Sorry... I'll try harder.

First off, an apology. I know I haven’t been posting here as often as I had promised, and certainly not as often as I would like to have been; for that, I would like to say a deep and sincere “sorry” to all of my follower. (And yes, I use the singular form advisedly…)

I’ve been busy, and unfortunately, I haven’t even been busy making photographs But I’m going to try to change that. Iknow you’ve heard that before (in part because I know I’ve said that before), so let’s see how it works out this time.

So, for now just a quick post to let you know that I’ve posted some new photos at http://lokahiphoto.com/events/lanterns2009. This Memorial Day, I was lucky enough to be able to watch a beautiful tradition as thousands of lanterns were released into the waters surrounding Magic Island in Honolulu, in commemoration of lost loved ones and in hopes of future lokahi (harmony) for the world.

I’ve also got some that will be coming soon of a beautiful fall morning in Taylor’s Falls, Minnesota; they’ll be in the Landscapes area. Next up on the editing block are some photos I made in Alaska earlier this year as I was hanging around Anchorage between temporary duty trips. Hopefully I’ll be able to get to (and through) them fairly quickly.

Thanks for stopping by, and check back often!

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.

Looking for more great photography related info? Check out the PhotoFocus blog and podcast and theThis Week in Photography blog and podcast.

The Power of a Photograph

I recently had found myself pondering the power of photography, and of photographs, in our personal lives.

I’m not talking here about the iconic images you see of major news events, like Eisenstaedt’s shot of the sailor and the nurse kissing in Times Square on V-J day, or the frame that captured one of the aircraft headed for the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Neither am I talking about those photos of strangers that seem to offer a glimpse into the human soul, like Dorothea Lange’s “Migrant Mother.”

I’m talking about pictures of the people around you: your friends, family and other loved ones. And I’m talking about pictures of you.

You see, my father passed away earlier this year after a battle with cancer. I flew back to be with my family, to help with arrangements and to attend his memorial. The days leading up to the funeral were hectic to say the least; I’m grateful for the assistance provided by the wonderful and tremendously helpful folks from hospice and from the funeral home. Even with all their help, however, it was a very busy time, especially for my mother.

So what struck me about this process? How much time my family and I spent… looking at photographs. Looking at, reviewing, and arranging photographs, and building several poster board collages we displayed at the memorial review.

I knew we had quite a few slides that catalogued our family experiences as my siblings and I grew up and explored our world, but I was a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume of images we had that I didn’t even know existed… Hundreds, perhaps over a thousand, slides and prints. Images of my father, my mother, their relatives and friends, how they grew up and explored their world. Prints that showed my Dad as a kid in south Minneapolis, in his Marine Corps recruit platoon, and shipping out to Korea during the war. A record of his life. A record, in the beginning, intertwined with that of his parents, relatives and friends. Later, a record intertwined with that of his children, nieces and nephews, and their friends. As a photographer, it struck a chord in me.

So I want to say a couple of things about the power of a photograph; not pictures that are going to win a Pulitzer, but the pictures of you and the people that have surrounded you throughout your life.

First of all, photographs provide a “trace” of our existence. Those we love, and those who love us, will never forget; but a photographic record reinforces those memories and provides a great emotional resource once we’re gone.

This next point applies to everyone, but it especially applies to my fellow photographers out there. It is very important that we have GOOD photos of those we love, in groups of two or more. Individual formal portraits are great, but the pictures that really hit me were the ones of my Dad with his friends and relations. The pictures that show those social interactions emphasize how many lives he touched, and how privileged we were to know him. So, photographers: make those pictures! I know how people can get annoyed by having their picture taken again and again at those family events; do it anyway. They’ll thank you later. Also, photographers: give that camera to someone else every now and then, and make sure YOU appear in some of those pictures. Seriously.

So take those pictures. Take those old slides and negatives you have, and get them scanned. Catalog them in whatever way makes the most sense to you, but keep the memories… It’s important.

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.

Looking for more great photography related info? Check out the PhotoFocus blog and podcast and theThis Week in Photography blog and podcast.

Canon PowerShot G-10

OK, I know I promised to post my thoughts about the Canon PowerShot G-10 high-end point and shoot camera ($499 US MSRP; street price $469.95 at B&H Photo/Video), and I know it’s been a while since I made that promise; I’ve been busy. I’m sorry. But as they say, “better late than never.”

Unlike the Panasonic Lumix LX-3 (which I talked about in this post), I have laid hands on a G10. On the surface, it has all the minimum requirements that I wanted in a “take everywhere” compact digital camera: major manufacturer, minimum 10 megapixels, raw capture capable, raw file support in Apple Aperture, takes video. Like the LX-3, however, I had some reservations about the G10 that ultimately led me to a different choice for my everyday shooter. Details? OK.

