photo.net Learn Photography

Transcription

featuring 303,881 images
with 199,756 comments
Sign in | Search:
content
www.photo.net : Learn
●
●
Beginners
Making Photographs:
❍ Light
❍ Lens
❍ Film
❍ Exposure
❍ Camera
Good photography with a point and shoot
camera
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Learn from other photo.net users
the photo.net discussion forums
chat
Technique
Book Reviews
Workshops, esp.
Film Recommendations
Using Filters
Using Tilt-Shift Lenses
●
Caring for Equipment
Cleaning Cameras and Lenses
Camera Repair
Insurance
●
Buying Equipment and Camera Reviews
Separate section: Equipment
●
●
●
●
●
●
Interviews
Portrait photograher Elsa Dorfman
Professional photographer David Julian
Background
History of Photography (timeline)
Optics
http://www.photo.net/learn/ (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:15:35 PM]
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Taking Pictures
Portraits
Gardens
Architecture
Interiors
Ruins
Macro
Studio
Nudes
Underwater
Sports and Action
Concerts
Astrophotography
Star trails
Infrared and Ultraviolet
Pinhole Photography
Street Photography
Subsection: Nature
●
Post-Exposure
Choosing a Computer System for
Digital Imaging
Darkroom
Labs: where to get film developed,
printed, or scanned to PhotoCD
Evaluating photographs: using a lightbox
and loupe to find the winners
Storing slides, negs, photos
Notes on framing
Slide Projectors
Subsection: Digital Editing (PhotoShop)
●
Publishing and Sharing
Scanning and Publishing on the Web
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
the photo.net image sharing service
Consider Contributing articles to photo.net
These are examples from
Nudes Exhibit/Tutorial
© 2000, 2001, 2002 photo.net, All Rights Reserved. Design by Ulla Zang.
About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Advertising | In the News | Site Map | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of
Use | Privacy
The equipment reviewed on this site can be purchased at
This vendor supports photo.net.
http://www.photo.net/learn/ (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:15:35 PM]
Tips for Using a Point & Shoot Camera
Sign in | Search:
content
Support photo.net
By Philip Greenspun
Retailers who support photo.net:
Home : Learn : One Article
Contents:
1. Yes, it can
be done
2. Think
about Light
3. Just say no
4. Just say yes
5. Prefocus
6. Burn Film
7. Try to Buy
a Decent
P&S
Camera
Reader's
Comments
Yes, it can be done
Do you feel inadequate because you have a puny Yashica T4 in your pocket but your no-dick friend is
lugging around a Canon EOS-1 SLR, Tamron 28-200 zoom lens, and moby flash?
Don't.
http://www.photo.net/learn/point-and-shoot-tips (1 of 35) [5/15/2002 7:15:46 PM]
You can get a better picture than he can, for the following reasons:
●
●
●
●
Your camera weighs 8 oz. and is weatherproof so you have it with you at all times.
You have a decent lens in front of the film; like most first-time SLR owners these days, he has a
cheap low-contrast zoom lens.
He is using that moby on-camera flash as his primary light. You would never be that uncreative
(at least not after reading the rest of this article).
Your camera has a better system for combining light from the flash with ambient light ("fillflash").
A professional photographer with a pile of $1500 lenses and a
tripod is going to be able to do many things that you aren't. But
rest assured that he carries a P&S camera in his pocket as well.
The photo at right shows Bill Clinton handing out a diploma at
MIT's 1998 graduation ceremony. I was in the press box with a
Canon EOS-5, 70-200/2.8L lens, and 1.4X teleconverter ($2500
total). In the upper right of the frame is a woman with a point and
shoot camera. I would venture to guess that her pictures of
Clinton are better than mine.
Think about Light
"He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went
blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it
and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking
at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it."
-- Joseph Romm
My personal definition of photography is "the recording of light rays." It is therefore difficult to take a
decent picture if you have not chosen the lighting carefully. (I've written an entire tutorial on light.)
Just say no
Just say "no" to on-camera flash. Your eye needs shadows to make out shapes. When the light is
coming from the same position as the lens, there are no shadows to "model" faces. Light from a point
source like the on-camera flash falls off as the square of the distance from the source. That means
things close to the camera will be washed-out, the subject on which you focussed will be properly
exposed, and the background will be nearly black.
We're at a
theater. Can't you tell from the background? That's me in the middle. The guy with the flat face and big
washed-out white areas of skin. Part of the problem here is that the camera was loaded with Fujichrome
Velvia, which is only ISO 50 and therefore doesn't capture much ambient light (i.e., the theater
background). [Despite this picture's myriad faults, I'm glad that I have it because it spruces up Travels
with Samantha, Chapter III.]
Virtually all point and shoot cameras allow you to control the on-camera flash. What you want to do
most of the time is press the leetle tiny buttons until the "no flash" symbol is displayed. The "no flash"
symbol is usually a lightning bolt with a circle around it and line through it. Now the camera will never
strobe the flash and will leave the shutter open long enough to capture enough ambient light to make an
exposure.
A good point and shoot camera will have a longest shutter speed of at least 1 second. You can probably
only hold the camera steady for 1/30th of a second. Your subjects may not hold still for a full second
either. So you must start looking for ways to keep the camera still and to complete the exposure in less
time. You can:
●
●
●
●
●
look for some light. Move your subjects underneath whatever light sources are handy and see
how they look with your eyes.
load higher-speed film. ISO 400 and ISO 800 color print films are the correct emulsions for
P&S photography. ISO 400 film can get the same picture in one quarter the amount of time as
ISO 100 film.
steady the camera against a tree/rock/chair/whatever as you press the shutter release
leave the camera on a tree/rock/chair/whatever and use the self-timer so that the jostling of
pressing the shutter release isn't reflected on film. I often use this technique for photographing
decorated ceilings in Europe. I just leave the camera on the floor, self-timer on, flash off.
use a little plastic tripod, monopod, or some other purpose-built camera support
Yes it was dark in Bar 89. But I steadied the camera against a
stair railing and captured the scene with my Minolta Freedom
Zoom 28-70. Note that not using flash preserves the lighting of
the bar.
Just say yes
Just say "yes" to on-camera flash. Hey, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (Emerson;
slightly out of context).
The on-camera flash on a P&S camera is useful. It just isn't useful for what you'd think. As I note
above, it is not useful for lighting up a dark room. However, it is useful outdoors when you have both
shaded and sunlit objects in the same scene. Photographic film and paper cannot handle the same range
of contrast as your eyes. A picture that is correctly exposed for the sunlight object will render the
shaded portrait subject as solid black. A picture that is correctly exposed for the shaded portrait subject
will render the sunlit background object as solid white.
Here the chess players are being shaded by some overhead
screens while the background foliage is not. The on-camera flash
makes sure that the foreground players are bright. In fact they are
a bit brighter than they probably should be and note the washedout highlight on the leading edge of the table, which is close to
the camera. This picture was taken by prefocusing on the shirtless
player on the right, then moving the camera with the shutter
release half-depressed to the final composition. Without the
prefocusing the camera would have latched onto one of the chess
tables in the center of the picture, quite far away. The foreground
men would have been out of focus and also tremendously
overexposed since an amount of flash adequate to illuminate a far
away subject would have been used. [Note that most $1000 SLR
cameras would not have been capable of making this picture
except in a completely manual mode. Their flash metering
systems are too stupid to couple to the focus distance. An
exception is the series of Nikon SLRs from 1994 on with "D"
flash metering.]
Pressing the little buttons on a P&S camera until a single solid lightning bolt appears in the LCD
display will keep the flash on at all times. Note that a side-effect of the "flash on" mode is that you also
get the same long shutter speeds for capturing ambient light that you would with "flash off" mode. The
standard illustrative picture for this has an illuminated building at night as the background with a group
of people in the foreground who've been correctly exposed by the flash.
Sometimes it all comes together, as it did here in Coney Island. Without fillflash, the ride operator would have been a silhouette. Prefocussed on the
human subject's face. "Flash on" mode.
Prefocus
The best-composed photographs don't usually have their subject
dead center. However, that's where the focusing sensor on a P&S
camera is. Since the best photographs usually do have their
subject in sharp focus, what you want to do is point the center
sensor at your main subject, hold the shutter release halfway
down, then move the camera until you like the composition.
Virtually all P&S cameras work this way but not everyone knows
it because not everyone is willing to RTFM.
A side effect of prefocusing is that most P&S cameras will preset exposure as well. Ideal exposure with
a reflected light meter is obtained when the subject reflectance is 18% gray (a medium gray). Exposure
isn't very critical with color negative film, but you still might want to attempt to prefocus on something
that is the correct distance from the camera and a reasonable mid-tone. I.e., avoid focusing on
something that is pure white or black. This becomes much more important if you are using slide film.
Burn Film
If a roll of film is lasting three months, then something is wrong. You aren't
experimenting enough. An ideal roll of film for me has 35 pictures of the
same subject, all of them bad. These prove that I'm not afraid to experiment.
And then one good picture. This proves that I'm not completely incompetent.
It takes at least 10 frames to get one good picture of one person. To have
everyone in a group photo looking good requires miles of film. You should
have pictures from different angles, different heights, flash on, flash off, etc.
My personal standard film for P&S photography is Fuji ISO 400 negative
film. It enlarges very nicely to 8x10 and is great for Web presentation.
Try to Buy a Decent P&S Camera
You can read my buyer's guide. Basically what you want is a reasonably wide angle lens to capture
your subject and the background context. Focal lengths beyond 70mm in P&S cameras are not useful.
My personal ideal camera would have a 24-50 or a 24-70 zoom though actually in many ways I prefer a
camera with only a single focal length because it is one fewer decision to make at exposure time.
Zooms are more useful with full-sized SLR cameras because the user interface is better/quicker (i.e.,
you can turn the ring on the lens instead of pushing little buttons to drive a motor).
Whatever you may choose to buy, you can help defray the cost of running photo.net by buying from
Adorama, Photoalley, or ritzcamera.com.
[ top ]
Reader's Comments
I seem to be leaving comments all over this site. My T-4 comment has to do with the use
of flash. I am constantly taking pictures indoors and ligthing them with my Vivitar 283.
I've had one of these units since 1976 and they remain a workhorse (my first one croaked
after 6 years and my disassembly of it with a Swiss Army Knife). Anyway, every P&S
camera suffers from weenie flash syndrome, including the Nikon 35Ti and Yashica T4.
I've owned both. I finally went out and got a slave for the 283 and now happily bounceflash my indoor pictures. It works really well, lighting the whole room up, looking
natural and soft, and the small camera flash even fills in the eye sockets a bit.
As for the T-4, I took back my Nikon 35Ti and traded it in for 2 T-4s (one for wife, one
for mother in law) about 3 years ago. They are so nice I just got a T-4 Super for my Dad
when his old Nikon P&S packed up on him. I bought this last one from Camera World of
Oregon with no delays, hassles or problems.
Have fun with the T-4/283 combo. I wish they'd make it with a hot shoe, like the old
Minox scale-focusing mini-35mm camera.
M Cole
-- Matthew Cole, January 19, 1997
The new Ricoh GR-1 gives back complete control of exposure, focus, and flash to the
photographer. The lens is a 28mm/2.8 symmar formula. It weighs 6 oz, has metal
everywhere it needs to have it: top, bottom, back, film channel + more. Ricoh has so
understated this camera that it will take most people years to figure out -- finally, there is
a tool to have at all times, and take superb photos. I use it to take available light shots of
musicians and dancers. Oh yes, its full frame 35mm, one inch thick, all black, costs $454.
There's more. Center weighted metering down to EV 6. Then it switches to averaging
plus the finder internally illuminates so you can see the shutter speed, exposure
compensation (2 stops) and distance (ikons) in the finder window. Its a lot of fun!
-- myron wolf, March 5, 1997
I've had a Ricoh GR-1 for about a month and I've shot a dozen rolls of negative and slide
(Velvia, E100S) film with it. I find that the 28 mm f 2.8 lens is very sharp and contrasty
and yields nice colors. On the down side, it appears to be somewhat more prone to flare
than my SLR's lenses, and there is no provision for attaching a lens hood. Exposure
metering is accurate enough for Velvia; exposure compensation is through an intuitive
(for me anyway) analogue knob. The camera is extremely compact and light, and the allmetal skin rugged. I found the camera control layout easy to understand, and the camera
fits nicely in my hands. It cost $450; I think it's a superb camera.
Some complaints I have are (1) the viewfinder is rather small for eye-glass wearers; (2)
there is no cable release; (3) external flashes cannot be used; (4) on/off button is easy to
activate inadvertently; (5) there's no weatherproofing; (6) no manual ISO setting; (7) no
depth-of field information (even in the manual); (8) somewhat cryptic manual.
-- Adrian Ferre-D'Amare, May 1, 1997
I agree with Philip on his choice of the yashica t4 camera. I personally own 3 cameras...
A canon elan iie w/ a couple of decent lenses, a yashica t4 and a canon elph APS
camera... While each of these have their own merits and limitations... I have to say the
flash metering system specifically fill-flash on the Canon Elph APS camera is the best I
have ever used...
-- Ravi Nagpal, August 28, 1997
One thing about point and shoot cameras: they work best if you understand a little bit
about exposure. Exposure meters in cameras try to make everything a medium tone
(think green leaves---that's medium tone). If you're trying to take a photo that's bright,
the camera will still try to render it medium tone. The solution in those cases is to get a
lock on something medium tone but in the same distance, press the shutter release
halfway down, and then recompose and shoot.
Example: you're trying to take a picture of a sunset with the sun in it. Point at the horizon
with no sun in it, press shutter halfway, point at the sun, and then shoot.
This explains why all sunset photos taken with point and shoot cameras look too dark.
Wish I'd known this a year ago.
-- Piaw Na, December 10, 1997
Here's another idea for a backup/travel camera. I recently found a 1950's German made
Voightlander Vitamatic in the local camera store for $40! The lens is a 50mm/2.8 Skopar
all-metal thing that looks like a miniature Hasselblad lens. It's completely manual and
has a built in light meter (no batteries required). It even has a flash shoe and will sync up
to 1/300th. Yeah... it's a little heavier than the modern P&S cameras... but if you need a
backup camera... consider an old classic.
-- Albert E. Anderson, May 12, 1998
One of the nice things about returning to P&S photography with a fixed lens is that it
sends u back to thinking about the basics of image making again.
I've just spent the better part of the last 3 weeks trying out a few models of all the famous
P&S single focal length cult cameras mainly to try and make a decision on which one is
the most suitable for me. The experiences have been recorded elsewhere in the site, but
with regards to technique, it just brought me back to remembering how to think about
light, composition, perspective, support and basic camera handling. With these pillars of
photography set straight, it is indeed possible to get shots on a P&S as good as any top
notch SLR.
It's true, u don't really need stacks of equipment to ensure u can take good photos. With
the above fundamentals set out, u already have enuff to be an A student. With all the
other bells and whistles, u may probably get to A+. But IMHO, since the 80/20 rule is
applicable to most things in life, the last 20% may not be worth the extra cost or effort.
Unless u r a perfectionist, or a professional, or both.
-- T C Khoo, September 26, 1998
This will be no revelation, but I think more and more who read this section have come to
expect more and more capabilities out of the Point and Shoot category. And most aren't
going to be happy with a Rollei 35 or a Canonet I think. Those who will admit to this no
compromise will want to look seriously again at the Silver Hexar. Not a big camera by
any means, grippable and well layed out- see Caruana's wonderful review elsewhere.(No
offense to the GR-1 people, I havent tried it at all) On Program mode Hexar behaves like
my Leica Mini III only better,-tack sharp lens. ( I have the option of setting it up so that
the Hexar knows that outdoors I like a lot of DOF, but if forget and I set it at 2.8, at least
it will give me some kind of photo.)OTH, when I shot at night from a hotel window last
month I put it on manual mode, used the camera meter to find a gray tone and let the spot
metering get the exposure. Then I pushed MF to get bam to infinity focus through a
windown and I was good to go.( But if you think I didn't ALSO carry a T-90 with three
lenses in my kit on the trip, you arent a member in good standing of the schlep- whatyou-just- may need club.:-)either.
-- Gerry Siegel, November 1, 1998
I am a public school teacher, but have been doing serious photography, pro and hobby,
since 1959. I have used everything from 4x5 through 6x6, 645, 35, etc. About a year ago
I obtained a Leica CL from my repairman for a song, and loved what I could do with it. I
totally hate photo mags that advertise "stepping-up" to bigger and bigger film sizes. I
want to "step-down" to greater freedom, speed, and spontaneous artistry. Be that as it
may, I bought a Leica Minilux last week (before I even knew that T-4's existed!!!), but
enjoy this camera greatly. Here's the bottom line: I live in the San Jose California area
and would like to gather serious P&S users for regular P&S only field excursions (a few
times a year) with some sharing of results later on...and lots of fun, food, etc. If anyone in
the S.F. Bay area is interested, feel free to send an e-mail with a phone number...mine is
(408) 686-1441, so call if you like, but,please, no solicitors! Thanks, Todd
-- Todd Fredrick, November 4, 1998
good pages! just bought a yashica T5 and look forward using it, you set away my doubts
over leaing my dear nikon behind for a while (wait till i get my first pictures, though)
sure oone thing: ps is fast.
-- jules l, January 30, 1999
I don't know how many people have tried this old camera, but I've just gotten it from my
mother: Ricoh 500 G. It must be a predecessor to the newer G's, but I hadn't heard of it
before. It's a real rangefinder, having full manual control (as well as offering automatic
exposure...which has proven to be reasonably accurate from some of my trials). I'm
totally blown away by the quality of the lens in this camera. It's every bit as sharp as my
SLR...although I haven't put it to the test with slide film yet. And it's tiny! Although
heavier than my Olympus P & S. For those times when I have more than a moment to
fiddle, but don't want to bother with my SLR, this camera is awesome.
-- Heidi Weaver, January 30, 1999
Just a short note to let you know about Fuji's Ga645 medium format P'n'shooters. After
overdosing on gearomania, I've decided to get myself a one lens, one camera combo and
work on fundementals and lighting. The GA 645 was perfect for me and the 645 neg
enlarges quite gracefully to 11 X 14. It's exactly the same in operations as a 35mm point
and shoot save for a few goodies such as vertical framing, cable release, tripod socket,
etc.
It won't fit in your pocket though...
-- Benoit Doloreux, February 2, 1999
I've recently started taking pictures with a P&S after having had some experience taking
pictures with an SLR. I've had good results with my Yashica T5 (T4 Super in the US).
I've experimented with its different flash modes and I found that the Fill-In flash works
better than the Automatic Flash or Red-Eye Reduction mode. Even in taking pictures
indoors with even lighting, I use the Fill-In flash mode. The camera does a good job with
the exposure as it balances the light reflected by the subject and the background light.
There's less overexposure on the subject, and less shadows on the background. One trick
to reduce red-eye effect, I just tell the subjet to look at a light source for a moment and
then pose. Also, I use the Super Scope (waist level viewfinder) frequently since I'm a tall
person living in Asia. This eliminates the barreling on some pictures caused by the wide
angle lens if you take them from a high viewpoint. It's also neat to take pictures without
people knowing it. They all think that I'm just checking how many shots I have left,
while I'm actually looking through the Super Scope and snapping away (without flash of
course). Another point, if you're ever in Vietnam, check out the cheap prices of cameras
in Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon) and Hanoi. Their prices are competitive to those in
the States and cheaper than in other countries in this region (i.e. Ricoh GR1 = 400USD;
Olympus mjuII = 130USD).
-- Ronald Gregorio, February 15, 1999
I just got back from a trip to London and Paris and brought along my brand new
Olympus 80 zoom deluxe wide. I am thrilled with the photos it took. I would highly
recommend this camera to anyone. The wide angle lens came in very handy in sooo
many instances. Has anyone had a good experience with this camera. This is my first
experience with a point and shoot. it was nice having such a small camera and not my
OM1 to lug along.
-- kathy kane, February 22, 1999
I have had the Yashica T4 (older model, now: T5/T4 Super) for about 3 years now. It is a
nice P&S camera, cheap, with an excellent lens and exposes "correct" in standard
situations (also for slides). I take it with me, when I want to leave the heavy stuff at
home, or just as a supplement for the SLR equipement. The only problem I've had is that
the rewinded to early a few times (at about picture 20). -> Would buy it again with no
hesitation.
-- Philippe Wiget, March 2, 1999
A useful hint for people with active autofocus P&S cameras that lack an infinity focus
button, like the Infinity ;-) Stylus Epic, I found on
http://www.ans.com.au/~chrisb/photo/equipment/olympus/mjuii.html There Chris
Bitmead says:"The Epic doesn't have an infinity lock (useful to shoot through windows)
You can however get the camera to focus at infinity by covering one of the IR focus
sensors with a finger or whatever and then press the shutter button half way. Then
compose and shoot." That should do it. Though I didn't the results yet, I'm sure it will
help. By the way Phil, about your site: the more I use it, the more I admire the great
accessibility.
-- Lex Molenaar, March 5, 1999
I use the Yashica T4 for shooting stereo pairs. I originally had two of them mounted six
inches apart (lens-to-lens) on a bar, but have abandoned this system because:
1) I could never press the shutter buttons at exactly the same moment.
2) My dear Catherine "borrowed" one of the cameras eighteen months ago, and uses it so
much she has yet to return it.
In any event, excellent stereo pairs can be taken with this camera simply by shooting the
first picture with an object on the left side of the center circle, and the second with the
object on the right side. If the scene has a concentrated light source such as a fireplace,
there might be a problem with the difference in camera position resulting in different
metering, but if the light is not near the center of the picture, it generally isn't a problem.
-- John S. Wojtowicz, April 1, 1999
Last year I purchased a Leica CL and then a Minilux (see previous comments for
November '98), but sold the CL and bought a Leica M6 through a fine young man I
"met" on the internet (minilux club)who asked me if I wanted an M6, bought me a
beautiful used model (9606th made)with 2 lenses for 2K, and is accepting
payments!!!...we've never met! True trust is a wonderful thing!...and believe that
seriously...very rare today! However, after reading widely the Photonet P/S comments,
and considering my need for a very pocketable camera (don't take an M6 on a kayak!),
lens quality (asph elements), true ergonomics (pocket tapered design), and lens speed, I
bought two Olympus Stulus Epic cameras (one for me and one for a friend, in fine used
condition: one through e-bay and one from a "WTB" on Phil's Photonet ads today. I
haven't run a single roll through, but I expect great things! This is not a rejection of the T4, or others! The teeny-weeny size got to me and the tapered design was just what I
wanted. I will, of course, run many rolls through, and post an evaluation. I am concerned
about the comments on AF problems, but the spot meter is a GREAT addition! I do wish
there was a reader's photo gallery on this site as there is on the Minilux and Hassie clubs.
Phil...think about it...we can show our great stuff and praise each other as we so deserve!
I'm still looking for San Francisco/San Jose CA Bay Area people interested in taking
photo trips. I once taught adult ed classes in photography and had a great time on field
trips, until these darned old P/S cameras came along and no one wanted to know photo
basics any more! Look who's talkin' now!
E-Mail if interested in setting up some trips this summer at [email protected]
Todd Frederick
-- Todd Fredrick, April 7, 1999
After having read all of the comments, it makes me wonder why anyone but a
professional would use a regular SLR. I just don't think that a P&S gives me enough of
what I want. I don't take a lot of pictures but when I do I like lots of closeups and
landscapes, plus some sports action. I just can't get that with a P&S. I am thinking of
going digital for my P&S needs.
-- Ron Lawrence, May 24, 1999
I've pretty much lost my faith in point and shoot cameras. I may, however, purchase a
Ricoh GR-1 because it has spot metering and apeture priority metering with
override....the very things that are needed in a point and shoot.
I still use my Minolta FZE, but only for things like signs, casual group portraits and
times when I just need a picture but don't have my slr. They're just too unpredictable for
anything other than snapshots.
As to Philips paragraph at the top of this article, I'm sure if he had been standing next to
the girl with the point and shoot, he would have taken a better framed, better exposed,
sharper and more contrasty shot with his slr.
-- Jim Tardio, May 25, 1999
Sorry, Jim -- I disagree w/r/t Philip's example at the graduation. If Philip were sitting
next to the woman with the point and shoot, he wouldn't have his big cache of gear with
him -- a point & shoot is likely all he'd be able to bring to that position.
...he would have taken a better framed, better exposed, sharper and more contrasty shot
with his slr
Better framed? No, that's entirely related to the skill of the photographer. Better exposed?
With print film (and a little bit of brain power) it wouldn't make a difference. Sharper?
Yes. More contrasty? Likely.
But this is all missing Philip's point -- you can bring a point & shoot with you almost
anywhere. You can whip it out at a moment's notice and get the shot. Hence the value of
a point & shoot. They may not suit you, Jim, but that doesn't mean they're without value.
-- Russ Arcuri, May 27, 1999
Sorry Russ--I never said they were not of any value, and I never said I didn't like them. I
said I am losing my faith in them. I also said I am considering buying a Ricoh GR-1, and
still use my Minolta FZE.
I really don't know what Phil would have been using had he been closer, but I would
have had an slr with 1 or 2 lenses AND a point and shoot.
And I just don't agree that a point and shoot is better than a cheap body with a slow
consumer zoom and Moby flash. When Phil first wrote this piece I did, but after having
gone through many of these cameras I've come to the conclusion, IN MY OPINION, that
they're not much better than a disposable camera.
For example: take the Zeiss lens away from the T4 and what do have left? A little box
where the only control you have is turning the flash on and off. If light is indeed the main
ingredient of photography...as Phil states...how do you capture it faithfully when you
have no idea what the camera is exposing the film at? With practice all you have is an
educated guess at best. How do you lock focus if the camera is on a tripod? How do alter
film speed?
Now, I know the purpose of this piece is to show the value of carrying a point and shoot,
and Phil's anecdote about Clinton is valid. Obviously it's much easier to carry a point and
shoot in your pocket than lug around a bag full of gear. A T4, Olympic Stylus, or
whatever brand you use are great for this. But as so many folks on photo net are fond of
pointing out, " You get what you pay for ". And for $150.00, or less, you don't get much
more than the ability to slip the thing in your pocket. But, I agree, that that's better than
nothing, and do that myself many times. With that, all I can do is echo Phil's guidelines
for using these cameras in two simple rules.
1. If people are in the photograph use fill flash.
2. If there are no people in the photograph, turn the flash off and hope the camera
chooses an appropriate setting.
If you want some control with one of these cameras, it's going to cost you upwards of
$300.00...around the same price as an entry level slr body with a slow consumer zoom.
Just some thoughts.
-- Jim Tardio, May 29, 1999
I love taking pictures. After researching the current market I found the T-4 best fit my
needs(I found out it has no problem with being carried around in my pocket). The more I
read up on it the more fascinated I became. I shopped around and found that Cambridge
Camera Exchange offered it for only $118.95. I placed my order via mail\phone. That
was two weeks ago. After many long distance calls (many of which got me nowhere[they
hung up on me five out of ten times I would call]) I have found out that "my T-4,"as I so
dearingly refer to it, will not cost anything near the first expected price. $158.95. I have
not let it get my hopes down, I am waiting by the mail box in a childish frenzy just
imagining the fun I'm going to have with "My T-4." That's Cambridge Camera Exchange
in New York. They'll hang up on you.
-- luis villasana, June 2, 1999
I'm using an Olympus Infinity Stylus /Zoom 115 for about a year and extremely pleased
with its outstanding performance.It is definetely the smallest and lightest point-to-shoot
camera in the world. It works perfectly on the panaroma mode.While taking close-up
shots,strictly adhere to the close-up correction marks.I'm an ex-pilot and I must add
Olympus Infinity Stylus is highly recommended for aerial photography. I have fantastic
photos taken at 37.000 ft.Try to avoid buying from Singapore.I've had awful experiences
in the past.Prefer the ones manufactured either in US or Japan. I also recommend
Samsung Maxima Zoom 145 QD,Cannon Sure Shot Z135 and Pentax IQ Zoom 160 QD.
G|rol Kutlu [email protected] 17 June 1999
-- G|rol Kutlu, June 17, 1999
I'm beginning to feel like a collector of cameras!! Once I got serious about photography I
got a used Nikon FM2 & 2 lens - 50mm & 28mm. I mostly use the 28mm as it suits my
style.
I've moved up to medium format which I love but I can't bring myself to lug my
Hasselblad on a trip (I mostly fear I'll throw my back out -- rather than fear losing it).
And there was this thing about being in clubs where all this exciting stuff is going on & I
just can't capture it with my blad. So I got a P&S. I got the canon Z135 (a friend who
teaches photography & has a couple of books out - Del laGrace, recommended the Canon
Z115 and by the time I got mine the Z135 had come out). I read the manual but can't
quite remember all the fine details in a club setting (but I'll be sure to try some of the
recommendations here!). I still play with the settings & I've gotten some fun photos I just
can't get with even my nikon. Tho I bring my nikon with it's 28mm lens & either TriX
400 pushed to 1600 or one of the faster b&w films. I get different kinds of photos.
Now when I travel and I'm wanting my medium format camera I just throw in one of my
super light weight plastic cameras!! I prefer the lubitel for more serious work (it's much
more flexable with all sorts of cool things like a timer, a hot shoe, shutter speeds & fstops) but I'm trying to learn my holga. My holga gets me plenty of funny looks because
I couldn't find any black electrical tape so it's taped up with red tape. I've gotten some
GREAT shots & it probably weighs less than an ounce! BUT I bring my P&S too!! I
can't always shoot in daylight.
(now besides all those cameras I also own 2 polaroid cameras!!)
-- erin o'neill, June 20, 1999
Well, I own one of the cameras that is often disparaged in this group. Its a 400si with
(horror of horrors) a Sigma 28-80 lens, a second-hand Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and another
second-hand Minolta 70-210mm lens. I also have a cheap Sunflash external flash.
I like what I own because it gives me the flexibility to try out new things. I can try
manual metering, aperture or shutter priority metering and manual focusing. While I
have not attained genius-hood with my setup, I have taken quite a few photographs
which make me a lot happy.
I dare say that except for the bulk, my camera is no worse off than a decent point and
shoot. And considering the price I paid for it I think it is worth more to me than a P&S
camera would have been.
-- Jagadeesh Venugopal, June 26, 1999
All this arguing over p&s cameras is getting a little redundant. Correct me if I'm wrong
here, but isn't the idea behind a p&s to either have fun in casual shooting situations, or as
an emergency back up when your SLR is down, or unavailable? Sure, it's always great to
see useful information about a camera before you purchase it, but lets not forget that the
majority of the cameras here are under $200 ferchrissakes! AND, as we all know: you do
get (sometimes less than) what you pay for.
That said, here's a great idea for point and shoot fun: I've got a Yashica, and I love to
play 'hot potato' with my friends. Just use the self timer to trigger the shutter, and start
tossin' it around. I've gotten some really cool shots this way.
Joe
-- Joe Toole, June 29, 1999
I'm glad to see that Heidi Weaver has discovered the Ricoh 500G. I bought one new in
1977 for a trip to Wyoming and loved it. We took some great pictures, enlarged them to
9.5 x 14 and they're still hanging on our wall. Then came Autofocus cameras and I put
my Ricoh aside. Later I passed it on to my niece. I sometimes grow tired of the lack of
control and limitations of Autofocus cameras, but still enjoy taking a small light camera
with me. Then came E-Bay. For relatively little money I was able to bring a Ricoh 500G
back into my house. It still takes great pictures and is an inexpensive and wonderful
compromise when you need a little more control without a lot more heft.
Mark Sussman
-- Mark Sussman, July 15, 1999
I have a Ricoh 500 given to me by a friend. It is a beautiful camera, but slow in use and
clumsy...and heavy. I have an Olympus XA, also received as a gift. The lens isn't sharp
or flare-resistant, and tiny controls are hard to use. I gave my girlfriend an Olympus
Sylus Epic *35/2.8 lens) and, even on a tripod, the lens isn't very sharp. That is why I
would stick to light SLRs like Elan with a 50mm lens whenever possible...the compacts
seem to give too much in image quality and speed of use.
-- Oleg Volk, July 30, 1999
I bought a Leica Z2X couple months ago and went to New Orleans. The Z2X was such a
pleasure to use and I got some of the most wonderful pictures of the old French Quarter.
These are some of the best pictures I've ever taken using any P&S.
-- Clarence Ng, August 5, 1999
My perspective may not be especially alternative. I too own a T4 I purchased it almost 3
years ago shortly after having many years worth of Canon equipment stolen. Well, I have
been thrilled by the results this camera gave, so much so that I am thinking seriously of
trying to stay with Zeiss Contax lenses. I am not sure what the difference is, contrast,
colour balance? but I prefer the colour to anything shot on my Canons....go figure.
HOWEVER, BEWARE!!! service in Canada is another story!!! Last Christmas I
dropped it in a hotel parking lot oops and owww! The lens cover was broken, more than
$100 dollars later, (well we can't expect warranty to cover impact damage can we) I
happily gave it a little hug and proceeded to shoot again....problem, vignetting?!?!
Telephone Yashica and explain, after sending directly to him with explanatory note,
several weeks later it comes back with same problem, this time when I phone the
manager had not seen it, techie had fixed by "adjusting" the meter??? After bitterly
complaining, I have re-sent my camera and they are forwarding to New York. I hope
your US service is better or I will not be able to talk myself into spending the kind of
money necessary for some Contax gear. That said, before breaking, the T4 (T5 here) is a
beautiful little camera. Highly recommend for hiking, biking etc. Graham North
-- Graham North, September 7, 1999
Good photography is in the eye of the user.
My wife has no concern for obtaining adequate quality photographs. She merely wishes
to obtain images which will induce a memory recall of the event. What I consider trash,
she values. The P&S is geared toward those of my wife's bent where the object is not to
produce art but rather physical records of prior events. By automating the artistic control,
the average quality increases but the average art value diminishes.
In contrast, I use photography as an artistic outlet. I shoot 35mm b&w, with a spot meter
using the zone system and do my own printing. If I have no darkroom set up, I don't
shoot. I haven't shot in years.
Two extremes.
Perhaps if I gave up some control, I would obtain more even if I enjoyed it less.
My compromise is using a GR-1 with negative film. I will use store printing for my
wife's film, and computer printing for my film.
This compromise may better the both of us.
-- byard edwards, September 10, 1999
Monkey!
-- Troy Hyde, January 13, 2000
Ian's comments above are based on some degree of SLR/EOS snobbishness. Pity. It's not
difficult to get decent photos with a point/shoot camera; the Stylus Epic's fast f/2.8 lens
gets the job done nicely. So does my Yashica T4 super (f/3.5). I carry a mini-tripod with
flexible legs to negate camera shake, or wedge my shoulders up against a wall or door
jamb. And I usually expose at least two frames per subject, varying stance or lighting as
called for. When I know I want something more complicated, I'll haul out my Nikon
FM2n and its assorted lenses, but that's infrequent. Using outdated or cheap film for
test/technique purposes is a great idea; instead of getting that tree-killing second set of
prints, find a lab that will give you a free roll of "House brand" film; it's often made by
one of the name manufacturers in Japan or Minnesota.
-- Dave Baldo, January 13, 2000
I know my viewpoint may not be similar to other people here, but it's here. P&S cameras
may be great for "consumer" shots (i.e vacations, family gatherings, etc.) but in
professional photography, nothing beats an SLR or TLR. I guess the reason
manufacturers keep P&S in production is not for photographers to use them, or they
would produce a small camera with manual apeture and shutter. I don't really know how
a P&S is in the real world (since I do astrophotography), but it's hard to beat a good SLR
with a telephoto lens.
Jim
-- James Jingozian, January 28, 2000
After many years using only SLR equipment, I bought a Minolta Freedom Zoom as a
take-along-at-all-times camera. Unfortunately, it proved to be extremely unreliable. It
made me miss many opportunities when it just switched off (leaving the lens unretracted)
at the moment of pressing the shutter. It ruined many pictures by focusing to minimum
distance, even for landscapes with no foreground! It frustrated entire mountain trips by
simply locking up. It took seven repairs to shoot a total of about 40 rolls of film, of
which more than half was ruined because of camera problems.
I have now discarded it, and replaced it by a Ricoh GR-1s. What a difference! This
camera is very usable, extremely small and lightweight, rugged, allows a considerable
range of manual control (which I missed so much with the Minolta), and so far I have not
lost a single frame to camera malfunction. It works very well indeed! I'm very happy
with it.
This camera is an improvement over the already good GR-1, and I do highly recommend
it (I have no connection to Ricoh other than being a satisfied customer!). Its main
drawback is the lack of a zoom lens, but then, its 28mm f/2.8 is really good, and
WOULD you expect a zoom in a camera this size?
Recently I was able to photograph some lightning bolts with the Ricoh, something I had
been never successful at when using the SLR equipment! Tomorrow I'm off for one
month into the mountains, doing some flying and some climbing, and the Ricoh comes
with me!
Manfred Mornhinweg.
-- Manfred Mornhinweg, January 31, 2000
Although technically not point-n-shoot cameras, there are many compact 35mm
rangefinders from the '70s that are almost as small and nearly as easy to use. Check out
www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm for a rundown of the better ones.
Personally, I'm quite happy with the Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII I picked up for $60 last year.
While it can't focus itself, it does have a fairly accurate auto-exposure system (complete
with exposure lock) and a fast (f1.7) lens, which means you can shoot ISO 100 film
instead of ISO 400 much of the time. Better still, it has a leaf shutter (which means it
flash-syncs at all speeds) and a manual film-speed dial so you control the amount of fillflash more accurately as well as adjust exposure to your particular taste. Another nice
touch is the filter ring, which I use fairly often, as well as the fact that the meter cell is
located _inside_ the filter ring, just above the lens. This means that it meters through the
filter and thus automatically compensates for the filter-factor of whatever filter you use.
On the downside, at 17 ounces, it's about twice as heavy as the typical p-n-s camera but
it's still small enough to fit into a jacket pocket, if not a jeans pocket. Another plus is that
the body is metal, not plastic, which means it will _dent_ instead of crack when it's
accidentally dropped.
Overall, if -- like me -- you prefer your photographic automation in small doses and
metal-bodied cameras to plastic ones, then a compact 35mm rangefinder from the 1970s
may be a better choice for you than an auto-everything plastic wonder from the 1990s.
-- Jeffrey Goggin, February 5, 2000
How about a used Contax G1 ? Its great little camera for you pocket, jacket that is. A
little on the heavy side but if you want creative controls with interchangable lenes, this is
it. I just wish Contax will make another pancake lens like their 45 f2.8 for it.
-- William Song, February 18, 2000
Always wanted a quality point and shoot camera to take on trips instead of lugging the
old Nikon N90 or Canon EOS 1 but was't sure which one to buy. I just bought TWO
quality point and shoots, a Leica Minilux and Nikon 35TI to compare and get the feel. I
can only keep one but since I bought them used, I'm sure I can always sell the one I don't
want at auction. My choice after 3 rolls of film? It's the Nikon 35TI. First, I wear glasses
and they must have gone all out to make the Leica Minilux viewfinder as small as
possible and I like to see shutter speeds in the viewfinder to know what I'm doing. That
only gave me one choice, the 35TI. As far as the pics, both were about equal, perhaps the
Leica may be a tad sharper but, in my opinion, the "feel" and handling of the Nikon was
better and I can see what I'm pointing at. Anybody want to be a nearly new Leica?
-- Jim Gemmill, February 28, 2000
Yashica T4 Super. I have had it for several months, shot about 30 rolls of print film and
couple rolls of Fuji Astia 100 (slide film, if you want to know what it is). I have only one
word about it; this small camera is GREAT! Most of my pictures taken with T4 were
enlarged up to 8x12". Slides were properly exposed and very sharp. Properly used "spot"
meter allows me to cope with pretty tricky light conditions (like sunset in the mountains).
Just aim camera at something with intermediate brightness (camera set at infinity mode),
hold shutter button half pressed, recompose the picture, and shoot. Used with Kodak 400
CN (black & white film for C41 process, you can develop it in any one-hour minilab)
camera shines with it's highly detailed contrasty images, even in murky light conditions
(overcast winter day, for instance). I heard that people report inconsistent autofocus with
T4 resulting in blurry images. It never happened to me. In fact, my second camera
Olympus Stylus, which was purchased last year CONSTANTLY blurs two-three frames
in each shot roll. Camera was sent back to Olympus and they returned it with verdict
"camera is absolutely functional"... The superscope in T4 is another great feature.
Overall: My hat is off. T4 Super is waterproof, quiet camera with excellent Carl Zeiss
optics. Great buy for $150.
-- Yuriy Vilin, March 22, 2000
Interesting ideas, Ian. But I'd like to see your pictures first.
-- Yuriy Vilin, March 30, 2000
I must say that I respectfully disagree with the preceeding diatribe against point and
shoots. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a camera is a tool. A wise artisan will learn
the strengths and weaknesses of that tool, and adjust accordingly.
My own P&S experience has been most rewarding. First of all, if you view it as simple
tool that can be used (with experience, and planning and reading the @#$@($* manual)
you CAN take great shots. I know that some of my all time favorites were taken with an
Olympus Stylus Epic. Framing, composition and having the maturity to realize that
you're not going to get every shot, are part of the P&S experience. Also, if you have the
camera with you, you can use it. A P&S, especially one with a spotmeter, that's with you
beats all the fancy stuff sitting on the shelf at home.
It's equally true that a T4 or a Stylus Epic aren't, and won't be, a good substitute for a
good quality SLR under every circumstance. Or even some circumstances. When I really,
absolutely, positively have to be cetain of getting the picture, (like, say, confirmations,
graduations, etc), I do use the old SLR. But the P&S can go in the briefcase, glovebox,
etc. I mean, how can you get that picture of Elvis without a camera.
-- Bob Yates, March 30, 2000
Amen, Bob.
If you know how to use a P&S, you can indeed get some gorgeous pictures -- and my
experience has been that these little cameras succeed much more than they fail.
And, as others have pointed out, they keep getting better all the time. In the last decade,
point and shoot cameras have taken a quantum leap forward in size, design, and optics.
(You wouldn't have seen something like the Epic in 1990.) More of us can carry them
more easily to more events, and thus get more shots we would have otherwise missed.
And that's what puts the POINT in "point and shoot" cameras, isn't it?
These cameras are tools, designed for capturing moments on the fly. But someone with a
little patience and persistance can also use them to more creative advantage -- and the
results can be rewarding, indeed.
-- Greg Kandra, March 31, 2000
If you believe Ian Cruikshank's comment just above, then you must conclude that the
images produced by practitioners like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, etc. etc. -- all
produced by cameras with small viewfinders and slow lenses (old Leicas, mostly) -- are
by definition uninteresting. That doesn't make sense. For that matter, a Yashica T4 is a
better producer of images than a Leica IIIF! Better lens, w/ better film in it than was
available in the old days.
That doesn't mean it has all the advantages, however. The viewfinder is small, and I can't
adjust its focus to my (increasingly) bleary eyes. And, I'm never quite sure of the frame
I'm seeing. So, I'm looking for a used Hexar (black, please). I also shoot with an old
Olympus 35SP and a Canonet GIII -- autoexposure, manual focus, sharp lens, made in
the '70s, the Canonet even has moving frame lines for parallax compensation.
Sitting in a big, heavy camera bag are my EOS Elan and EOS 620, my (very sharp) 28105 USM, my 50 1.8 and a 19-35 zoom which isn't sharp but hey it sees interesting
things. Why do they sit in the bag? You know why. They are heavy, intrusive devices.
You can do great things with them, but if you shoot in a world full of people who you
would prefer to remain unconscious of and undisturbed by your picture-taking, an SLR
ain't the ticket.
-- Tom Mandel, April 4, 2000
Does anyone know anything about the Lomo camera? I have heard great things about the
portability and creativity of this camera, but wanted to get some more opinions from
some more "serious" users. One thing that sounded really interesting about it was that it
was not fully automatic, allowing a lot of leeway for creativity.
Thoughts?
-- RF Briggs, April 4, 2000
I loved the article! I just bought a Contax T2. My Nikon and it's 28-200 zoom is flying
out the window! Phil Greenspun just answered why my photos lacked 'zing!' I learned a
LOT from Phil, certainly enough to improve my photography and my equipment.
THANK YOU, Phil!
-- Hernan Mapua, April 7, 2000
Fascinating comments on point and shoot cameras, SLRs etc, and an excellent site by
Phil. As a newcomer to computers and the net but a camera nut since childhood, here are
a few comments which may be useful (cf main site feedback): Cruikshank's comments
seem elitist and unnecessarily inflammatory. I agree with all viewpoints. Surely the
objective is the same: to create the best possible pictures by the simplest means incidentally, the same philosophy which guided Oskar Barnack to invent the Leica. Thus
the search for the ideal P&S seems perfectly valid. Phil is bang on. I agree, turn off the
flash. It ruins mood lighting. I would like to see a P&S with an accessory flash and a
bigger viewfinder - the bigger the better. How many pix to take? A film of one subject?
Just one? Up to the individual. The goal should be to produce really good, memorable
pictures. Thoughtfulness, not just firing off pictures as fast as possible, is the key.
Comments on pre-focusing are helpful. Watching exposure is also critical. Even tilting
the camera up to the sky to decrease exposure or down to the ground to increase
exposure, then locking it in by half depressing the shutter (assuming your camera has no
compensation) can help. Watch you don't throw the focus out of whack. Yes, a good 1.8
50mm lens on an SLR is an excellent choice for some pictures, but the SLR is still bigger
and more fiddly - it is! And the moving mirror makes it very hard to hold the camera still
below 1/30th sec. A rangefinder camera is a better choice for low light (no blackout
either). I do find heavier cameras are more stable at slow speeds though - perhaps why
readers on this site still like the good old classic cameras. Not just Leica, though if you
buy one I'm sure you won't be disappointed. Have you tried an Olympus 35RC for
example? Not perfect but very capable. This feedback is useful, both to users and
hopefully the camera industry. It's up to us photographers to tell them what we want!
David Killick, Christchurch, New Zealand.
-- David Killick, April 21, 2000
Ian, just relax. If you don't use P&S thats your problem. Just leave this discussion along
and let people choose their own path in photography. Your opinion is just one of
hundreds and not valid in amateur photo world. I have lots of friends "amateurs" using
all kinds of cameras (P&S, SLR, view cameras, rangefinder cameras...) at the same time
with a great success and great pleasure. And, if you are a "professional", you do not need
to read comments on this site.
-- Yuriy Vilin, April 28, 2000
Good point, Yuriy. Someone who clearly has no respect for point and shoot cameras -and, in fact, expresses nothing but disdain for them -- has no business posting in a forum
designed to help people use them better. What's the point? To make everyone feel bad?
Or just to show off?
-- Greg Kandra, April 28, 2000
Does it matter what camera you use or even if you use a camera at all? I certainly don't
always use a camera. I do photomontage and photograms and I also create pinhole inages
and digital work. THe fact of the matter is if an image is of any depth at all. Is the image
good? Pretty soon we might all be using digital or maybe photography won't be
fashionable anymore. Unlikely, but feasible.
Image: mike - pinhole school.jpg
-- Mike Rossiter, April 30, 2000
The Lomo camera is great, but it really depends on what you are looking for. It does
colors very nicely and has a fast f2.8 lens. It tends to vignette a bit and it has many quirks
about it. I like it because it's different, not 'technically' better. I already have a Nikon for
my 'main' sharp photos, but I carry the Lomo around as a snap camera. I like the unique
look it provides, as well as the unique feel of it. But it's certainly not for everyone.
If you are looking for a more everyday snap camera that takes good sharper pictures, I'd
recommend you take a look at the Olympus Stylus Epic (under US $100.!). The non
zoom version has a fast f2.8 lens and produces quite nice images. I've used the Yashica T4 Super as well, and it was very sharp, however not f2.8 as I recall. [I tend to like faster
lenses since I don't like using flash on a point and shoot]. I like the build quality and
ergonomics of the Yaschia better than the Olympus though.
-- T T, May 17, 2000
OK, to Ian and anyone else who doesn't see Point and Shoots as a respectable camera to
use, I'm an undergrad photo major at Harvard and Nan Goldin taught here for a semester
last year and she was a big advocate of the T4 (she also shoots with a Leica (non-point
and shoot)) and under her advice, I bought a T4 and my photography changed for the
better immediately. I had been shooting with a Nikon N70 with a 35mm, f2 Nikkor lens
and for awhile, I was using both cameras because I didn't trust the T4 so I could compare
the two and the $150 T4 was so much better than the $700+ Nikon SLR outfit I had.
Technically, the T4 images were pinpoint sharp where the Nikon images weren't as
sharp. I've had friends take 35mm slides taken with the T4 enlarged to 30x40
cibachromes and had the sharpness hold extremely well. The fill flash is also amazing
and the 1 second exposure without a flash lends to some really great images in lowlight.
With a point and shoot, you begin to think more about the essentials to what make a good
photograph, the photographic image itself. Henri Cartier-Bresson's negatives were
terribly underexposed because he didn't care about every image being technically perfect
as long as the photograph had a perfect image. Cartier-Bresson is arguably a much better
photographer than Ansel Adams (I'm sorry but the amount of people who have your print
in their downtown office building does not determine your greatness). When that
'decisive moment' does occur, I'd much rather have my instant point and shoot than
fumble with exposure and focus and miss that moment. No, matter how good you are
with an SLR, you'll never be faster than a point and shoot.
I've discovered that my subjects react differently to a point and shoot than to an SLR. It's
nice to still see the face of the person photographing you and with my T4, I've gotten
much more intimate portraits. There's just less of a barrier between you and the person
you're photographing. I can carry my T4 everywhere, even to the beach where I wouldn't
trust my Nikon. Sand has actually gotten into my T4 and I've been OK. I've run around in
the rain in it, waded in pools with water inches below my camera, I've dropped the T4 on
the ground once when I was drunk, and it still works like a charm. The unbelievably low
price also allows me to not worry about it as much. I carry it around in my backpack or
pocket without fear and literally have it everywhere I go. You never know when a perfect
photographic moment can come. I actually own two T4s now so I can have two different
slides films available at all times, an ASA 50 or 100 Fujichrome or Agfachrome for
outdoor stuff, and a 200 ASA Kodachrome for indoor lighting... this way I don't have to
run through a roll before switching films (I'll never be forced to use Velvia 50 inside in
low light now).
I'll still use my SLR once in awhile but getting good at a point and shoot is what every
photographer should learn how to do before they really consider themselves good. It just
adds such a different level to their photography skills. I'm sure some of Nan Goldin's
photographs that are hanging up in the Whitney right now or selling at Matthew Marks
for thousand of dollars were taken with her T4. When you can take a museum-worthy
photograph with a $150 point and shoot, that's when you know you're really good.
My two cents, Jeff
-- Jeff Sheng, May 22, 2000
Pretty heady stuff here, especially considering the subject of "point & shoot." For me,
one of the great joys of photography is the ability to "capture and record" the moment.
Something you can look back on a few years from now and enjoy.
Currently, I own a Pentax ZX-10, which takes great pictures for me. I recently purchased
an Olympus Stylus Epic and have been both pleased and frustrated with the results. (In
other words, still learning its capabilities and limitations.) But I learned basic
photography on a "gasp" Olympus focus-free Trip MD camera (about 40 bucks in 1987).
This was/is a true "point & shoot" camera.
Here's why: Because I didn't have to think about aperture and shutter speed, I learned
how to compose a good photograph quickly. I learned how to balance subject with
background. (Had to, DOF was 4 feet to infinity and background was ALWAYS a
factor.) I learned about lighting and how to make the best use of the on-camera flash and
other light sources. Most important, I learned what this basic camera wouldn't do and
tried to figure out possible ways around it. Are these photos worthy of publication?
Doubtfull, but I do enjoy looking at them immensely. Quality? I have to say, I had a
couple blown up to 8X10 and they're quite sharp - even to the edge. But the one edge this
camera has over the others, was the ability to pass it around to anyone in the room and
get a decent framed (80%), focused (99%) picture. All I ever had to say was "just push
the button."
Here's the best argument for a point and shoot I can think of, and it relates to Phil's MIT
graduation "being there" theory. I went to a convention in New Orleans a few years back.
During an off day, I went around with my Pentax SLR and took some beautiful shots of
the city and surroundings. Later that night, I had the point & shoot in my pocket and had
pictures taken at dinner with old friends, on Bourbon St. with colleagues I hadn't seen in
years, heck - I even ran into my ex-wife and posed with her while someone snapped the
moment! That camera was passed around while people were enjoying themselves and the
pictures refect that.
Now when company comes over, I like to show off the photos of the city, but guess
which ones I personally enjoy looking at more? Would those taken with the P&S have
looked better had I used the SLR with the controls and better lense? - well, the one's I
took early in the evening - probably. But the ones taken as the night went on, plus all the
ones I'm in? - I really doubt it.
My point is, don't underestimate the uniqueness and allure of the snapshot. They capture
great moments. And point and shoots capture great snapshots.
-- Jack Kratoville, July 23, 2000
Hello! My experience with the P&S. Atention!!! I shot with print films.
I tried 6 Big Mini cameras (BM 202. The first camera of the Big Mini series) Metallic
body.
First camera: Corners and side edges of the photogram (mainly the left one), completely
fuzzy.
Second camera: 50% of the completely fuzzy photogram!!!
Third camera: idem!!!
Fourth camera: A little fuzzy side superior and wild corners of the photogram. More
fuzzy to f. 3,5
Fifth and sixth camera: Lens: Very good of f.16 to f.5,6. Nevertheless, to f. 3.5 one slight
fall of the sharpness from 15 mm of the photogram is appraised. Vignetting: Very slight.
Distortion: Very sligth, in cushion. Exposure: Very good, CDS center weighted meter.
Features: Very good: Flash Auto, Flash: Fill-in and Slow, (calibrated very well)
Exposure compensation +1.5 and -1,5, Speed: 1/500 to 3.6 seconds (Excellent!!!). 25 to
3.600 ASA. I have proven the Kodak Ektar 25 ASA, brutal sharp!!! And also 1.600 Fuji
ASA, contrasts very high, but good sharp!!!
Viewfinder: Good and clear. But does show a susceptibily to flare in extreme into-theligth... and the AF symbols cannot be watched... With less light the viewfinder is
excellent.
I make extensions of my negatives up to 18 cm by 26 cm. The result is excellent. My
friends are surprised. The maximum of extension has been 30 cm by 40 cm. The also
very good result. With my Big Mini (BM 202) I have made photos in all the possible
conditions and results excellents: in the high mountain, in the snow, in the beach, in the
grottos and warehouses very little illuminated. Very good nocturnal photos. (Speed 3.6
seconds)
Big Mini (BM 302): Same problem with the optics that my four first Big Mini!!
I have tried 5 Olympus mju II (Stylus Epic) cameras: Apocalypse Now!!! Total
disaster!!!!
The first camera (Made in Japan!!!): excellent lens, but to f.2,8 slight but appreciable loss
of sharp in the corners. Accurately AF. Accurately exposure. But him lack EV +1.5 and 1.5, The camara spoiled to the 30 days to use it!!!!
Second camera: Horrible lens!!! (Parts Made in Japan, Assembled in Honk Kong!!!!)
Third camera: More horrible lens!!! Defective AF. (Parts Made in Japan, Assembled in
Honk Kong!!!)
Fourth camera: When I extracted it of the box and I put the battery to him, it did not
work correctly!!! Impossible to prove it!!!! (Made Parts in Japan, Assembled in Honk
Kong!!!)
Fifth camera!!!!: (Too Parts Made in Japan, Assembled in Honk Kong) Good optics (Not
as good as the first Made in Japan) But AF vague. I to sell my Olympus mju II to a
person less demanding than I.
Pentax Mini Espio (UC1). Two proven cameras. No found problems. Viewfinder:
Extraordinary, the best one of all the A & P!!! Lens: Very good. Nevertheless, to f. 3.5
one slight fall of the sharp in the corners and edges; and also in the central inferior part
(!). Versatility: Good, although not as much as the Mini Big (BM 202)
Yashica T4. 20% of the photogram of the straight diffuse side!!!!
Konica A4. (Second-hand, but new) I to buy by 22.5$. Good optical of f.16 to f.8-5,6 but
to 3,5 mediocre: one slight fall of the sharp in all the photogram. Versatility: Normal.
The Konica A4 is a "prototype" of the Big Mini(BM 202). The Mini Big, is far better.
Leica Mini III: Impossible to prove it, the AF did not work...
Zeiss Lomo LC1: Three bought cameras. The three spoiled in a year... Made in Est
Contry: crap!!!
Olympus, mju -1 (Stylus USA) (first mju series). Serious problems of sharp in the edges
of the photogram. 30% to each side of the blurred photogram!!!
Olympus XA with unit of Flash A11. I to buy used to 58$. Excellent, robust, very good
features, in many aspects the best one of all. The very good optics in all the diaphragms.
But of f.2,8 to f.5,6, very appreciably vignetting. The cause is the design of the objective:
invested retrofocus. Of the best thing of years ' 80.
I have been continuing using my old Big Mini (BM 202) for 8 years!!! No problems.
And my brother also has a Big Mini (BM 202) and he is amazed.
I to be crazy if I want to obtain the same optical quality with a A&P that with a good
optics SLR. (Nikkor, Canon, Zeiss, Leica, etc.) Only good optics SLR, is worth 2 or 3
times more than a Mini Big, or T4, or a Olympus mju II, It is impossible!!! If your you
obtain equal quality with P & S that with a SLR (Nikkor, Canon, etc.), you must to bomb
the factory of Nikkor, Canon, etc.!!!
The manufacturers of cameras P & S, design very well their cameras of the high range.
With good specifications, but when they make the cameras, they forget to maintain the
quality of his products!!! We are deceived by the manufacturers!!! The quality level of
its products is discontinuous. If you have luck when to buy P & S, you can be very
happy, but if you do not have luck when buying your P & S, you are very displeased and
you have many frustrations.
I have wanted to be brief. I have more information of other simpler cameras: Super
Olympus AF 10 Super, Canon AF 7, Rollei Prego 35-70...
Thank you very much and I wait for your answers. Excuse me, my English is very much
deficient.
Jose M. A. L. (Spain)
-- José Manuel Alvarez López, August 3, 2000
I've just discovered this site but have owned a T4 since 1996 when my local camera shop
recommended it for size & image quality.
I am umcomfortable though with the "buy a T4 or else!" sentiment I infer from this page.
A person makes a picture, the camera just follows instructions! The T4 has a great
lens....and that's it.
I've come to the following conclusions based on my pictures with the T4:
1) The lens produces sharp and detailed images(with exceptions - see 2&3) - better than
zoom P&S. Sometimes the images are breathtaking.
2) The exposure system is not very smart or directional. For example,
Landscape/building shots can appear underexposed due to a bright sky.
3) Frequently, say 5 pictures in every 36, the Autofocus system fails to lock onto the
foreground images
4) The Fill in flash has a limited range - group portraits only work when there are 2 or 3
people close to the camera.
5) Film winding mechanism is dodgy in extreme humid conditions - fails to wind on
after taking a picture, or catch on when loading new film.
Summary: It's a great camera for image quality but, lens aside, is cheap and cheerful with
regards to everything else - and when one element fails (i.e. exposure) so does the
picture!
Finally, I feel spoilt by the Zeiss lens and unable to sacrifice this quality for more the
creativity that an SLR would give me on my limited budget (£400ish).
-- Neil Cooke, December 20, 2000
As several people have pointed out, P&S cameras have their own advantages that make
them a tool that every photographer should possess. I have several cameras ranging from
a Mamiya M645-1000s and Canon F-1N, to a Nikon Coolpix 990 and Pentax Zoom 90WR. Of the five photographs that I've chosen to upload to Photo.net to date (I'm a
relaitvely new user), it turns out that two of them were shot with the Pentax! I simply
wouldn't have gotten the shot without it, because there are so many circumstances where
I refuse to lug around a big rig.
Photography is so much more than Zeiss lenses and rock-solid tripods supporting 8-bywhatever cameras that cost enough to feed a family in India for three years. It's all about
the image, and the vision one utilizes to produce that image.
Just as someone who actually goes out and *rides* a bike a lot can jump on a garage
hoopty beater-bike and beat the pants off the neighbor down the block with the $5K
titanium wonder bike, anyone can produce an image of worth with practically any
camera/film/format. Just take a look at the pinhole camera section...
Cheers!
-- Jeff Warner, March 8, 2001
If you are looking for a great quality P&S at a decent price, I recommend the Minolta
Explorer Freedom Zoom. Yes, I have seen a few comments about its reliability but I have
experienced none of that. I bought my Minolta 2 years ago and it has given me some
great pictures. I have found that using a tripod produces excellent pictures as well as also
using the prefocus. I wouldn't trade my little Minolta for any other P&S at this point.
Jeffrey from Nashville
-- Jeffrey B, April 19, 2001
On Phil's "a good roll is 35 bad shots of the same subject and 1 good one" idea....
Digital P&S is ideal for this.
With my Fuji Finepix 2400 and a 32 Mb card I can waste 70 something hires shots and
not spend a cent.
Where this pays huge dividends is in family shots. You simply cannot compose great
shots of kids. You have to take them when and where they happen.
P&S is great for that in that your grab camera, set up and shoot time is minimal. Digital
is great because you can point and shoot and not cry over the waste when the kid
suddenly runs out of frame between the press and the click.
Besides, do you really want that hugely expensive SLR anywhere near mud coated, sugar
encrusted, water flinging, tantrum throwing littles?
Even just for pure experimentation, the digital is fun.
-- John Carter, April 20, 2001
I have mainly taken pictures with point-shoot cameras (whether using 35mm, APS or
digital; and whether equipped with a zoom lens or not) and I find that you cannot just
"point and shoot" your pictures. When I take pictures with these cameras, I make each
shot a four-stage shot. First I make a "rough composotion" of what I want to capture.
This is when I would operate the zoom control and, if using an APS camera or other
"multi-aspect-ratio" camera, decide what aspect ratio suits the image I want to capture.
Then I make sure that one of the key features is in the centre of the viewfinder. At this
point, I then press the shutter release halfway and make sure that the "ready" lamp glows.
Then I revert back to my original composition to finally take the picture.
Some people think that using anything other than an SLR with total manual control
offends creativity and "proper technique". But these compact cameras encourage users to
concentrate on what they are to photograph, rather than spending time fiddling with the
camera.
There was also a time when I attended a wedding and took plenty of pictures with my
Canon SureShot Zoom S compact camera. One of the shots that I thought about setting
up was one of the bride about to climb into the wedding car (a mid-1970s Jaguar)after
the ceremony. The professional photographer who was hired for this job didn't think
about this as a possible wedding shot. But I organized the shot and he and I took it on our
equipment. Later on, after the big day, I had the negatives from the wedding scanned to
Photo CD and showed what I took of the wedding to the bride and I didn't realise that she
was totally dissatisfied with the pictures taken by the professional photographer. She
realised that I had some of the best pictures and I organised reprints of those pictures.
Another good example was the one that I took of the "giving away the bride" procession
with her with her father. She preferred my shot over the "official" shot; and I printed this
shot off the Photo CD master using my computer and printer.
-- Simon Mackay, June 25, 2001
I agree with Mr. Carter's comment regarding the digital P&S and would like to point out
that a digital P&S can also be a wonderful tool for teaching photography. I bought A Fuji
2400 for my 13 year old daughter who has been interested in photography for several
years. Digital gives her immediate feedback,approximately the same set of constraints
and features as a film-based camera and virtually unlimited resources for
experimentation at an amortized price of pennies a shot.
We can do "assignments" together, each using our own camera, and compare results onthe-spot, to see what worked and what didn't and in many cases, reshoot immediately to
emphasize the point. This appears to be a very effective method. We both learn a lot.
-- Lyndon Guy, July 18, 2001
Well thats done it! I had to make a choice between taking my 1959 Praktica IV SLR (and
limited experience) my Fuji digital or purchase a P&S for my Holiday to the Dominican
Rep next week. I felt I had to go with the Yashica T5 after the positive feed back from a
considerable knowledge base(you lot!).I'm taking 200 film and I'm looking foward to
grabing some great moments in time. I've decided not to take my Fuji digital camera for
the simple reason that I seem to edit too many pictures out. I want lots of memories of
this trip rather than a few well composed ones.
-- Dave Hands, August 12, 2001
One of the most important concepts to remember with P/S, rangefinder and SLR cameras
is that each lens has its own personality. I have a Yashica FX-103 SLR with three lenses,
a Yashica MG-1 rangefinder with a fixed 45mm lens, a Canonet QL-19 with a fixed
45mm and an Olympus Accura with a 35-70mm zoom. I also have used several versions
of Canon Sureshots and a couple of digitals. The sharpness varies much less than the
overall color tone and esoteric "feel" of the images each produces and each lens'
personality is consistent over the long haul. To sum it up, I say don't waste any time and
energy quibbling over which format is best (a subjective term anyway) and use them
all!!! I think most serious amatuers would find a depth and richness to their hobby that
would never be there without experimenting with different cameras and most importantly
different lenses.
I love the advice in this article. To add my own bit to the piece, I'd have to say, when
using a point and shoot, treat it as though you're holding a Leica. Think before you shoot.
Overthink until great composition and desired effects become second nature to your
technique. Above all, enjoy it and develop a wide array of styles. I'm glad I did.
-- Tony Samples, November 23, 2001
Bit the bullet, bought a yashica T4 super through the classifieds here. $130 from Toronto,
brand new in box with warranty. Dis-satisfied with the puny flash, although I do like all
the flash options. Bought a Konica flash bracket with built-in sensor, specifically
designed for point and shoot cameras. Best $30 I have ever spent, also through these
classifieds. Went to Washington DC and spent the day at the Air and Space Museum and
burned 11 rolls of film between my new point and shoot and my old Canon AE1Program with a 50mm lens (vs the 35mm on the Yashica). Used the same flash for both
cameras. On the point and shoot bracket, the upright hot shoe portion is placed slightly
ahead of the front of the camera so that the built in sensor facing the side of the camera
can tell when the on camera flash goes off and then fires the main flash. (Vivitar 285).
On the Canon set up, I have an old Roberts bracket (also bought here) which places the
flash in approximately the same position relative to the lens but I used a sync cord with
that. I had to guess on what to set the 285 flash on using 400 ASA film on the Yashica
T4 Super. (Yeah, I know, but it's a big space with lots of stuff, and it's not for their
magazine, but my trip album) So, I set the flash on Red, which gave me the equivalent f4
and about 30 feet or so, plus whatever the P&S flash added. They don't allow tripods
anymore, so I had my improvised monopod which is eyebolts screwed into the tripod
sockets of the brackets with nylon rope attached, dangling down about 6 feet, and then I
step on the end, marked with a black stripe, pull up to tension it, adjust the height of the
viewfinder and get a nice, steady picture. Albeit some very strange looks and an
occasional inquiry as to why. I think you will see more of these around, maybe... (God,
he do go on don't he?) Bottom line, I shot several pictures with and without main flash on
the point and shoot. These were not bounced, but direct! The difference was astonishing.
I shot a panoply of large aircraft that hang in the main hall, using only the on-camera
flash and with the automatic backlight compensation working perfectly (I was shooting
against a 50'x200' window in sunlight), I got some crystal clear, dark outlines with some
detail from the closest plane, a Ford Tri-Motor. You could see the propeller, but not
much detail on the fuselage. Then I used the big flash on the bracket with the point and
shoot. You could see every detail of the fuselage, the front engine, the landing gear, also
the nose of the plane 30 feet behind was perfectly visible and the colors and some of the
detail of the others, 50+ feet away were also visible. Then I shot another pair of an X-15
rocket plane with the Wright Brother's Flyer framed under it's wing. The nozzle of the X15 was approximately 8 feet from the camera. Without add flash, the rocket plane was
perfectly exposed, but the Flyer was a little dim. With added flash, the X-15 tail section
was over-exposed, the Flyer was perfectly crisp and clear. Some thoughts: My Vivitar is
a semi-manual flash, not TTL If you are going to use a manual flash, try to find out what
the largest opening would be for your point and shoot when using flash. Since the
Yashica has a f3.5 lens, f4 on the flash would match OK, provided you were going to
illuminate further than 15-30 feet or more. Point and shoots tend to open their lenses as
wide as possible and control the exposure through shutter speed, the print film can handle
the added light just fine. The offset of the supplementary flash also tends to eliminate
some of the shadows caused by the on-camera main flash. The entire set up is easy to
hold, but looks strange, since my flash is heavier and bigger than the actual camera. I
love the T4 Super! Pain in the ass trigger sensitivity, that can be mastered with some
training, crystal clear images, edge to edge, I have not noticed any vignetting. Hate the
lens racking, focusing and shutter trip delay, but, again, training helps (and my step on
monopod. The AE1-Program took superb pictures, as expected, I have used it for 20
years, but considering the weight and the bulk, I will be using my T4 for most of my
vacation stuff and light shooting duties. The slave flash bracket, judicious use of the
flash, based on your distances and the ease of the T4 focusing has made a believer out of
me. If you want to take superb group shots with natural color and none of the startled
deer look, try using this type of fill flash to bounce off a white ceiling. My new sister in
law preferred my candid pictures to the pro with the high bracket and Mamiya camera,
although not in all instances, to be honest. (Why he didn't bounce and fill, I don't know)
-- Peter Tower, December 31, 2001
I use a 5 yr old Olympus Stylus and love the results but I've found that these cameras can
take terrible pics if you don't Think. Since P&S cameras are marketed to the simpletons
among us I came up with a nice acronym (no Thinking involved) to help my spouse
shoot the occasional picture of the primary household photog (ME). I call it the "Three
F's". One, set the Flash (usually OFF or Fill). Two, Focus the camera by pointing it
EXACTLY where you want it to focus then push halfway. Three, Frame the shot and
shoot it. (I could probably add a fourth F, as in FILL UP the FRAME if you're shooting
FOLKs) The 3F's seem to work well for my 5 year old son too. Teach your friends the
3F's and they'll take better pics of YOU...
-- Mark Atwell, February 11, 2002
I had a Yashica T4 super for about 4 years. Yes it was compact, weather proof, and fairly
accurate with AF and AE. I sold it, and bought a Olympus 35SPn with a Zuiko 7 element
42mm 1.7 lens. Sweet. This is a much slower camera to operate (manual focus).
Although it does do AE, I bought it to use it mainly in manual mode, spot meter, and of
course MF. It is one tough (metal) camera. Very, very versatile... it slows me down and
makes me think more about where I meter and what pinpoint I want to focus on. My
Hexar gives me the best of both worlds... P&S and total manual. But I've been toying
with the Olympus more lately and it's a gas. The flash system uses incorporates GN and
distance automatically therefore really accurate flash exposure (with ISO 100... anything
else and don't forget to change the guide no on the lens setting accordingly) Add to the
mix a cheap mechanical cable release, no AF focus resetting between pictures, and
almost no lag time between shutter release and firing, and flash sync to 1/500 and ability
to use hot shoe or PC cord studio flash. I guess I was lucky... the SPn that I have is the
last model produced... pristine condition, with everready case also in pristine condition
and a new mecury battery and a great flash to boot. I miss the waistlevel finder of the T4
super though...
-- David Bindle, February 14, 2002
Add a comment | Add a link
Use | Privacy
Cleaning Cameras
Sign in | Search:
content
Cleaning Cameras
By Philip Greenspun
Contents:
1. Top
2. Lenses
3. SLR mirrors
4. Flash Contacts
5. The Camera Body Itself
6. War Stories
7. Gallery
8. If all else fails...
Reader's Comments
http://www.photo.net/learn/cleaning-cameras (1 of 19) [5/15/2002 7:15:53 PM]
Cleaning Cameras
Remember that your camera is just a tool. Don't pamper
it. You can always buy a new one. If you leave your
camera in a closet, it will never get dirty or broken, but
you won't have too many great photographs to show for
yourself. Many of the best photographs can only be
taken under conditions that will render your equipment
wet and/or filthy. That's life.
The photo at right was the result of spending six hours
at the bottom of a canyon in the Navajo Nation. For the
entire six hours, sand blew down from the top of the
canyon and into my $20,000 Rollei 6008 system. Was
there a sickening grinding sound when I focussed my
$3000 50mm lens for the next few months? Yes. Did I
have to send the camera back to Marflex (Rollei's US
service) to be cleaned? Yes. Did the camera get stolen
in Filthadelphia a couple of years later? Yes. So it really
didn't make sense to obsess over the camera, did it? I can still enjoy this picture even if I can't use my
6008 anymore. If I'd pampered the camera, it would just be in that much better shape for the crook who is
using it now.
Lenses
Basic lens cleaning tools are a blower, a microfiber cloth, and lens
cleaning fluid. Try to blast dust off the lens with the blower or
canned air. Finger prints can be removed with a circular wipe of the
new miracle micro fiber cloth (my favorite brand is Pentax because
it is nice and thick; about $6). Persistent dirt should be removed
with lens cleaning fluid, of which the safest is probably Kodak.
Always drip the fluid onto the cloth and then wipe the lens;
never put fluid directly onto a lens. My personal favorite is
Residual Oil Remover, available in many camera shops for about
$4.
Even if your lenses don't look dirty, every few months you should give exposed surfaces a cleaning with
Residual Oil Remover (ROR). Even if you were able to protect your optics from all environmental
sources of filth, there would still be crud condensing on your optics as camera bag plastics outgas. ROR
has a bunch of advertising hype about how you can get a full 1/2 stop of extra brightness from your lenses
after a treatment. I haven't experimentally verified this nor do I believe it, but the optics do look visibly
clearer after an ROR treatment.
I don't like to obsess over my equipment, so I keep a B+W UV filter on almost all of my lenses. I count
on replacing the filters every few years rather than being paranoid all the time.
SLR mirrors
Cleaning Cameras
Don't even think about cleaning the mirror in your SLR. Maybe, just maybe,
you could consider using a handheld blower to move a few dust specs off, but
canned air is too powerful. Technicians clean mirrors with some kind of special
viscous fluid and will often do it for free at camera clinics run by shops or
conventions. Mirrors have very fragile surfaces and I wouldn't dream of getting
near them with a standard lens cleaning solution or cloth.
Remember: the dirt in your viewing system isn't going to show up on film.
Flash Contacts
Modern TTL flash systems have numerous contacts and if you don't clean them
every now and then with a pencil eraser or something, you can be fairly sure of
getting intermittent failures.
The Camera Body Itself
Camera and lens bodies are fairly well sealed against dust and
moisture. So you don't really ever have to clean the exteriors of your
equipment. On the other hand, if you don't want the dirt and crud
that is on the camera body to work its way into your camera bag and
from there onto an optical surface, it is probably worth wiping off
the body with a soft cloth. Slightly dampening the cloth with plain
water certainly won't do any harm, though I imagine that this
wouldn't be Canon or Nikon's recommendation.
War Stories
I had a very interesting experience in New Zealand after smashing a UV filter on my Nikon 28AF lens.
Gallery
Here are some photos that I wouldn't have gotten if I'd been prissy about my cameras...
Cleaning Cameras
From Samantha ...
And from Italy ...
Cleaning Cameras
If all else fails...
If you got the picture but lost the camera in the process, you may need to visit one of the photo.net
recommended retailers.
[ top ]
Reader's Comments
Hi,
When shooting out, I always place some silica gel in my bag to get rid of excess moisture. I
don't know how useful it can be but since the camera bag is not 'air-proof' and is lightproof, the potential for fungus growth is high.
I use empty film containers and poke little holes in them, then pour enough silica gel into it.
It is an easily refillable container and contains just about the right amount for a medium
size bag.
-- Angst Man, July 19, 1998
I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. I'm reporting on Nikon information. The
Manual - yes I do read it. It says, for glass surfaces such as lens; avoid using lens tissue.
Use soft cotton moistened with pure alcohol. The Nikon consumer/tech reiterated that I
read it right. "Use 100% pure methol alcahol. Con't use lens cleaners." Any comments from
anyone? To be honest, I usually use one of the cloths you mentioned or a soft, clean
bandana. I do know some filters from certain companies come with warn ings against using
certain cleanrers, but by the time, I get ready to clean same, I've lost the instruction paper.
Cleaning Cameras
-- M. Huber, August 25, 1998
Reading from the Nikon F5 User Manual, page 151, it says: "Clean lens surface with a
blower brush. To remove dirt and smudges, use a soft cotton cloth or lens tissue moistened
with ethanol or lens cleaner"
-- Rick --, October 25, 1998
On microfiber lens-cleaning cloths, two recommendations. First, Herbert Keppler, who's
been doing and writing about photography for more years than most of us have been alive,
has some interesting thoughts (in the Dec. 98 Popular Photography, p. 25), in his brief
piece entitled "Microdear microfiber cleaning cloths finally available in the U. S." Keppler
says, "For years I have been raving about what I think are the best lens- and cameracleaning cloths anywhere--the Microdears, made in Japan by Etsumi Co. They are
generously large and thick" but have been obtainable only in Japan. Now Adorama is
importing them, in two sizes: 11"x11" for $10, and 14"x17" for $15. Keppler's piece also
gives his own directions for their proper use: "Dust and light smudges are easily wiped
away. To remove pronounced fingerprints or heavy, mucky stuff, breathe lightly on lens
surface and immediately clean lens with light, circular motion of single-layer Microdear.
Better yet, slightly moisten the edge of the Microdear cloth with lens-cleaning solution,
alcohol, or, in an emergency, vodka. Then do your circular motion bit. Microdears are also
great for cleaning outside surfaces of camera bodies and the like." Keppler claims that dirty
Microdears "can be washed in soapy water" and when rinsed thoroughly and dried, "they'll
be as good as new."
Second, I like and recommend the Contax MicroStar microfiber antistatic lens-cleaning
cloth, which is also generously large and thick. This is a top-quality lens-cleaning cloth. I
bought mine for $15 from an Asian selling them at a camera show (mine is light green in
color and says "CONTAX/Carl Zeiss T* Lenses" on the cloth; directions are in Japanese
only). Sorry I can't tell you where to buy one.
-- Dave Kemp, November 28, 1998
Whenever I buy new shoes for my kids I grab the little silica gel pack from the shoe box
and put it in my camera bag. I always have three or four of the little packs floating around
in there. They lay flat in the bottom of the bag, so they don't take up space. The cameras
stay dry and I have never had one tear or break open. Best of all they are free and easily
replaceable.
-- Dan Fordice, February 5, 1999
I have had very dissappointing results with the cleaner that Phil recommends, Residual Oil
Remover (ROR). I purchased a bottle recently, along with a pair of Wiko Microstar
Cleaning Cameras
cleaning cloths. ROR's website recommends against using regular lens tissue, claiming that
it is "not absorbant enough for ROR," so I sprayed this peculiar smelling chemical onto one
of the Microstar cloths and wiped off the elements and filters of all of my lenses.
After completing this process, however, I exhaled onto the elements to make sure that they
were in fact perfectly clean. (A clean lens will fog uniformly, and any grease or fingerprints
will appear quite distinctly.) I was very surprised to see all sorts of swirls and whatnot
materialize on the elements. I polished of the fog and then tried again. They did appear
somewhat cleaner this time, but nonetheless, the swirls persisted.
Now you must realize that I am quite compulsive about my equipment, and especially the
cleanliness of my optics, so, needless to say, I was somewhat perturbed. I accquired a
flashlight, and, by the light reflected from the front element of the lens, distinct smears of
grease or something could be detected.
So I read the bottle. "Do not use with treated lens cloth." Well, Microstar is not treated
(treated lens cloths being primarily of the anti-static type, such as Ilford's AntiStaticum),
but perhaps this chemical was somehow breaking down the Microstar's synthetic fibers and
leaving the residue on the lens. (I seriously doubted this, but it bore consideration.) Or,
perhaps the cloth was simply dirty, and the oil ws being redeposited onto the lens.
I washed out the Microstars and then used lens tissue with the ROR instead, hoping to
eradicate my little problem, and guess what; the residue remained. However, a bit of
ethanol diluted with water took the mysterious residue right off. Perhaps my bottle of ROR
was defective, but I have since discarded it, and never plan to buy another.
My recommendation? When you first accquire a lens, clean it with regular lens cleaner or
diluted ethenol (NOT isopropyl, or rubbing, alcohol, but ethyl alcohol only). This is
sufficiant to remove much grime that can accumulate on a lens (especially if it is used) and
should be repeated periodically every four months or so. Remember, however, that
overcleaning will eventually strip off the delicate coating of the elements. To minimize
such damage, used canned air to blast dust and other abrasives off of the glass BEFORE
rubbing a cloth of tissue over them. For intermediate cleaning, a microfiber cloth and the
moist breath treatment are the safest approaches, and canned air is the easiest way to
remove dust, especially on longer telephotos in which that rear element sits deep in the
recesses of the barrel.
-- Timothy Breihan, May 20, 1999
I second the above negative experience with ROR (Residual Oil Remover) lens cleaner. I
found it to work no better for most, and worse for many, types of lens contamination, than
Kodak lens cleaning fluid.
Cleaning Cameras
On a separate note, as per Keppler's recommendation in Pop Photo, I went to Adorama and
bought the Microdear cloth, and found it to work very well.
Alex Karasev
-- Alexander Karasev, June 30, 1999
I also noticed the slight swirls you get when using ROR, but it seemed to work well overall
for cleaning. I just used it to clean a Canon 70-200 2.8 and a Sigma 170-500. After a year
of taking the Sigma to the racetrack for horse racing photography, the lens' front element
was so fouled with sand, dust, oil, etc that I was about to give up on it. Regular cleaning
products like canned air and microfiber cloths did nothing to help it. After one ROR
treatment, it was good as new! ROR even took off moisture spots that had appeared on the
front coating. Sure ROR left a slight swirling pattern (only noticeable when viewed at an
angle under flourescent light), but after some buffing with the microfiber cloth the swirls
were pretty much gone.
-- Derek Dammann, July 16, 1999
A further comment on lens cleaners; since my last posting, I discovered a way to eliminate
the greasy swirls that mysteriously appeared on my lens elements after a treatment with
ROR. I have found that if you saturate a cotton facial pad with ROR, apply the liquid
thickly to glass, and then immediately remove it with another dry pad, the swirls are
eliminated or at least reduced to a degree at which a light buffing will remove them.
The literature on Residual Oil Remover makes mention that certain tissues are "not
absorbant enough for ROR..." My theory is, that since ROR apparently emulsifies oil, too
much wiping simply redeposits the oil back on the glass. This is a somewhat half-assed
explaination, and I'm not entirely convinced of its merit. What I am convinced of is that
ROR seems a bit to fickle to warrant wasting my time with. I use others cleaners that work
better. I would also ask if Phil has experinced any of the aforementioned difficulties, and, if
so, could he please place a posting illustrating his solution. I would be interested in hearing
additional insight.
A final observation on Kodak lens cleaner. Reading the Contents label illustrates that it is
simply ammonia diluted with water. I have often heard that ammonia is harsher on lens
coatings than ethyl alcohol, and to my experience, does not work as well. (I use an alcohol
based cleaner.) Does anyone have any insight here? Phil says that the New Zealander who
extracted the glass fragments from his lens cleaned the glass with acetone, something I
would never consider. Any comments?
-- Timothy Breihan, August 24, 1999
Cleaning Cameras
As far as Kodak Lens Cleaner, I read from the bottle that it is water and ammonium
carbonate, which is different than household ammonia (ammonuium hydroxide). It seems
to work OK, but I think most of the effect is that the water in the solution helps the tissue or
cloth hold onto dust particles more effectively. As far as ethanol, Everclear is pure ethanol
and is available at liquor stores in some states (Texas, Colorado, other he-man type places).
Ethanol seems to dissolve oily spots beautifully, although the jury seems to be out on its
effect on coatings.
It would be useful to have some facts about what lenses are coated with and the reactivity
of coatings with common cleaner ingredients like the above. I cannot imagine that
condensed breath is totally non-reactive (especially if you've been drinking Everclear).
-- Charles Mackay, September 5, 1999
In my lab 100% ethanol and methanol are freely available and I use them to clean my lens
all the time. Works great. Not a trace left. Methanol evaporates in seconds but it's toxic so
be careful.
-- Rocky Aaron, October 23, 1999
Ethanol and cotton flannel are recommended by Nikon, so I doubt that they would harm
lens coatings if used in moderation. If you are using Everclear, though, it might be a good
idea to dilute it with distilled water, if for no other reason than to increase its evaporation
time. That way, you can be sure to get all of the oil up with your cloth instead of having it
remain on the lens as the ethanol evaporates.
-- Timothy Breihan, November 8, 1999
Since the above, having used ethanol denatured with methanol ("solvent alcohol") sold at
my hardware store and the absorbent cotton that comes on rolls at local drugstore, I will
never use anything else. After using dust-off, use one piece of cotton dampened with
ethanol to remove dirt / oil / sludge, then dry with a fresh dry piece. (This technique is also
advocated in one of Really Right Stuff's "white papers".) Lenses look absolutely like new,
at least with Nikon glass.
If you don't get all the crud off, the ethanol may leave a hazy residue (basically diluted crud
that you have redistributed evenly around the lens). This happened to me once but a
microfiber cloth removed it -- or you could just repeat the alcohol thing.
-- Charles Mackay, November 17, 1999
A quick note on the previous comment regarding ethanol-- ethanol not explicitly labelled
200 proof has probably been denatured for tax reasons. While some ethanol is denatured
Cleaning Cameras
with methanol, other denaturants which may be harmful to lens coatings include camphor,
gasoline, benzene, acetone, ether, and kerosene (Merk Index, 11th ed., 1989).
-- Dave Flanagan, February 2, 2000
Don't forget to clean the insides of the lens cap too, and the back end of the lens as well
might need cleaning. Also I have found that Zeiss lens cleaner cleaned even my dirtiest
lens to a "like new" clean. thanks for all of the tips.
-- Pat O'Neill, March 6, 2000
For those folks who truly believe their "clean" lenses are clean, try this: grab a jewelers
10X eye loupe and take a look at the lens. What appears to the naked eye as the cleanest
looking lens will reveal its' true dirt, smudges, swirls, scratches, fungus and damage under
a 10X eye loupe. Best to use a jewelers "triplet" eye loupe that's been designed for diamond
grading with a black frame. They offer best color and image fidelity. The GIA sells them
for about $70.00.
(In fact, when you go shopping for a lens, bring the jewelers eye loupe with you. You'll be
unpleasantly surprised at how many "new" lenses have surface defects, chips etc.)
-- Marika Buchberger, March 19, 2000
Just a note on blowers - don't pay a lot of money at a camera store for one. Instead go to
your local pharmacy and purchase a rectal syringe, they do just as good a job for a lot less
money.
-- Ian Johnston, July 23, 2000
As an alternative to cleaners and wipes, consider good ole scotch tape. Just use a small
piece, touch it to your lens or filter and lift off. It removes oils, fingerprints, and dust
without the potential of streaks or scratching or mess. I use it to clean the LCD screens on
digital cameras. It works great, gets all the way up to the edge and will not scratch the
sensitive (cheap) plastic screens. I have also, on occasion, used it to clean the mirrors on
my SLR's. Nothings more annoying than a dust spec in the viewfinder.
-- S.J. Polecat, August 11, 2000
One observation I'd make about cleaning any sort of surface. Having some year of
oexperience in cleaning residual contamination from surfaces being prepared for adhesive
bonding on aircraft structures (where any trace oils would totally degrade the bond), it is
traditional to use two cloths for solvent cleaning. The first one is soaked in the solvent and
is used to dissolve the contaminant and put it in solution. The second, clean and dry cloth,
Cleaning Cameras
is used to remove the solvent/contaminant solution remaining on the surface. These steps
can be repeated if required using fresh cloths.
For lenses, I would think a second step of treatment would suffice. What I can say from
personal experience on lenses is that the Cokin lens cleaner seems to do a decent job when
used with the two cloth approach. I always use the Kodak lens tissues and get few swirl
patterns.
In a pinch in the field, I've resorted to using a standard tissue (yuck) but followed that with
a blow off brush to get rid of the inevitiable bits of fibre that deposit from the tissue. An
imperfect solution, but sometimes an errant finger does actually get in front of my lens.
Dave
-- dave lawson, September 28, 2000
Slide-Loc, OneZip...
If your micro cleaning cloth or lens tissue has abrasives in it you may damage your lens. To
protect the integrity of my cleaning materials I always carry them in Ziploc type bags. I
especially like the ZipLoc, Slide-Loc and Hefty, OneZip bags.
I find these bags are great for other things, for example quart size Ziploc Freezer bags are
just the right size for 4x5 cut film holders. Charged and discharged batteries, exposed and
unexposed film, lens hoods, camera manuals, etc.
-- David H. Hartman, November 3, 2000
just about the mirror cleaning i guess there is really no problem to keep it in good
conditions cleaning it up with a soft pencil or that pencil ones you can mount in an air
pump.
-- oTTO zUCHIERI, November 26, 2000
When you get that gray grunge buildup in the inscribed numbers on your lens' aperture dial
or your shutter speed dial, try an old toothbrush dipped in any kind of alcohol. Shake off
the excess, then go at it with a circular motion. The original paint will soon be shiny &
bright. You can remove any left-over residue with a slighty-moist (H2O) tissue. This will
also remove the crud from any other crevices on the camera.
-- David Krewson, December 6, 2000
Zeiss Lens Cleaner and old fashioned baby diapers. Makes the lenses "squeaky clean"!!!
Cleaning Cameras
A note about the diapers: Make sure the diapers have been machine washed numerous
times with NO fabric softener. Also, rinse them well in DISTILLED water to remove all
residue.
-- Marika Buchberger, December 29, 2000
In my experience with cleaning multi-coated filters, optical glass can be cleaned to
perfection with the following methods:
1. Simple dust specks or lint: Use a blower bulb or blower bulb/brush. (obtainable at photo
stores, chemical stores, pharmacies) Blow off the dust using the bulb. Sometimes a
combination of brushing and then blowing works best. Make sure that if you use a brush,
that it has never been in contact with anything oily, like your skin. If it has, you'll need to
clean it with alcohol first. If you only have a blower and no brush, lightly knocking the dust
particles loose with a clean 100% cotton cloth first, and then blowing works. In some cases,
lint will be stuck in the rim of your filter. In that case, careful use of tweezers (I reccomend
swiss army tweezers) to pull out the stuck lint.
2. Dust, filmy residue, or specks: Use pure water (tap water is fine) with a 100% pure soft
cotton cloth (a perfectly clean t-shirt is fine, but no cotton balls, they're too linty). In the
case of mounted lenses, apply the water to the cloth. Then wipe the glass clean with the
damp cloth, and then wipe dry with a dry part of the cloth. Do not let the water dry on it's
own!
In the case of filters, remove the filter from the lens, then hold the filter under the tap and
rinse it completely with water, both sides, and then immediately begin to wipe the whole
filter with cotton cloth until dry. If there is dust or lint left, go to method 1.
3. Figerprints and oily residue: use ethanol and a 100% pure soft cotton cloth. A 95%
ethanol, 5% isopropyl alcohol blend is perfect. This can be obtained from chemical supply
stores. (I recommend tri-ess in Burbank, http://www.tri-esssciences.com)
Apply the ethanol to the cloth and then wipe the glass with it. Make sure to dry it off
completely using a dry part of the cloth. Do not let it evaporate without wiping. If there is
residue, proceed to method 2. If there is only dust or lint left, proceed to method 1.
4. If and ONLY IF there is a residue that could not be removed by methods 2 or 3, use a
lens cleaner like Residual Oil Remover, ROR', and a 100% cotton cloth. Apply the lens
cleaner to the cloth, wipe the glass with it, and then dry as best as possible. There will be a
residue, so proceed to method 3. In general, filter manufacturers like Hoya, do not
recommend use of lens cleaners. They say in some cases they can ruin the coatings. (That
didn't happen though with my Hoya Super HMC UV(0)).
Cleaning Cameras
What kind of pressure should you use when using the cotton cloth? The lighter the
pressure, the better, but even medium pressure should not scratch your lenses or coatings,
because cotton is soft. Don't press hard enough though for the glass to break!
-- Eitan Adut, February 10, 2001
I'm a bit surprised no-one's mentioned OptiClean for glass cleaning. Maybe it's not
available outside the UK yet.
Anyway, for those who don't know, it's a liquid polymer that you paint onto the lens and
leave until it hardens. You then remove it by attaching a little sticky tab and pulling it off.
Away comes the film along with every bit of gunge that was on the glass.
It's quite expensive, but very good. It also doesn't rely on you having the right sort of cloth
to remove it.
-- Steve Rencontre, February 22, 2001
I've used Kodak lens cleaning fluid with a Promaster cloth with squeaky clean success. The
Promaster cloth is very absorbent, but I don't know what material it's made from (possibly
cotton). I've tried the Microstar cloth, but found it to be not very absorbent, and sometimes
left streaks. I always begin with gently blowing the lens off with some ReadRight
compressed "air", then gently brushing it with a camel hair brush, blowing again, and then
soaking the cloth fairly well with fluid, and gently dabbing the lens (and immediately dry it
w/ cloth). I then use perhaps a drop of fluid on the cloth and gently wipe the lens down.
There aren't usually any streaks due to the absorbency of the Promaster. If there are a few
streaks, I just lightly buff the lens with the cloth, and in fact the resulting cleanliness is so
thorough there's usually a slight squeaking here and there from the surface being spotless.
I've tried Kodak disposable paper, but that just leaves damm streaks all over! Make sure
your cloth is absolutely immaculate... PS: I just bought a Leland PowerClean Ultra Cloth
which looks promising as well.
-- James Allen, February 24, 2001
Long ago, when I worked as a camera assistant on movie crews, I was taught to clean
lenses with the three-tissue method: 1) Roll the first tissue into a fairly tight cylinder and
tear it in half, then lay the two pieces side by side--the torn ends become the "bristles" of
your lens brush ... point the lens down, and brush the grit off its face (if you don't point it
down, you just push the grit around) then discard the tissue; 2) Bunch up the second sheet
by grasping its corners and form a little wadded cushion ... put one drop (no more!) of lens
fluid on it, and gently clean in a spiral motion from the center out, rotating the cushion so
that a clean surface is constantly presented to the glass, then discard the second tissue; 3)
Quickly (or you'll get waterspots from the fluid evaporating) bunch up the third tissue as
Cleaning Cameras
you did the second, and dry and polish the glass in a spiral motion from the center
outwards, then discard the tissue. Always clean your lenses gently--never scrub or rub hard.
If you buy some lens tissue and you can hear it crackle when you wad it up, it's too stiff
and harsh for your glass, so replace it. Before I start step two (above), I put the third sheet
of tissue between my left ring and pinkie finger knuckles, so that it will be at hand
immediately and waterspots won't form before I can dry the glass. Finally, keep a UV or
1A filter over your lens all the time for protection (I know that's elementary but I'm a true
believer, having replaced the filter four times on a lens I'm still using today)
-- Donald Gentz, March 1, 2001
Great Lens Cleaner! Regarding optics cleaning I have not tried ROR but there seems to be
some dissatisfaction with it's use in some of the comments. For forty years I have found
using liquid lens cleaners to be a horrendous experience, including alcohol, those from
Kodak, etc. Recently I have found a totally satisfactory cleaner that actually makes the
glass look clean! No swirls, residues, etc. In fact, the claim is that it removes all previous
residual cleaner comtamination as well as normal oils and accumulations. This seems to be
the case in my experience and it does it without special efforts. It is called Formula MC and
it's website is at the bottom of these comments. I hesitate to use microcloths as the danger
of reusing their surfaces poses a danger to my $1000 lenses even thought they work
remarkably well. With Formula MC they are not needed or recommended. The safe method
is to use two pieces of clean, unused lens tissue, a wet and a dry one, and the job is done in
a minute or so with no threat to optics. I first blow away any dust from the surface,
especially the crevices so I don’t dislodge any grit while cleaning, with a can of Dust-Off
or similar product and perhaps a light blow at the finish to remove tissue lint. I do a test
blow away from the lens and always hold the can upright. Never shake the air can before
using it! Because I take care in protecting my lens surfaces and avoid cleaning unless they
get a finger smear or really need it, I haven’t had a lot of need or experience using MC but
can say that when I have used it its been a pleasant experience. I might mention that in
using the 2nd tissue there might be what seems as residue but this appears to be part of the
cleaning process and is removed by carefully wiping it away. The lens will come out clean
and free of cleaning marks.
Formula MC’s site is: http://www.pecaproducts.com/mc.html
As an alternative there is another cleaner that I remember reading is the official one used
by Hasselblad and other optics makers (possibly Leica). It is called Rexton Optyl-7. I have
used it but prefer MC. I bought both these cleaners from Get Smart Products at:
http://www.pfile.com/cgi/cart.cgi?db=dusters_cleaning.db&category=Dusters,+Cleaning+Supplies
-- Pepe Alvarez, March 4, 2001
I have lenses several years old that have never been cleaned directly. I always buy a new
filter with each new lens. Upon receipt of the new lens, I immediately install the new filter.
Cleaning Cameras
Smudges and dirt get removed from the outside of the filter with my t-shirt or whatever
else seems handy at the moment.
Shine a flashlight through your lens. Anything that is illuminated is effectively scattering
light. Think about that. On an ideal lens, you wouldn't even be able to see the glass.
A high powered flashlight will allow you to discover just how much dust actually resides
on elements that are inaccessable. Zoom lenses seem to get the most dust internally,
probably due to fluctuating air volumes within the lens tube. The amount of internal dust
may convince you that cleaning the two exterior surfaces is rather trivial.
With a high powered flashlight, you may also discover the effects of over cleaning a lens.
The light will illuminate all those microscopic scratches in the glass left by cleaning
procedures.
I have also seen some lenses with oil residues on inner elements. These oil residues will
take the form of fogging, spotting or streaking. I suspect that factory-applied lubricants are
to blame here.
In one extreme case, using a flashlight I saw a smudge with a small fingerprint on an
internal element. This same lens happens to be the sharpest one in my collection (a 50 mm
prime). Since this realization, I have devoted much less attention to the cleanliness of my
lenses.
A little scattered light seems to be ok.
-- Alan Wallace Jr, March 7, 2001
General advice.
1. Use a bulb blower to dust off your lenses periodically. This is one of the safest ways to
clean the glass.
2. Use alcohol and lens tissues or cotton balls to clean persistent grime off the glass. I use
ordinary alcohol rather than special lens cleaning solutions, because it evaporates quickly,
wipes clean easily, and leaves no streaks.
3. Use a lens hood on every lens, and consider an eyecup for your camera's viewfinder.
These accessories help protect the glass from fingers, dust, facial oils, air pollution, impact,
etc. They also deliver more contrast to your eye and to the film, by blocking extraneous
light.
4. Use your lens caps when you finish taking pictures, and when you change lenses. This
Cleaning Cameras
keeps dust and oil off the elements, and prevents scratches and impact damage.
5. Use UV filters to protect your lenses in hostile environments: rain, snow, smoke,
extreme heat or cold. But don't think you have to use them all the time. Even the best filters
will degrade contrast and resolution, which may or may not be noticeable. Bad filters can
turn good lenses into mediocre ones. Always remove filters when shooting into the sun or
artificial light, to prevent flare, ghosting, and reflections.
6. Don't clean your lenses too vigorously or obsessively. There's always the chance of
causing more harm than good.
-- Ian Cruikshank, May 24, 2001
I am amazed every time I read an article by someone who does NOT recommend a UV
filter on every lens for protection. These are people whose work I admire and I feel they
should know better. Included in this group is John Shaw who makes the statement "protect
it from what?" in regard to a filter protecting the lens.
In my previous incarnation as a working photographer I have witnessed the following:
1)Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 falling from the roof of my car to the pavement below, 2)Same
Nikkor 180 snapping off the entire front of a Nikon F2 following my being hit by a football
player, 3)Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 being splashed with champagne in the locker room of a Texas
League baseball team, 4)Nikkor 80-200mm f/4 lens taking a headlong dive from a bar to
the tile floor below, 5)Nikkor 24mm lens attached to a Nikon F2 that slipped thorough my
fingers and crashed to the dining room floor of my apartment, 6)Nikkor 35mm lens being
splashed with flood water, etc., etc....
In every case, the front lens element was undamaged. I wore out one 24mm lens, there was
no distance markings left on the barrel and it was no longer sharp until you stopped down
to f/16, but the front element (and rear as well) were pristine.
If you are working as a photographer or just caught up in the moment, you will many times
expose your camera and lenses to rough treatment. You will stuff lenses in bags or lay them
down on rocks (or bars) and not use a lens cap. It's called normal use and abuse for a
working photographer or an amateur who does a lot of photography. It makes sense to
protect the lens elements as best you can. And you can get a decent optical glass UV filter
for a lot less than you can replace the front element of the lens. If you are worried about
flare, etc., you can always take it off to make a photograph and put it right back on--it's not
a permanent lens attachment. You need to protect the lens from the unexpected incidents.
It's just common sense.
-- Lee Shively, June 12, 2001
Cleaning Cameras
I have noticed that often the humidity of finger soils the lens surface through the thin lens
cleaning paper that I use. So I use it loosely wadded. Or I use it,sheet-wise, but I take 2-3
sheet at a time.
-- Alessandro Mattiacci, July 13, 2001
I use double tipped cotton q-tips, and blow (hard) the dust off (and any gritty stuff that
might happen to be there) then I use the 100% cotton q tip to clean off my breath from the
glass. No scratches or problems. Cotton.
-- Nathan Wynn, November 20, 2001
I know lots of purists are concerned about the optical imperfections of UV filters. Instead
of using one to protect the front element, I recomend a rigid lens hood to protect the front
element from fingers, bangs, etc.
-- Mike Barnhart, December 13, 2001
Three cheers for ROR. I managed to clean an old lens that I thought would never come
clean. It is a great thing to have in the bag.
-- Roger Shrader, February 2, 2002
Using a UV filter as lense protection is a double edged sword. Although a previous poster
relates a number of "saves", I had a Nikkor 35-70 hit linoleum after a 30 inch fall - landing
on the front end. The UV filter broke, scratching the front element. New front element from
Nikon service = $200. It comes down to a question of luck...
As for lense cleaning - 3M makes an excellent microfiber cloth specifically for optical
cleaning. If you can locate a supplier, please post it - I was lucky enough to get a sample
from a 3M rep but have been unabale to locate a dealer.
-- Jason Monfort, March 1, 2002
I'm a photographer by hobby only, but professionally I'm an optical engineer and have
worked with all sorts of critical (and less critical) optics (infrared, visible, and ultraviolet
lenses, mirrors, coated, uncoated, etc), and thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Probably the most important thing to consider when cleaning optics: beware of SAND! I
know that everyone recommends using those cleaning cloths in a circular motion, but that it
is really an *incredibly* risky thing to do. If there is even one tiny bit of sand or glass or
other hard material under that cloth, you just made a whole bunch of pretty *permanent*
circles on your lens. This is also the reason why doing what you can to minimize how often
Cleaning Cameras
the lens is cleaned is important. Perhaps you did make those circle scratches on your lens.
But maybe they're not too deep. Do they scatter light and decrease the contrast on your
negative? Sure. A lot? Probably not too much. But if you clean your lens once a week (or
day?) and continue adding these scratches, it will become real noticeable in a hurry.
For cleaning an optical surface, straight wipes are much better. And for those of you who
are really paranoid, you should switch to a different part of the cloth for *each* wipe. That
way, if you did pick up a bit of sand, you won't drag it across again on the next wipe.
Dusting off lenses before using a cloth is important because it (hopefully) removes any
abrasive materials.
I would also definitely steer clear of using any cloth that isn't sold as a product specifically
for cleaning optics. T-shirts may be nice and soft to the touch, but how sure are you that a
spec of sand (or thousands?) isn't stuck in that shirt from the last time you went to the
beach or worked in the yard (or there when you bought it)? Sure enough to risk scratching
your $2000 300 mm Nikkor? It really isn't worth it. Paper towels, tissue paper, cotton
swabs... I have seen all of these readily scratch glass. But these are not manufactured or
packaged to ensure that they do not contain *any* abrasive materials. If you know anyone
who has regularly cleaned their eyeglasses with tissues or paper towels for a long time, take
a look at their eyeglasses with a really bright flashlight and you'll see what might happen to
your lens.
Why am I going on so much about sand? Because the damage is permanent. Once a scratch
is there, it's not coming off.
As far as cleaning solutions go... Again, I'd stick with ones that are supposed to be for
optics. I am not sure what type of AR coatings are put on camera lenses, but many are quite
durable and resistant to many solvents (we use isopropanol, methanol, acetone, toluene,
sometimes even dish washing detergent). Since camera lenses are consumer products, I
would expect the coatings to be pretty durable. But again, it comes down to quality...
Rubbing alcohol has isopropanol in it but only a few percent. The rest is water, detergent
and who knows what. I don't expect that the stuff sold as "pure" isopropanol is as good as
the stuff I would use at work (reagent-grade, contaminants are measured in parts per
million!) but it's far better than rubbing alcohol (and cheaper than reagent-grade too:). That
goes for "exhaled water vapor" too... Do you know what's in it? Well I don't either, and I
wouldn't risk putting it on my lens. Biological materials tend to be difficult to clean and
corrosive if left on coatings for long periods (fingerprints can permanently damage a
coating if left long enough).
And here's a tip: If you've just put some cleaning fluid on your cloth and tried wiping off a
fingerprint, and there's still some there, wet another spot of the cloth (or a new cloth) and
wipe again. Don't continue to reuse the cloth that isn't working. The solvent can only take
Cleaning Cameras
up so much dirt before it is saturated (remember chemistry class?), and more wiping just
moves the dirt around, instead of dissolving it.
Lastly, someone above mentioned that looking at your lens with a bright light will reveal
any dirt and dust. That's just how it's done in the optics world. Just a word of caution
though: even a brand new, freshly opened lens may show "a lot" of "imperfections" under a
good bright light. I suppose only someone who is trained in inspecting optics can really tell
what's normal and what isn't, but anyone can look for grossly wrong things. There should
be essentially *no* smudges or other things which cover a large area on the lens. Most
acceptable imperfections will be just little point-sized things. If you can count the dust
particles on your lens, you're in good shape. If there are so many that you could never
count them all, then you probably need a good cleaning.
Hope this helps. Brian
-- Brian McNeil, March 6, 2002
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Gemological Institute of America- At this site, follow the links to their on-line catalog of products
(GEM Instruments). If interested, you can purchase a 10X triplet eye loupe from them.
(contributed by Marika Buchberger)
●
Kooter's Geology Tools- Kooter's Geology Tools carries the Bausch and Lomb Hastings Triplet
hand lens in 7X to 20X for $32-39. Stainless steel and black impact plastic. It should last a
lifetime. (contributed by Mark Ingleright)
Add a link
Use | Privacy
Where to Get a Camera Fixed
Sign in | Search:
content
By Philip Greenspun
●
Top
●
Reader's Comments
If you have a modern 35mm SLR or point and shoot, the most obvious thing to do is send it back to the
manufacturer. So if you have a Canon EOS and live in the US, just send it back to Canon USA. You
can usually find repair facility addresses and phone numbers either by surfing the manufacturers' Web
sites and/or calling 800-555-1212. If you live in a strange Third World country, you can still FEDEX in
a camera body with a credit card number and get your camera fixed by the US importer.
http://www.photo.net/learn/camera-repair (1 of 8) [5/15/2002 7:15:58 PM]
If you have an old 35mm camera with sentimental value and are prepared to
spend $200 to make it work again, you might think that sending it back to
Nikon or Pentax or whoever would work. However, invariably the
manufacturers don't really want to deal with models that are more than 20
years old and will tell you that "parts aren't available." You need an
independent shop that is willing to cannibalize junk bodies, machine parts
from scratch, and otherwise exercise creativity. A traditional favorite is
Professional Camera Repair in New York City: (212)382-0550.
If you have a Hasselblad, consider sending it to Gil Ghitelman (referenced in
my where to buy a camera article). He employs his own Hasselblad repair
guy.
If you have a broken Rollei, Linhof, or Rodenstock, then you want Marflex, (201) 808-9626.
Boston's only camera repair legend is Steve Grimes, (508) 384-7107, [email protected]. He solves all
kinds of strange large format problems with custom machining. He also does bread-and-butter large
format shutter repairs, lens mounting, etc.
We're not experts on camera repair shops in every state. You'll probably get the best advice from our
Neighbor to Neighbor service or the user-contributed comments (below). If all else fails, you may need
to buy a new camera from one of the photo.net recommended retailers.
More
●
You can also learn more about camera and equipment insurance.
[ top ]
Reader's Comments
Repair Shop in Tampa:
In my Nikon N-series Comparison Chart, I refered to a little repair shop near the Tampa
airport that did a nice job on my Maxxum 2xi after hours at a reasonable price. A search
yielded the name and address of the place.
V P Technical Inc.
3434 West Columbus Drive # 104
Tampa, FL 33607
(813) 876-7099
There seemed to be a lot of Kiev equipment on the shelves there so I believe that this is
one of the few shops that repairs these cameras. Should you have trouble finding a repair
shop that handles Kiev, I'd suggest you give this place a call.
-- Don Atzberger, September 26, 1997
If you live near but not in Boston, consider going to Sanford Camera Repair in Arlington
MA. They are a factory authorized Nikon, Canon and Minolta repair shop(probably other
brands also including medium format).
They do an excellent job and they have a display case that's worth visting for by itself.
It's full of destroyed cameras plus the cause of destruction(things like being driven over
and sprayed with salt water).
-- Paul Wilson, October 1, 1997
If you have a Canon T-90 in need of repair don't bother sending it to Canon. They
returned mine with a note stating that the "service life of the T-90 has just ended" and
they no longer have repair parts. After several phone calls I found an independant repair
shop with parts. Good luck.
-- John English, March 1, 1998
If you live in/around Baltimore and need your medium format and lighting equipment
serviced, go see Peter Whedbee!!! This guy KNOWS Hasselblads and has a really good
reputation amongst the local working photographers. His number is (410) 435-4481.
-- Ken Eng, March 6, 1998
A (the?) source for out-of-print user and repair camera manuals is John Craig,
http://www.craigcamera.com
If he doesn't have the original he will sell you a photocopy, in the same size and binding
as the original.
As usual no relation other than as a satisfied customer, etc... (found him by
recommendation of the folks at KEH).
-- Cris Pedregal Martin, June 8, 1998
In the Boise area:
Photek (3075 N. Cole, Boise, ID 83704, (208) 323- 7568) is a really great place. Their
repairs are reasonably priced, and they seem to have a nice supply of used parts. They
also have a nice selection of used lenses and bodies in good to excellent condition.
-- Stephen C. Murphy, July 1, 1998
This is a confirmation of the recommendation of Photek in Boise, Idaho. They can be
depended on for superior quality and a reasonable price, in my experience. They've also
more than once had in stock what I just couldn't find elsewhere.
http://www.allworld.net/photek/index.html is their website.
-- Dave Miller, February 5, 1999
Why don't try to repair your stuff yourself? Many camera repairs turn out to be just
cleaning, replacing light seals, or replacing broken levers. These jobs can be done by
anyone who has reasonably good fine motricity, some patience, and a set of small
screwdrivers, ring openers and a few other tools. The time invested is often less than
what you would take to find out a service shop, pack the camera, ship it, etc. Living in
one of those "strange third world countries" mentioned by Phil, I have no real option
other than doing my own repairs. Shipping a broken camera to the USA would involve a
very complicated and quite expensive "export and re-import" procedure. I have repaired
a few dozen cameras and accesories over the years, both my own and those of friends,
and found that in almost all cases the problem is something mechanical, often quite
obvious. Electronic problems are much less common. It can be necessary to machine
some part (this can get difficult!), but more often than not the sick camera can be healed
without any special medicine!
If you have a quite new $2000 camera that broke, and a nearby highly recommended
service shop, and your hands are hardly able to handle any tool more delicate than a
chainsaw, then by all means get it fixed professionally. But if the camera is 30 years old,
worth $200, you have reasonable skills, and the nearest service shop that may accept it is
a continent away, it would be a good idea to fix it yourself! If you mess up, at least you
had the opportunity to see how cameras look inside! :-)
Keep a tube of cyanoacrilate glue at hand. A lot of failures in autofocus mechanisms go
back to cheap plastic gears sliding on the shafts!
And a small anecdote: Once a friend asked me to repair his Canon (I think it was a T50
or so). It looked like an electronic problem. He had replaced the battery without results
(first things first!). Being an electronic engineer, I dived into the camera's circuitry,
reverse-engineered it until understanding what was happening - power supply problems!
I removed the battery, connected the camera to a bench power supply, and it worked like
a charm... I put in a new battery - problem fixed! The explanation: The battery had a
manufacturing defect, manifesting itself in very high internal resistance, while the
voltage at no load was perfectly normal. When my friend replaced the battery, he bought
the new one at the same shop, and got one from the same manufacturing batch, with the
same defect!!!
So, don't take anything for granted.
-- Manfred Mornhinweg, May 21, 1999
Southern California? Camera Tech of Anaheim for all old cameras. The guy has been
doing it for 30 years and does a great job for a great price. Doubt he'd be too good with
the newer stuff, but if it's a mechanical, as opposed to an electrical, problem, bring it in.
David
-- David Marhadoe, August 16, 1999
if in jacksonville, fl. and need repairs, check out southern technical photo services.
factory authorized for at least nikon and canon. super good prices and quick turn around
-- Tony Padilla, October 17, 1999
My Canon T90 needed a major overhaul a couple of years ago. The Camera Clinic in
Reno, NV did a great job getting my favorite camera back into service.
-- Michelle Dose, May 13, 2000
trial comment.
-- waikit lau, June 28, 2000
In the Atlanta area, I highly recommend Camera Repair Japan (CRJ) in Norcross, just off
Jimmy Carter Blvd. Excellent pricing and service. Compared to other service I've gotten,
they certainly went the extra mile in CLA'ing my gear; it's the cleanest it's been since it
came out of the factory 20 years ago. Tel: (770) 849-0555, Fax: (770) 449-7999, Email
[email protected]. I doubt you will be disappointed.
-- Christian Deichert, July 3, 2000
If you own an older Canon A-series Manual focus camera, send it to Karl Aimo in Mass.
His E-mail address is [email protected], he cought a problem with my AE-1 and
repaired it for a very good price. He charged $65 to fix a jam, a dead hotshoe, and give
the camera a CLA. The local camera shops in my area wanted $120 to fix the hotshoe
alone. Great service and fast turn-around along with great prices.
-- Chris Pitassy, July 9, 2000
In Philadelphia, try to avoid Camera Brokers of Philadelphia (CBOP). Took a camera
there for cleaning/adjustment in early August. Went back a week later to find out their
repair technician wasn't (and hadn't) been around, so my repair waited until he returned.
Received a phone call from him later, saying that my Canon SLR needed some other
work - shutter repair, mostly - and that it would be another 2.5 to 3 weeks, and I would
get a call.
After waiting for the call (in the meantime missing the opportunity to take the camera on
a trip) I returned to the shop today (October 2) asking the whereabouts of the camera
since I had never been called. I was told that "the camera just got in today" by one
employee, and then "the camera came in a while ago, and we called you." (The number I
provided was a work number, so there's no chance I "missed the call or there was no
answering machine" as I was told. Even so, wouldn't good customer service dictate that
you keep calling until A.) you speak with someone or B.) can leave a message? )
In any case, the second employee I dealt with "didn't like my tone" and told me to "take
my business elsewhere." I suggest you do the same.
-- Michael Kmiec, October 2, 2000
In the Washington D.C. area, I have experience with three repair shops:
Mora Camera Service: Just off Wisconsin Avenue, near Tenley Circle in the District.
Nikon only. Small, personal, and they can do most anything on a Nikon. Reasonable
prices and decent turnaround times. Their work for me has always been first rate. They
also sell used Nikon and Nikon-compatible equipment. Last time I was there, they had a
rare 500mm f5 mirror lens at a competitive price.
Alpha Camera: In the Clarendon area of Arlington, at the corner of Washington Blvd.
and Wilson Blvd. This is another small shop, run by a Vietnamese guy who fixed Nikons
for the war correspondents in Saigon. He has done some first-rate work for me on older
mechanical equipment, cleaning fungus out of lenses and that sort of thing. Rates are
quite reasonable. Don't be put off by the funky storefront, this guy does good work. I
don't know how knowledgeable he is about the latest autofocus wonderboxes, but he is
definitely the first guy I would go to for work on an older camera.
Strauss Photo: Big, institutional, diverse, and slow. In a part of the District I would prefer
never to set foot, Strauss does repair work for most of the camera shops in the DC area.
They are factory authorized by several major manufacturers. I have had mixed results
with them. They are basically good, but the operation is big enough that some sloppy
work can slip through. Their size does mean they can fix a lot of stuff that a smaller
outfit wouldn't have parts for. I don't send them Nikons any more; I wasn't real pleased
with the last overhaul on my F3 and the camera wound up at Mora a few months later. I
would still go to Strauss if Mora or Alpha couldn't help me.
-- Bob Benzinger, May 26, 2001
Stay away from MACK CAMERA and Repair, in Springfield, NJ. They are arrogant,
ham-handed thieves. Unfortunately, they provide lots of extended-warranty service to
camera shops all over, so many consumers may have no other choice.
I live near Mack and recently brought them a Rollei TLR for servicing. I asked
specifically to speak with their repair person before they worked on the camera. In fact,
nobody called me, they went ahead with the work, and they returned the camera to me in
much worse shape than it was before -- an exterior part entirely missing, a lock-lever
detached, damage to the film transport mechanism and to the camera back/latch. This is
beyond belief. When I complained that nobody had called, they said take your camera
and leave, don't pay us--thinking I would be mollified. It was only when I got home that I
saw what a botch job they had done.
Now, the company president refuses my phone calls, ignores my faxes. My next step will
be Better Business Bureau, then Small Claims Court, I imagine.
Clearly, this company knows nothing about fixing real cameras. It is to be avoided at all
cost.
I would be happy to hear of others' experience with them.
-- John Verity, February 4, 2002
I highly recommend Superior Camera Repair and Exchange, in Woodland Hills, CA. The
owner has done excellent work with my Minolta SRT-101 and XD-11 cameras, which
most shops refuse to even look at. I had a short in my XD-11 which drained fresh
batteries in less than a month; no problem, he fixed it inside a week. He loves working
with classic cameras.
-- John Wright, April 7, 2002
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
●
●
Kominek Camera & Optical Repairs- We are an independant shop specialising in camera and
optical instrument repairs. Located in Toronto, Canada, we offer service to most makes of
cameras, including Leica, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and most other makes. We also service many
older models, including Zeiss and Voightlander. (contributed by Roger Henriques)
Camera Repair Tips Page- In the course of repairing SLR cameras for almost 25 years, I have
compiled this list of the most common problems that I have run across. To see if I have some
tips about your camera just click on your brand name and jump to your model. The most
common SLR cameras that I work on are listed. (contributed by John Titterington)
Bob Warkentin's Southern Nikonos- THE place to go for Nikonos service. Simply the best. This
is where the pros send their Nikonos gear. I have been using them since the 1980's and have
always been 100% satisfied. Also a very informative Web site. (contributed by Bob Benzinger)
Camera Fix Newsgroup- This is a newsgroup for hobbyist camera repairers to share experiences
about repairing their cameras. