
Build Quality	9.5
Optical Stabilization	8.0
Cost	7.0
Image Quality	8

Have you shot with this lens? Share your own thoughts in the comments or with me via email. Likewise, if you have a lens you would be interested in having me review, feel free to drop me a line or share your requests through the comment area as well. Special thanks to Sigma for giving me such an extended testing period to review the lens, and we’ll see you here again soon! Happy shooting!

49 Photo Tips Cheat Sheet

February 25, 2018March 3, 2018 Jason9 Comments

The quintessential PDF that started it all – my 49 Photo Tips Cheat Sheet! Over the course of my foray into the world of photography, I have been been busy compiling of my favorites and some unusual ideas for photography. Ranging in subject matter from how to improve your composition to gear tips, making money, photo walks, and everything in between, here are 49 Photo Tips – all compiled nice, neat and easy as a PDF for easy download and reference (top 50 lists are so cliche! 🙂 )! This was initially launched as a freebie several years ago, but has grown in such popularity, and takes enough of a draw on my bandwidth for hosting and file storage, that I had to start charging for it. But, for less than a cup of Starbucks coffee (it’s only $2.99), you can get your own digital copy of the

49 Photo Tips Cheat Sheet

49 Photo Tips Volume 1 - The Original Cheat Sheet — 49 Photo Tips Volume 1 – The Original Cheat Sheet

Remember, we learn best by sharing with others, so if you like it – tell your friends, they’ll like you better! If you have an idea for future inclusion, then tell me! I am always looking for new ideas, sources of creativity and ways to learn and improve so by all means, let me know if I got something wrong, or if you have an idea to include.

And if that’s not enough, Volume 2 is available here:

Triptych Photography 101

July 13, 2013February 27, 2018 Jason1 Comment

If I were to say the word triptych to you, many folks wouldn’t know for sure what I am talking about. Let’s be honest…in photography, there are lots of crazy semantics to understand! Everything from ISO’s and apertures, to shutters, diopters and f-stops, ASA’s and guide numbers are all part of the craft. Heck, there’s even one called the “circle of confusion” – and you can quickly get lost in the sea of words and acronyms in photography. One that I can’t believe I’ve not talked about here before is a TRIPTYCH! It’s pretty simple actually when you break it down really though, so fear not. Here’s your beginner’s guide to triptych photography!

In a triptych, all you are doing is taking three photographs and putting them together in sequence. The sequence can be three photographs all composited into one montage (say in Photoshop), they can be individual prints that are assembled in a wide frame, or even three framed photos that are hung horizontally or in close proximity to each other on a wall. Traditionally, triptychs follow a theme, whether it be a series of photos over time (a house in the Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter), a person with different poses, or a landscape cut up into a left, center and right framed photograph.

Triptych photographs can be a lot of fun, especially if you have the digital capacity to preview how things might look in sequence like this. Here’s a few examples I’ve done digitally to give you an idea. First, a posed series:

Triptych Portrait - Maggie — Triptych Portrait – Maggie

And now a landscaped series:

Triptych Landscape - Weeds — Triptych Landscape – Weeds

See how a landscape can have various elements in each, to visually tie things together? This is similar to, but quite different from the effect of a series of portraits. I’ve seen some wonderful triptychs where people have assembled longitudinal poses (say a dog as a puppy, at 4 years and in their senior years), triptychs of seasonal changes in a landscape, and even triptychs that juxtapose color, black and white, and sepia filters on photos.

Add to it the ability to angle photographs from the top left to the bottom right, or from the bottom left to top right, and even up and down to create an entirely different effect. Matting and framing choices also factor into how successful a triptych display would be. You literally are bound by nothing more than your imagination. As the folks at Canon are keen for saying then, where does your imagination want to take you today? Follow that path unique to you! To that end, I’d like to hear from the reading audience, here’s my questions back to you:

1. Do you find triptych styles of presentation appealing?

2. Have you done any triptych work in the past that you’ve posted either online or in your own house or gallery?

Shooting for fun or money

January 19, 2013February 18, 2020 JasonLeave a comment

For this first of two holiday weeks for the year, the blog will be turning to more of an esoteric theme. Tips, tricks, tutorials, and the like are all fine and dandy, but this week I’d like to pose a question fo whether we are shooting for fun or money!

While clearly we all start in the craft because we love it as a form of expression. We are captivated by capturing the moment, painting a scene with light and color. if we learn the craft well enough, and our eye gets discerning enough, others may ask us to take pictures for them! Or even better, ask if they can have a copy of something we’ve already done. Praise is a wonderful ego boost and source of flattery, and while we all may mask it with self-deprecating remarks, humor, or coyness – no one likes the compliment better than someone who wants to pay them for their work!

“Getting paid to do something you love” is an oft-quoted sentiment, as is the idea that “if you love what you do, you’ll never work a day in your life”. But, truth be told, if you make your living in photography, there is going to be a certain amount of pressure to perform – or produce results. And the minute to take something you love and try to earn a living at it – the pressures of running the business side will reduce the passion you have for the subject. It’s the nature of the beast. You have to eat. You have to have shelter. If you can’t afford those two necessities, how much will you really “love” working as a professional photograper?

The shot today is a perfect example…I absolutely love this shot:

From a critique perspective, this is a horrible shot. The angle is all wonky, the horizon isn’t straight, there is really no subject, and I probably butchered the saturation in post production. But, for me…when I was canoeing with my family this last summer, we were cooling off in Raquette Lake, and I was sipping a lukewarm beer. My brother and brother-in-law were to my left and right…the nephews were out galavanting around being pirates or whatever young kids pretend on trips like this. We were cut off from the world (well, not really, but as close as one can get since there was no cell reception, and only a 9-5 Park Ranger available to sell you firewood at $5 a bundle)., and this shot reminds me of that day. I loved that day, and for that reason, I love this shot!

This shot will never sell though – for no one else except those on this trip, this shot is meaningless until now. I cannot make anything off of this picture. Yet I feature it today on the blog because I took this shot for fun…

The comparison shot I am about to show you actually sold for me on iStock. Now granted, it’s not like I’ve made a ton of money off of it (it only sold once or twice), but it actually sold!

I was on a photo walk, scouting out areas for the South Carolina Photography Guild (now defunct), and the shadow of the guy on the crane, along with the wet bricks from where he was repairing and cleaning the masonry work just stuck out for a reason. I took it from a few angles and this one was the best of the 3 or 4. In the end, it was kind of a boring shot, but it was pretty tack sharp, and when I opened my first iStock account ages ago, figured it’d be a good sample to submit to show I had enough of a grip to consider stock work. The image was approved, along with 4 or 5 others, and my istock account was opened. Within a few days, there was a sale on this shot. Do I like it? Not really. It’s probably on some construction workers website, or someone wanted it for a church bulletin, or a school project or other long-since completed project. It doesn’t really inspire me though.

Which image brought me more satisfaction? Which one brought you more? Would you pay huge amounts of money for either shot? Probably not. I wouldn’t either. Thus, this is the dilemma we face.

It’s no secret that most photographers don’t make huge amounts of money. Yet, somehow the ability to say that “I am a professional photographer” is something said often with a sense of pride. Is it because you know the crap out of pixels, shutters, and apertures? Or is it because you made 50.1% of your revenue from photography last year? Or is it because you love to hear the sound of the click? Last but not least, could it be the excitement at seeing something you made come out beautifully on either a printed tangible piece of paper or in a web page…saying “this is my artistic vision that I want to share with you”. Why do you take pictures? What motivates you?

What Is Zoom?

April 4, 2012September 4, 2022 JasonLeave a comment

A great question came up in my Twitter feed a while back, and felt it was worthy of putting together a short post to help explain the whole concept of zoom on cameras. The original tweet asked:

“What’s the best focal length on a lens to reach 400 yards so I can see a 1 inch square at that distance?”

We started talking about different long length lenses, such as the 400mm, 800mm, and 1200mm lens options from Canon. All were (are) very pricey and beyond the budget for my friend. he then started asking why a 35x zoom point and shoot wouldn’t be an option. So, the discussion turned to a teachable moment! How exciting for a teacher! The recap is two simple points:

Point #1 When manufacturers refer to the zoom of a lens, whether it’s a P&S camera, binoculars, or digiscopes, they are referring to how much of a magnification one can get over “normal viewing conditions”. Notice how I put the last part in quotes. What are normal conditions anyway? What kind of vision is normal? 20/20 vision? And what are we looking at? Something 10 yards away or 400 yards away. The point here is that there are so many subjective factors, the “zoom” isn’t really has hard and fast a number as one would think. We can approximate sure, but it’s not set in stone, and certainly a measurable distance is nothing more than a rough guess.

Point #2 The zoom of an SLR lens isn’t at all on par with the zoom of other equipment – it actually is a hard and fast number. Simply put, the zoom of a lens is the ratio of it’s longest reach to it’s shortest reach. A 70-200mm lens starts with a focal length of 70mm and ends with a focal length of 200mm. This is the distance from the focusing point to the sensor. So, a 70-200 lens has a “zoom” of 200/70 or almost 3x. A 100-400 lens would have a zoom factor of 4. it’s simple math for SLR lenses.

This is a classic example of where the same term can mean different things to different people.

So, my answer to him? Well, to see something at 400 yards large enough to take a decent picture you would likely need an 800mm lens or 1200mm lens. You also probably need a 1x or 2x TC to really get far enough. The problem with taking a picture at this distance is that heat, atmospheric conditions, and just the physical limitations of optics would not make for appropriate conditions to capture decent images. Most wildlife photographers I know of like to get closer than 400 yards from a subject to take their picture, and for good reason. The distance to subject is of prime importance in capturing wildlife photos. Zoom or no zoom (prime lenses), there’s no substitute for proximity! Photography all too often comes down to something along the lines of real estate mentalities…location, location, location!

My best example? A hummingbird I shot from a mere 15 feet away!

Learning Digital Photography: Episode #57

May 20, 2011January 19, 2017 Jason3 Comments

You heard it right, the latest and greatest episode of the LDP Podcast is now live and downloadable from your favorite outlet. Six long weeks in the making and with the patience of my special guest, Kevin Mullins, this is Episode #57!

For those of you that may not have heard of him, Kevin Mullins hails from across the pond to get together on a podcast and talk shop on photography. A well-established wedding photographer in the UK, Kevin is probably one of the most talented wedding photographers I know. He joins me in the latest episode of the Learning Digital Photography Podcast to talk about the documentary style of photography and the impact that has on how you both shoot and manage your business. You can download it from iTunes or directly from the website via the following links. Below the links are the show notes…enjoy!

iTunes Download

Talking Points

Approaching group shots versus cookie-cutter portrait poses
Work flow of the wedding day – how things start, where to budget time, & how things end.
Gear preferences
Pre-planning the event in Documentary Photography
Still and video convergence

Links Mentioned:

[display_podcast]

The Permanent Portfolio Photo?

May 4, 2011January 19, 2017 Jason3 Comments

One of the cardinal rules I’ve always heard in the field of photography is to update your portfolio often – show fresh work to show you haven’t stagnated, and that your creativity is always expanding and changing with the styles and facets of the times. On the flip side, I know of many photographers who quietly admit that they have a stable of “permanent portfolio shots” that they fall back on to use in promotion and marketing mechanisms if they haven’t had new projects that they want to promote.

Leave it to the Libra, but for me, I can see both perspectives and understand the pros and cons of each. To those ends, I’ve not really made up my mind. Sometimes I waffle one way, other times I go in the opposite direction. It’s never good to stagnate, but I do think that some photography is timeless, and to that end, some photos are worth keeping in your portfolio. I’ve got a few that I know will always be in mine, but others I rotate periodically. Here’s one of my all-time favorites:

What do you do with your own portfolio?