Inspiration & Technique: Jean Smith

Something occurred to me: some of you have families, and taking pictures of your family is what you care about. Time for me to make this blog more relevant to your needs.

The business of being a "family moments" photographer is so full of phonies. It is not the kind of photography I am into - matter of taste - but this is a kind that answers a market demand, so a lot of people claim to be photographers for a thousand bucks a day. Most so called "professional" just own an pricey camera and an insurance...hopefully.  It's quite sad since it's very important for the customers who spend big bucks to capture meaninful parts of their lives. When doing that job, you must deliver because you have been hired and paid, so you have to be capable, with a good amount of well mastered techniques to leverage. 

Luckily, in the middle of that ocean of dodgy so called photographers, there are some true enthusiastic professionals such as Jean Smith. I swear I don't know her at all, I'm not advertising for anyone. I just came across her work and thought: "oh, this is some consistently good work in a field that usually don't attract the best". So I thought I'll use her stuff as an excuse to learn a little :)

I don't think her single person portraits meet the super high standards of someone like Jan Sholz (although he cheats a little by using pretty naked ladies) but she has some really good techniques when in comes to multi subject portraits; which is a pretty difficult thing to do. It leads to really nice family pictures. Let's see if we can extract some of those techniques:  I'll take a few shots and explain why and how you should get inspired by them. 

Have you thought of cropping lately?

Cropping brings you closer with the subject as it leads you towards details of the face, hands. But it's not only about distance: your brain will extrapolate the missing part, while emotion you try to convey will take over the picture as no disturbing elements will remain. Cropping simply creates intimacy. You cannot crop anything anytime, but it's fun to practice and easy to do post processing with the huge files nowadays cameras produce. See the other point below about depth of field, very relavant when cropping. 

Have you thought of leverage depth of field lately?

 Depth of field is the best way to make sure you lead the eye where you mean to. If everything is sharp, where are you supposed to look? It can make total sense to make everything sharp, but on such portraits, focusing at the right place and having the proper amount of sharp depth is important. See below, if the entire family was sharp, it'd be like "hum...that's weirdly cropped, why can't we see the whole family?" Because it's a portrait of the dog. You can project the family even though they are blurry, you get the idea of a family, without removing focus from the dog. 

On this second picture (this one is by me but I needed it for the sake of the example), I cropped and used a narrow depth of field to get just what I wanted: an intimate boy's portrait, within the context of his family.

Have you thought of paying attention to your focus point lately?

We have the cropping and the depth sorted, but where to focus on? Well sometimes it's about that one detail in context. Portrait of a baby and his/her parents? You could of course shoot them right in the middle of the frame, all sharp and smiling like they do it naturally, posing like a cosmetics commercial. Or you can do what's here: a tiny foot, extracted from a blurred family hug. Now that does look a bit more like something parents would do. Also it looks so much more intimate. 

Have you thought of over / underexposing lately?
In a picture, you very rarely have every element lit at the same level. So you have to make a call: what will look normal, what will be dark and what will be bright? I'm sure you've had those shots where the sky is blue and you subject is dark, or your subject is fine and the sky is white. Well, don't let the camera decide: go manual, and pick your mood.

On this first picture (my favorite from the batch), the essence of this new born is caught by his profile alone. The dad's posture tell everything that needs telling, and the round blue bright zone on the wall contrast with the baby's head. What does dark bring us here: it removed unnecessary details, it creates intensity, it is the first face to face, father and son, and it's deep shit.

And the opposite use of light here: let's flood the room with light to create a moment of heavenly happiness. Fundamentally that shot is properly exposed, but I bet you a camera in auto mode would think "wow! much light, very bright, must expose less". And you'd loose that dreamy mood. Tell the camera what you want, add 1 stop or 2 if you need. You can do a lot of different things with the same scene, just by changing exposure.

Have you thought of using context to tell a story lately?

What tells the story of a young couple starting a life together than being in your first kitchen? Nothing (...that I can think of right now). So use the room, rooms have lines, you can use lines to compose. Once you have a nicely composed image, place your subjects into context and tadaaaa! You have a story. 

I hope those tips and tricks will help you take better pictures of your loved ones. I'm not usually that corny so push it. Soon more pretty ladies and war photography to even things up.
RooaaaR! Outdated manliness !

Inspiration: deep dive into photographs by Alex Ayer

One of my colleagues, now aware of my obsession interest in photography, shared with me the site of a friend of his: Alex Ayer. What usually happens is such cases is that...well pictures are often not worth putting together a portfolio site. Sometimes the photographer appears to be quite delusional about his skill and talent. But hey ! This time I could not only make genuine positive comments, I even found a few gems to write about.

I've have quite a few nice comments on my post about Henry Cartier Bresson, and I realize readers / learners want more deep dives on quality shots.

First the rickshaw shot: so many good things coming together here. The symetry here is amazing:

• the two rickshaws, identical with drivers looking at each other
• the central building at the back, in a similar blue
• even the blurry bikers are symmetrically distributed !

The rules of third here also applies: the horizon line, the rickshaws, all are distributed on third lines. The pavement edge and the tree line reinforce that too. Color wise, it's all coming together great too, no disturbing element at all. Finally, the depth induces by the sharp / blurry / sharp layers makes it all very lively. Great shot.

This next one is a classic case of using a good base line / composition, mixed with the right moment. The baseline for this shot consists of:

• Using the lens wide open for narrow depth of field (= blurred background), extracting the subject from his environment
• Horizon is almost on the top third line, not in the middle, for balanced composition
• The fence is fading away in the blur following a diagonal line. It gives perspective to the shot.

Then it comes together perfectly when that old man walks behind: 

• He occupies the "empty" part of the frame
• He looks at the boy, reinforcing the focus on him
• Even though he isn't far, he remains blurry because of the wide open lens, not taking focus away from the boy

A good example that sometimes, you nearly have the perfect shot but well...it also take a bit of luck.

I love this one for it's tones: the blue building with the grey sky and roads are terrific. A dark blue sky wouldn't be as nice. Even the cars match the scene. Then, this picture is like a beautiful face: it's almost symmetric, but it's not. The old ladies, the rock and the antenna are not fully aligned, yet they are. The buildings look the same, yet they are not the same. Asymmetrical elements in a symmetric composition. The very large depth of field makes everything sharp, which is important because the subject here is the street as much as the ladies on the foreground. 

This is more classic composition, based on alignment. The most important here is the sense of direction: the monk, the tiles and the shade are all perfectly aligned. Not seing faces takes your attention away from them as human beings, and make you look at this shot like an architectural image. It's simple, efficient, but you need to be aware to catch an image like this.

This last one is to show that good composition can lead to a nice image even if not much is happening. In that case, this is a pure composition lesson in one shot. The grey steps' edges are aligned with the yellow line heading away to the top left corner. You need to be aware that that alignement along is very powerful on that shot. The wavy yellow wall across the shot plays two roles: it creates a separation between the yellow and grey areas, and provides a completely different diagonal: curvy VS straight, and perpendicular to the other one above described.

Finally, the decoration on the wall being curvy too, they prevent the image from being just harsh lines. Notice also that the top edge of that wall follow exactly the edge of the frame. The work on proportions here is excellent. 

I hope this gives you fuel for the brain, and leads you to taking better pictures !

Lessons form the Henry Cartier Bresson exhibit in Paris.

What better idea on a cold and rainy Saturday to revisit a classic like Henri Cartier-Bresson? Plus the night spent trying to dry out the caves of Le Petit Littré (the best bar in Paris) left me with quite the hangover, so a long walk can only do me good.

Why is Henri Cartier-Bresson's work essential to study for anyone who truly wants to learn photography? Well, unlike some talentless and rapy photographers (you know who I mean), Cartier-Bresson's work is a great exemple of technique well mastered mixed with creativity. If  you analyse his shots beyond the initial feeling, you realize that there is a lot of decision making being them. He started  building a shot from an idea, an set of fix variables he was going to use for composition, and was then waiting / hoping that the subject would come together at the right place and time, to in the end produce an image both spontaneous and sophisticated.

Lesson 1: learn and train. 

Photography leads to an illusion, the illusion that the camera makes the picture. Which is about as dumb as saying that the brush makes the painting. As a consequence, most beginners assume that photographic technique is about mastering a camera. But photographic technique is about composition, playing with lines, volumes, surfaces, tones and shades. Indeed, the camera is merely a tool.
The painting comparison is crucial: always keep in mind that you have a paper rectangle, and on that rectangle you will project shapes, tones and even a 3rd dimension via depth of field. But, unlike a painting, you will splash the frame all in one go! So you really have to think about it before you hit the shutter.

Lesson 2 : make sure your equipment doesn't get in the way.

If your camera prevents you from turning your ideas into the expected result, it means that you either need to read the manual, or that it's too bloody complicated. In order to learn photography, you need a spot metered aperture priority camera. Nothing else.  In case you wonder, a cheap Nikon FE2 is for exemple exactly that camera.
Of course most of you will run away from analog because it's pricey to use and constraining, which is a very valid reason why to. So if you buy a digital camera, set it on A (aperture priority) and spot metering. Once you've set the ISO to the level of light you have, you will now only focus on those 4 things:

1. Framing 
2. Focus point, to determine where there sharp part should be (it's really your artistic call)
3. Aperture to determine how much depth you want to be sharp
4. Exposure, or what part of the image should get what level of light

And all of this should probably happen within seconds if you know what you're doing. You now see why it takes as much practice as painting. Cameras do well exposed and sharp pictures, that's all. However they don't compose for you, and they make arbitrary decisions when it comes to where to focus, depth and light. 

Also I recommend you start with black and white, you are removing the color variable from the equation, and since it's pretty hard to control what colors will be in a scene, it'll make the learning process way easier.

Lesson 3 : trigger luck

Even Cartier-Bresson had to hope for luck while shooting. He said it himself, he picked elements of decors that allowed interesting composition (he was obsessed by the golden number rule, which I admit works well), then hoped for people to come together nicely within that pre-composition. If most of his shots seem so spontaneous, yet so well composed, that's because he identified an opportunity for composition, then hoped for the best.

Lesson 4 : you are only as good as your worse picture

In the above mentioned exhibit, there was 400 photos. Not all where masterpieces, so let's say he shot 250 master pieces, including those that weren't at the exhibit. It means that in 50+ years of photography, he's produced 250 exceptional shots, and he was doing this all full time.
Given the fact that you the dedicated amateur will shoot 10, 50, a hundred times less than Cartier-Bresson? Your portfolio, the display window of our best work, should be maximum 25-50 shots, depending on how diversified you are.
Once you've selected you very best shots -and really you should be splitting hair, struggling to remove one more- you know have your personal standard. You should then aim at producing images that are better that this selection. If you new best work is not as good, you need to keep practicing and mostly, questioning.

That is essentially how you do good photography. Techniques has to become instincts, that will flow thru your camera without you having to think about it. Now that is much easier said than done, and that is without taking into account the talent factor.

Also, it does require illustrating a bit, so let's do that with Cartier-Bresson's work. When looking at his work, keep in mind 2 rules he was using.

• The rule of third, a classic statement that elements of a picture should be aligned on thirds of a image.
• the golden number rule, a strange rule that is supposed to lead to harmonious distribution of elements in an image.

Golden number rule

Rule of thirds

This picture illustrates that a photograph is a 3D scene projected on a 2D surface. A wall can become a triangle, a shadow can become a shape. Notice how the shade and the darker part of the left wall make a single shape, although not being at all of the same nature. Here the work on lines is great. Look at how composition on this shot is just a matter of shades and wall edges. Look at how it is displayed  according to third and the golden number rule at the same time, creating harmony.

This masterpiece is an other great example. he uses a part of the shelve, has its front side parallel to the image plan in order to use the boards edges to split the image according to the golden rule. Exposure is perfect, the bright and darker areas show great details, it's not too contrasted and the dynamic range of film does great here. In addition to composition, his subject if perfectly treated: the emotion doesn't require a full face, posture and body language are enough. A mix of academic composition and true moment.

Boom ! Look at how great that shit looks ! Seriously. Here again, the golden rule is key in the composition, as well as the rule of thirds. Nothing is centered, lines are uses perfectly, from the wall details to the fence. Subject are looking away from each other, following the guiding lines and giving you the impression of intense street life beyond the limits of the picture.

Titties ! We all like them. Here again, golden rule, not being parallel to the picture plan to add perspective and dynamism, lines playing a key role, even the floor one on the right. It's like there is a cross road from all lines, in the bottom right section, and everything expands for there. The bike is in a very specific place: just between the boobs. You are forced to look there, no matter what, for the boob or the bike. 

Pure genious here. Architectural elements are so perfectly used for composition, exposure is perfect: the inside of the room is exposed proper while the outside comes out super bright (spot metering on the two boy at the front). Small aperture to have sharpness all across the image too. Then the people, those two girls back to back, the man's pause, the dog, the kids' expressions. A true moment of photographic grace when perfect technique meet the perfect moment. 

I hope more and more new photographers would focus on those things, instead of buying stuff. Get inspired, think, be critical, work the basics until they become reflexes then go full creative. Keep shooting tons, and for sure you will pull a few great pictures like that. A good thing about photography, unlike painting, is that we all have a chance to produce a masterpiece.

My favorite function in modern DLSRs

You are either a regular of this blog, or a new reader. If you are a regular, you might want to take a sit because what I am about to say will hit you hard. 

So I got a D600. First because traveling with a Mamiya RZ 67 is impossibru. Also I wanted to work on my digital skills, get better at architecture and cityscapes, and therefore, practice a lot. I have been using it for a few month now, and I realized that one function on this DSLR turns out to be an absolute must: the built-in HDR.

- "Amagaaaaad Ronan you hate HDR and digital stuff! what da hell is this contradicting nonsense ! I worshipped you and fed from your every word and now I am as confused as when Ricky Martin made his coming out !*"

- Here we go. Well, dear follower, this is not at all what I wrote in previous posts. Let me remind you of my position on digital and HDR:

• Digital is great, and complementary to film. It convenient, fast, powerful in bad conditions, so much better than analog for many many things but...
• ... film as a dynamic range like no digital sensor ever had, try velvia 50 and see for yourself.
• Film allows very large films / sensors from 60x70mm and larger, which with corresponding lenses leads to systems capable of stunning results, although fairly cumbersome to use.
• B&W film looks better due to a more linear and rich range of tones and nicer looking noise.
• The overly abused use of extreme forms of HDR is the photographic equivalent of Nikky Minaj. It's ugly, vulgar, and can cause the tasteful man to cry blood. 
• HDR was intended to compensate the lack of dynamic range of digital sensor, not to make pictures look like a clown's face.
• Come on Ricky Martin was way to well groomed to be straight !

So no I don't hate digital stuff. Yes I prefer the crafting of analog and mostly the feel of images due to dynamic range and B&W rendering, but I also love my digital camera; it just depends on what I'm shooting and where.

No I don't think HDR should be left aside, I think it should be used in order to compensate the physical limitation of digital sensors. And here is my point: the built is HDR function on the D600, and I am sure on any other advanced DSLR, allows a rendering of colors and light that I find very very interesting with minimal effort. If you are not using it because you are afraid it will look like that:

What is that? the next Call of Duty? 

Well change your mind, you must try it in high contrast situations. It leads to things like that that I find very mellow and subtle. This is what HDR used in a more classic way looks like:

- "Hum...Ronan, this is not HDR. It looks totally übber normal to me. Nice composition by the way."
-  Oh thanks! Indeed dear reader. It does, and that is precisely the point. As I said before, digital sensors suffer from poor dynamic range, which is the capacity to render both bright and dark areas of a picture correctly. In other words, you often have the choice between:

• exposing the shady areas well, but the rest is burned out
• exposing the bright areas properly, but the rest is all black

Digital cameras, especially in ISO higher than 400, get pretty poor at that (FYI the best sensors for dynamic range are the ones of the D800, D4 and D600, in that order). It can suck pretty bad on a sunny day.

Interesting fact, what a lot of people like about the image feel from digital Leica M cameras is precisely their good dynamic range. Simply most viewers have a hard time putting a name on it.

Used wisely, that is to say when necessary, it really leads to beautiful landscapes. Yes landscapes only, it still does take 2 pictures and you need a steady subject. I prevents you from having to use graduated filters, which is a pain, or do manual HDR at home on PS.

So when do I use HDR with my D600:

• high contrast landscapes, on bright and sun shinning days.
• ISO above 400 when dynamic range falls appart, even if contrast is not so high
• when I wont need to process the image much, because you can't shoot HDR in RAW. 
• I use +/- 2 stops in general, but it's good to play around
• Not for action shooting or portraits, I find that portraits deserve to make a choice on how to expose your subject, but then again, it's a matter of taste.

Anyway, I hope some of you who never use this, because you wonder what that's for, will now benefit from that great function. Now go out and take pictures !

PS: some exemples of film images with good dynamic range. Notice how darker and brighter areas are rendering with good level of details. Dimensions appear more as a consequence of depth of field rather than exaggerated shades.

Courtesy of Lefty.

*Visualize a Family Guy-like funny flashback of your own creation.

Photoclub stories.

Today I'll try something new. Today I'll actually write a story, a fiction heavily inspired by real events. My story of what goes on in a photography club. 

Let's be clear, this is an aggregation of 3 different events so those of you who recognize themselves, don't email to say "that's not how it went!", because indeed, that's not how it went. I will voluntarily bend reality for the purpose of making stronger points and having a tad bit more fun. Also if you recognize yourself and don't like the way you've been pictured, don't cry: 95% of who I'll describe here I can't recall the name of, or even the face. It's really not personal. Also It is meant to be sarcastic and mean, otherwise it's less fun. I've also met people with real talent, but if I ever mention them in would be as one of my "Inspiration" post. In case you don't read until end, I am in no way pretending this is an accurate description of every photography club. I'm sure there are plenty around that are totally worth it. So take it easy :)

Anyway, this is the story of why I am not part of any photography club. Yet. 

My first attempt at being part of a photography club was motivated by raw enthusiasm: I was boring the hell out of people who had to listen to my photography talk when clearly, they didn't care. I needed an audience that did, and who would talk back with passion. Then a couple of fellas sent an email to other employees of my company: "hey how about we create a photography club? let's meet and brainstorm". Yeah ! I'll go to that! So I enter the room, hands in my pocket and happy to talk about influences, composition, places where we could go to shoot landscapes etc. My first surprise came from the fact that a half of the attendees carried a fully loaded photography equipement bag; and those bags look ed heavy with tripods and strobes, the full package. And it's only guys. Are we going to shoot anything?  Is it the wrong room where they do a gay porn amateur casting?

15 minutes later my pants are still on, it appears it is the photography club room indeed. The hosts have kicked off the conversation by a rather normal "what do you expect from that club" but it's still going all over the place, little structure which it's understandable after a long day of work. Who wants another boring meeting. Then I asked 

-"hey what's with all the gear?". 

Boom baby! Bad idea... That's when I was made aware of the segmentation of this audience.

1. The dudes with the heavy bags. 

Those were craving for the "what's with the gear" question. They had from 5 to 15 G's worth of gear with them and oh boy did they want to show it off. It was a matter of social positioning, like in a high school reunion when you can't wait for someone to ask
-"so what do you do now?
-I'm riiiich I'm so fuckiinnnnng riiiicchhhhher than all of you!  Ok now I can go home, boy that feels good". Those guys rushed on their bag opening it proudly like they were making an offer to get the King's daughter's hand. Also they were looking at each other's bag to figure out who was the alpha, ready to throw a judgmental comment in a faked nice tone. Those guys had really funny combinations of gear: the starting point was usually a Canon 5D. Then, according to the rules of compensation, the 400mm huge white telezoom was the one piece to own. Shooting safaris? No no, but in a street they could point at stuff and say "look look how well I can see it". Also shooting a couple of homeless dudes without having to come too close. We never know, you could catch poverty. Also a couple of exotic lenses, like a 3000$ 6mm fisheye (???????). Those guys made their point, other guys in the rooms should look up to them.

"Hey man look at those nice pixels! wow nice dude, wait i'll go get a bigger lens in my Hummer" Apologies to those guys who might be actually shooting wildlife, but some meetings looked the same.

2. The complete beginners. 

Coming to learn out of others, with a large range of motivations behind them. From the ones trying to understand the gear they got, to the ones with no gear but who just really enjoy a photo exhibit and would like to give it a go. Half those guys entered worship mode when the first category above mentioned opened their bags of candy. The other half was like "oh come on, you guys can compare your dicks in the other room where the gay casting is". 

3. The in-betweeners

Those with a decent camera but too ashamed to show it  in public. Those where the ones who could clearly feel their limitations and they came here to learn. I'm not saying they were limited talent wise. They might have just lacked motivation, opportunities to shoot, skills on how to use their gear, etc. A large chunk of those guys unfortunately believed that they were mostly limited by the fact that they needed the gear displayed by the show offs. Hence they became the main audience of those guys.
-"Oh it's a 5Dmk XXIV with a 970mm f0.015 lens ! Can I touch? Does it take nice pictures?".
Oh now the lens takes the pictures? That's new. In that case I'll just tell my camera to go shoot stuff and I'll  stay home to play Borderland 2. The problem is that this specific segment of the audience still has a chance to be educated into paying attention to the right stuff: composition, exposure, framing, getting inspired by great photographs, etc. But no matter how you put it, the gear conversation seems more interesting. I assume that's because there is no uncertainty: if you pay, you get it. It's not like being inspired or talented. And even when you are, it doesn't mean you're going to pull a good shot anyway. Doisneau used to say "If I knew the recipe for a good picture, I'd only take good pictures!"

   Anyway, after 15 mins of peni... photo equipment show and tell, some one reframed the conversation. 

-"Ok we get it, you guys want to be able to have gear try outs, check. What else?" 

At this moment, my naive sense of hope leads me to think that the conversation on great reporters of the 60ies will start, that we'll speak of the parallels in composition between painting and photography -I exaggerate a little here to sound arty and intellectual- that finally it'll be about pictures. Oh wait, some guy wants to project on the big screen ! Yes we're about to see a picture. Screen turns on...aaaaand...vomit.

I am now facing a 2 by 3 meters horrible piece of HDR pushed so hard that it seems like cell shading in a video game.  Then the question falls: 

-"I want to learn how to do that". 

Yeah. Right. "What's your favorite Twilight movie" would have been a more appropriate question, and probably somehow more related to photography. I look at the audience, for the first sign of hostility. That guy definitely fits  the rules of engagement, somebody open fire please ! 

-"Oh yes me too actually". 

Damnit, this is a lost cause, it's like trying to explain a Justin Bieber audience why Tchaikovsky is awesome (here I am also showing off, coz truthfully by I've been taken to my first opera last week,  Iolanta by tchaikovsky, great stuff).

So here we are, they start projecting things that are essentially a compilation of cheap catchy visual effects, super intense blur, stuff that goes fast but that is sharp, fish eye, HDR, night skies, stuff taken in the dark but where the noise is kinda ok, stuff that was really far away, etc etc. I feel like a bunch of rednecks are being mesmerized by siliconed hookers in an Amsterdam display window, while they would not notice if Natalie Portman walked by them. 

And then, when I though we've hit rock bottom, something I should have seen coming happened: one of the 5Ds guys decided to show us his work. Ok I'll pick that one time when it sucked real bad. I've seen guys taking very clean, academically good shots. But then it's not funny to tell. 

So that guy starts displaying his portfolio. It contains about 500 images, which tells you how satisfied he is with his work and how much efforts he puts in self criticism. We have all the usual homeless portraits, the usual kids portraits, couple of kittens, couple of sunsets, couples in parks loving each other very naturally. All of them have in common that they are sharp (thank you 5000$ camera!), which is actually what qualified them to be in the portfolio. The quality of the above mentioned portfolio having been confirmed on Flickr by "wow, great shots, so sharp!", it is now carved in stone and not open for debate. 

Most of those shots are horribly composed, with things like two subjects one behind the other, both being in focus, no risk whatsoever in the framing since it's totally random anyway, exposition in full auto. Overall you can tell he shot 3000 images and kept the 50 best.

But that's not my favorite part. Here is my favorite part: the "model" photoshoot when the guy convinced the best looking girl he knows among his acquaintances to pose for him in swimwear, in his uncle's garden (because his house looks nicer, he's like the rich one in the family), or on the hood of his dad's car (because what's the difference between a red Mazda MX5 and an Aston Martin). 

Told you ! 

The girl can go from actually good looking to plain comedy. What I love the most is the girl who's convinced she's a super hottie according to our same Amsterdam display windows standards, and who poses like a on a cheap Vegas flyer for his photographer cousin. Priceless family moments. 

The result is usually pathetic poses with subtle attempts at making you believe it's about the eyes (crossing arms under the breasts happens to be accidental), or the usual decors elements that haven't been removed from the scene before shooting (garbage bin in the back etc.) An other personal best is the studio background made of bed sheets. This one is just out of this world ! Here is an example because seriously, I don't possess the narrative skills to describe this shit. Oh and because I had to see a lot of dicks on Flickr to find one, there's no reason you don't get some too:

Finally, there is the priceless reactions in the room: the beginners are looking at it with a mix of suspicion and faked admiration. Wondering when the hell that guy will be done exposing his cousin / sister / wife / wife's sister he secretly wants to bang. 

I could go on and on about how most tend to force contrast, saturation and vignetting like a little girl putting on make up for the first time, but I'll spare you.

Of course, in none of those cases did I stay in the club. One time I even admit I've been lazy and didn't really do anything to level it up. Too much work not enough free time. I should watch my commitments. 

Anyway, here is my advice if you want to set up a photography club in your company, school or group of friends:

• Forbid gear talk. There is seriously enough of it online to fullfil anybody's needs. If someone wants to try a piece that belongs to an other dude, then can send each other emails. 
• Temper the show off, encourage the shyest to express themselves. 
• Have a "shut up and accept the critic" time when people know that they will be facing subjective opinions about their work. It's about fuel for the brain, maybe they agree, maybe not, but it's good to hear constructive points like : "I'm wondering if isolating this part with less depth wouldn't make the story stronger?"
• Shoot, organize sessions where you start by showing a few inspirational great images to define a theme, then every body out to shoot !
• You're only as good as your worst picture. When it comes to showing other, only show what you believe is your best. Don't show something just because you like some effect. Or show it if you can explain what you were trying to do, and you still can't tell why it didn't work.
• Promote shooting in full manual mode with just spot metering. If it's about learning, you need to be able to do yourself what all that engineering tries to do for you. Why? Because no computer can understand what you are trying to capture, don't let technology get in the way. This way everybody will be equal in the group.

see ya next time !

Basic tips for shooting and editing landscape

Today I'll give you a bunch of tips that should allow beginners to greatly improve on their lanscape photography. From there, you should be able to experiment and grow you own skills. I'll cover:

1. Some very basic framing tips (I'll leave advance composition up to you, that's where the fun is)
2. How to set up your camera properly to limit the need for editing afterwards
3. How to edit, because a digital camera is collecting information, it need editing, the digital equivalent of development

I'll use the photos of Tom Grubbe, because he is totally amazing at it, and I suck (I'm a portrait photographer) 

Your goal. From amazing landscape photographer Tom Grubbe.

Framing

Proper framing should draw attention to the subject, put it in context, a create a sensation of "dimension" (call is distance, or multiple plans). An other key element of framing is that the brain extrapolates, sees directions, guesses what's cropped. It's often easy even for an amateur to say "it's poorly framed", or "it's great", but it's harder to actually explain why. 

• Use the rule of third. A picture can be composed in third, as in the following example. Elements, horizon line , you don't need to have anything split in thirds, but some key parts should, to give proper balance.

Courtesy of dpexperience.com

• Use elements that are in different plans to create depth. Front elements should be either on the side, or surrounding the center, of in front but of centered to the left or right, not in the middle. You can then have a middle element that can occupy an other third.

Tom Grubbe.

• Use geometric shapes at your advantage: highlight a escape route, use diagonal lines to lead the eye.

Tom Grubbe again: see of the tree on the left follow by the fence fadding away are perfect examples of the 2 previous points.

Using shapes and geometry (and arrows) to lead to a escape point. This one's by me. 

Set up your camera properly

The big issue for landscape is exposure: it's very unlikely that every element in the shot is receiving or emitting the same amount of light. You already know what I'm talking about: ground element look ok but sky is plain white? Snowy mountains not showing well because they are too bright compared to the rest?Rings a bell? You bet it does. 

What's supposed to help you solve that is proper metering of light, therefore exposure, and dynamic range. The first one is simple: how well did you measure the average amount of light (this way everything is pretty much being exposed properly), the second one is how much you camera can capture huge light variations around that middle point. The higher the dynamic range, the more you camera can capture both dark and bright zones properly. HDR? It means hight dynamic range, it consist it faking better dynamic range by merge 2 or more images. It was essentially invented to compensate a weakness of digital cameras over film: film has fantastic dynamic range.

- Metering: set your camera to matrix metering, this way it will measure light across the entire frame and average it properly.

matrix metering mode is this one, looks the same on every camera. 

- Dynamic range: if you have a modern camera, use the dynamic range functionality. If you don't, you can use filters. You can screw them in front of your lens, and the top part will be filtering light, so that your skies come out blue and detailed, instead of plain white.

- Aperture

Finally, how do you make sure your entire landscape is sharp, both foreground and background? In order to do so, you must shoot with very low aperture (the f.number thingy on your lens). Prefer f8 and above. It reduced the amount of light going thru the lens, so you need to have a slower shutter speed, which lead to more of the image being sharp. The opposite works for portraits. 

That leads us to the one accessory you MUST have for landscape: a tripod. Even a super small cheap one, just anything that allow having a camera steady. Why? because if you open at f11, f16, you'll need a bright sunny day to shoot handheld. Anything other light condition, and the slow shutter speed will make your image blurry. Use a pod.

Use the maximum resolution your camera has to offer, don't for 5MP to save memory card. Get a bigger card ! You didn't spend 500$ on that camera to use it at it's lowest resolution to save 20$ of memory card! (I witnessed that too many times)

Editing your pictures

No, using photoshop is no taboo. Not using photoshop doesn't make you a snob cool artist who's so good he doesn't need it. A digital image need processing, 99.9999% of the time. Why? Because it's your image, you can't let the camera decise for you, otherwise you're just a button pusher. 

What is editing for then? How many time did you find your landscape pictures were flat? Colorless? Misshaped? Ah ah, now I got your attention.

- Correcting distortion

landscape = wide angle lens = distortion. Luckily most editing software have lens profiles in them.They can recognize the lens and offer the right presets for distortion correction. Use it, it's great.

See how the Berlin wall (bottom ) is straight? on the original shot it was curving to the point that the shot was unusable.

- Use the histograms or levels function to adjust the dark and bright zones

This will allow you adjust dynamic range, and give more texture to your image, make it less flat. 

- Correct saturation

Playing with contrast impacts saturation. The more contrast you add, the more saturated your images, to the point that they look like a clown.

Why getting fix focal lenses VS zooms.

You might have noticed that even compact cameras with interchangeable lenses come with a range of fix focal (also called prime) lenses.  The much anticipated Fuji X-Pro 1 for example, comes with a 3 primes. No zoom at all at launch. The not flawless but yet very good Fuji X100 is a fix 35mm camera. Also I haven't seen a zoom lens on a medium format camera (what pros who don't shoot action actually use) ever.

There is a reason to this: appart from specific cases that require flexibility (shooting a wedding, reporters, etc), it's nearly always best to use a prime lens.

Nikon 135mm f/2.0D

Funnily, every kit lens sold with a DSLR is a zoom that actually comes pretty cheap. There's a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with Nikon or Canon executives feeling all generous and christmassy: those kit lenses are crap. Appart for really premium kits (D4, D700, 5D mkII) of course, but then you do pay the price. 

Those 18-55mm lenses than you get for about 200$ in a kit are the result of manufacturers making you believe that what makes a picture is the camera body. It is in no way the case. What makes the picture is you, then the lens. The camera body is just an interface between you and the lens. Some are better than other for sure, but trust me if I shoot with a 35yo 100$ FE and a 2500$ F6 with the same lens, same film, you can't see the difference. Same goes while shooting a D80 or D700: same lens in normal light condition, you just can't tell.

I'll put aside cases when you just can afford changing lenses and really need the option of zooming in an out. Wedding is one of them, documentary, and I'm guessing other stuff but I never encountered them. I am completely fine shooting primes only. So why are they better:

1/ They are smaller and ligher in anyway: they actually weight less. It's pretty normal since they are mechanically simpler.

2/ They perform better than any zoom, even for sometimes a quarter of the price: sharper, less distortion, etc. Since you have only one length, it can be optimize just for this length when zoom lenses have to make compromise.

3/ They can open wide, down to F1.2 when the best zooms are stuck at F2.8. You can shoot in low light better, get ultra nice bokeh etc. 

Nikon 50mm f/1.2 bokeh on a Nikon D7000

4/ They cost a lot less. A 350$ modern prime lens is unmatched by a 1000$ zoom. A good zoom that actually compares usually costs from 800$, up to 1500$. My best prime and probably one of the best on the market, the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS costed me 650$, the price of a rather cheap zoom.

5/ It forces you to compose better. You are given a field of view by the lens, you need to interact with your subject, move, turn around it etc. Tell me if that rings a bell: how many time did you not know how to compose a shot, so you just unzoomed to get it all, then maybe photoshop will do the trick with a bit of cropping? I knew it :p Well with a prime lens, you have a given frame so you have to decide what to cut, what to include etc. Beginners working with prime lenses just do improve faster.

Prime lenses lead to more refined composition.

Ok but a a prime lens can only do on thing, so how many of them do I need to cover the range of my needs ???

I'd say 3 is optimal. A wide angle, a 35 or 50mm for multipurpose, and a portrait lens (100mm or 135mm). Remember, they cost lens...sorry less,  so you could get all three for the price of a premium zoom.