Once again, I’ll start with the good. The G10 is the follow-on to the impressive G9, which had been very popular with pro/serious amateur photographers. It comes in at 14.7 effective megapixels, the highest resolution of the three cameras that were in the running. It also sports a zoom lens with a 28-140 35mm equivalent range, going out slightly longer than the Nikon Coolpix P6000 and significantly longer than the LX3. Its LCD monitor is a spacious 3 inches diagonally, the largest of the three. Overall, clearly a very capable camera.

The bad… Really, not much, but enough to be a deal-breaker for me. I’m not a huge fan of Canon’s control layouts. Honestly, if I had grown up shooting Canon, I’d probably be fine with their setup, but I didn’t, and that factor loomed large in my decision-making. Combine that with the fact that the G10 is kind of big for a compact (larger in every dimension than the P6000; almost a full half an inch taller), and it became obvious to me that this camera didn’t provide the level of convenience I was looking for. After all, a camera could have the best lens, sensor, and on-board processor in the world, but it does you absolutely no good if you didn’t bring it along because a) you don’t like working with its controls, or b) it won’t fit in your pocket!

By now it should be obvious that I went with the Nikon Coolpix P6000 as my everyday, everywhere camera. I’ve had it for a couple of months now, and have developed some initial impressions. Stay tuned for them; I’ll do my best to get them posted a little more expeditiously. I promise.

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.

Looking for more great photography related info? Check out the PhotoFocus blog and podcast and theThis Week in Photography blog and podcast.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

Let me be up front about this... I have never handled a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 (MSRP $499.95, street price $429.95 at B&H Photo and Video), so these impressions are based on information I've gathered from elsewhere. For those of you thinking "How can you review a camera you've never seen in the flesh," here's how: I'm NOT reviewing the camera. I'm summarizing what I know about it, and telling you why I didn't pick it as my "take everywhere" camera. In the interest of full disclosure, I also own several Nikon cameras; two film SLRs, two DSLRs and a point-and-shoot. (I also have two Sony digital point-and-shoots and a Kodak Easy Share digital point-and-shoot that my kids use, and an old manual focus Minolta X-370 film SLR with several lenses. Some people I know might call me a Nikon fanboy...)

First up, the positive... I've heard good things about the LX3's lens, and since it's a Leica, I'm inclined to believe them. The focal length ranges from 5.1mm-12.8mm (35mm equivalent 24mm-60mm), which is nicely wide at the short end. The maximum aperture is f/2.0 at the wide end and f/2.8 at the telephoto end for exceptional depth of field control. Panasonic also shows they haven't been seduced by megapixel madness: the LX3 sports a sensor with a modest 11.3 total (10.1 effective) megapixels, the lowest megapixel count of the cameras I'll be discussing. It also appears to have the lowest "pixel density" (pixels per square inch) of the three, which can have a positive effect on noise. Like all three high-end point-and-shoots I'll talk about, it offers custom white balancing; full-auto, aperture priority, shutter priority, and manual shooting modes; and RAW image recording. Sounds nice...

The negative: The controls look a little obtuse and fiddly to me. It also has an external lens cap that I've heard can become an annoyance; it comes with a lanyard, but it can certainly be a pain to have a lens cap flopping around on the end of string when you're trying to create art, and if I didn't put it on the lanyard, I'd be GUARANTEED to lose it. And now, the big one.

Like all digital cameras that offer RAW file capability, the LX3 has a RAW format that is unique to this camera model. (ALL cameras' RAW formats are unique; since they all have different sensors/electronics/recorded metadata, no two are alike.) The problem is that the LX3's RAW format is not supported by Apple's Aperture imaging program, which happens to be my RAW workflow solution of choice. (This information is current as of the time of writing; Apple may offer LX3 RAW support in the future, but that ship has already sailed as far as I'm concerned.) Why? I don't really know, although I've heard it may have to do with the fact that Panasonic's own RAW conversion software (SilkyPix) allegedly applies distortion correction to RAW files without any user input, a "feature" of which I'm not a big fan. RAW data is supposed to be just that: unprocessed, uncorrected information directly from the sensor. Adobe Camera RAW and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom both support RAW files from the LX3, but I'm just not willing to include a different RAW workflow to accommodate my point-and-shoot.

Despite the good things I've heard about the LX3, the RAW format issue was a deal-breaker for me. It may be a great camera, but the LX3 was just not the camera for me.

Next up: Thoughts on the Canon Powershot G10.

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.

Looking for more great photography info? Check out the "This Week in Photography" blog (http://www.twipphoto.com) and podcast (iTunes; elsewhere). Need help managing your digital life? Everything you need to know at http://mydl.me!

The First Rule of Photography

Some years ago, I ran across an old truism about gunfighting: "The first rule of gunfighting is... have a gun."

It was intended to illustrate the point that even if you buy the latest new whiz-bang firearm for self-protection, it isn't going to do you a lot of good if you don't have it available when you need it. Lately it occurred to me that the same idea can apply to photography: "The first rule of photography is have a camera."

The underlying point here is the same. The latest, greatest whiz-bang DSLR with a zillion megapixels, and lenses you had to mortgage your kids to buy won't do you any good if they're sitting at home when you see that once-in-a-lifetime shot. Between listening to photo-related podcasts and trolling online photography forums, I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that if I want to improve my photographic eye, I should always have a camera with me.

"But Tim," I can hear you saying, "who wants to carry fifty (or fifteen, or even five) pounds of camera gear around with you everywhere you go?" Nobody, that's who. But how else are you going to be able to do justice that shot-of-a-lifetime you happen to run across, if you don't at least have a DSLR with a decent zoom?

High-end, raw-shooting compact cameras to the rescue! Several manufacturers have introduced point-and-shoot style cameras that include good lenses, a wide range of manual controls, and the ability to shoot in the raw format (which is really what you need if you want to get the most from your pictures). In a series of upcoming posts, I'l talk briefly about three that have gotten a lot of press lately: the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, the Canon PowerShot G10 and the Nikon Coolpix P6000, and tell you which one I settled on for my "always with me" camera.

Stay tuned!

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.

Looking for more great photography info? Check out the "This Week in Photography" blog (http://www.twipphoto.com) and podcast (iTunes; elsewhere). Need help managing your digital life? Everything you need to know at http://mydl.me!

Histograms 101

Got a digital camera?  Do you use Adobe Photoshop? (or Photoshop Elements, or Nikon Capture NX, or Lightroom, or Aperture, or just about any other digital image editing app?) Then you’ve probably seen a histogram, whether you know it or not.  If you’ve read any blogs or forums about digital photography, or listened to any podcasts about digital photography, you’ve probably heard that you should “check your histogram” or “keep an eye on the histogram” to get an idea of how good your exposure was.  If you’re like me, right about now you’re probably wondering just what the heck a histogram is and what you should be looking for when you “keep an eye on it,” but you don’t want to ask.  Not to worry; I’m here to help!

So, what’s a histogram?  Here’s what Dictionary.com has to say about it:

“–noun Statistics.

a graph of a frequency distribution in which rectangles with bases on the horizontal axis are given widths equal to the class intervals and heights equal to the corresponding frequencies.”

 Oh, that’s all it is?  Right.  Got it.  Perfectly clear now.  

Not. 

Let’s see if I can untangle that a little bit for you.  As it pertains to a photograph, a histogram is a depiction of the relative brightness levels of the pixels in the image.  That probably didn’t help, did it? 

OK, let’s try an example.  Here’s a simple black to white gradient:

And here’s the histogram that goes with it:

As you can see, the histogram is almost completely flat, and extends all the way from left to right.  That’s because there are an equal number of pixels at each brightness level in the image it represents.  Now, look at this gradient, in which I’ve shifted the midpoint to the right, so it has more dark pixels than light:

Here’s the histogram for this gradient: 

You can see that it “piles up” at the left side, at the lower brightness levels, reflecting the fact that there are more dark pixels in this gradient.  Here’s a gradient with a left-shifted midpoint, which increases the number of light pixels:

 And here’s the corresponding histogram:

Now the graph “piles up” on the right side since there are more light pixels than dark. 

Here’s a picture I recently took in Japan of some trees after a fresh snow lit by the rising sun: 

 And the histogram for this shot:

 

Based on what we now know about histograms, what can we tell about this image?  Well, we can see that there are quite a few dark pixels (evidenced by the peak at the left end of the graph), not too many in the medium-dark range, and quite a few in the medium-light area.  Also, the fact that the peak on the left-hand side piles up against the edge of the graph indicates that there are areas of the photo in the shadows that have completely lost detail (they’ve gone entirely black, commonly called "blocked-up shadows").  On the other hand, since there’s no peak on the right end of the graph there should be details visible in all the highlight areas.  Since there’s some “room” at the right end of the graph, it shows that I could have increased my exposure by about half a stop or so without losing much detail in the highlights. 

That’s enough for now; in the future, I’ll get into some more details about how you can use a histogram to make adjustments while you’re out shooting and increase your chances of getting that “perfect shot!”

 

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.

Looking for more great photography related info? Check out the This Week in Photography blog and podcast.

Quick Tip #1 – Polarizing Filters

A lot of people will tell you, with so many powerful image-editing software packages available, that filters are unnecessary. (Just to be clear, I'm talking about the kind of filters you attach to your lens, not the kind you find in Photoshop.) That’s true… to an extent. You can pretty well replicate the effect of many popular filters with a click or two in your favorite image editor. Split neutral density, graduated neutral density, and color correction filters, as well as many “special effects” filters have awfully good software equivalents, but there are a few filters you can’t replace easily (or even at all). One of these is the polarizing filter. Keep reading, and I’ll tell you why you want to keep one of these in your bag and how to make the best use of it.

Polarization is a physical property of light. The easiest way to explain it is to think of wiggling a rope to make waves travel along it; if you move the end of the rope up and down, the waves will be vertical:


If you move the rope side to side, the waves will be horizontal. Un-polarized light has both kinds of waves, while “perfectly” polarized light has waves that oscillate in only one direction. A polarizing filter does to light kind of like what a picket fence would do to your wiggling rope. If the rope runs through a picket fence, only waves in one direction will pass through and waves in the other direction will be cancelled out. The polarizing filter is like that picket fence for the light going into your lens; light oscillating in one plane passes through and light oscillating in the other plane is blocked. Put two polarizing filters together (two picket fences), with their “slats” turned ninety degrees to each other, and ALL the light is blocked and NO light gets through.

Now here’s the photography part: light can get polarized in different ways. Light reflected from a non-metal surface (think glass or water) gets polarized; light passing through the glass, or the surface of the water, remains non-polarized. Put a polarizing filter on your lens and rotate it to the right angle, and you block the light reflected from the water or the glass, i.e. you block the contrast- and saturation-robbing glare you get from those reflections. Ever seen pictures of the ocean where you can see right through the water’s surface to the fish swimming beneath? Probably shot with a polarizer. Likewise photos of shop windows where you can hardly see the glass. Need to kill reflections? Throw on a polarizing filter and fire away. How do you know what the “right angle” is, you ask? Easy! Compose your shot and then rotate the polarizer until the reflections are minimized.

Are there other situations where a polarizer can come in handy? Absolutely! Have you ever seen a landscape with a beautiful, dark blue saturated sky? Chances are there was a polarizer involved there, too. As sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere, it also gets partially polarized. By using a polarizing filter, you can block some of the polarized light, which will darken and saturate that blue sky. There’s a catch, though; the whole sky isn’t polarized equally. Some areas of the sky are more polarized, and therefore more susceptible to the effect of a polarizing filter, than others. You’ll get the maximum darkening effect if you point your lens ninety degrees to the path of the sun through the sky. Put more simply, keep the sun off one of your shoulders for the maximum effect. If the sun is directly behind or directly in front of you, you won’t get nearly as much out of your filter. Also, be careful using a polarizer with a wide-angle lens. The large angle of view you get means the sky can end up lighter at one side of the frame and darker at the other side, which can look pretty funny. The bright side is that you see the effect of the polarizer through the viewfinder, so you can catch this gotcha before you trip the shutter if you’re paying attention.

How much would you pay for this magical filter that can cut glare and give you gorgeous saturated blue skies? Don’t answer yet! There’s more! Many kinds of leaves have a waxy coating that polarizes reflected light. By cutting that reflected glare with a polarizing filter, you can nicely saturate the greens of summer foliage or the beautiful golds and reds of fall leaves.

There are a couple of things you’ll want to keep in mind about polarizing filters, though. First of all, there are two types available, linear and circular. Which do you want to buy? If you have an autofocus camera, get a circular polarizer. Autofocus cameras may be unable to focus with a linear polarizer mounted. I have also heard that evaluative metering systems in newer cameras may not work properly with a linear polarizer. Another caveat: regardless of what kind of polarizer you use, you’ll lose about one stop of light; for example, say you shoot a scene without a filter and your aperture and shutter speed are f/4 and 1/1000 of a second for the desired exposure. Add a polarizer and you’ll need to use either (about) f/2.8 and 1/1000 or (about) f/4 and 1/500 to achieve the same exposure. Not necessarily good or bad, just something to be aware of.

So do you need a polarizer? Like so many other questions in photography, the answer is a definite “it depends.” It depends on the kind of shooting you do and what effects you want to achieve. I will tell you this, however: a polarizer can do things for you that are very difficult, if not impossible, to do in software-based post-processing.

Visit my photography site at http://lokahiphoto.com.

Looking for more great photography info?  Check out the This Week in Photography blog and podcast.

© 2008 Tim Soderholm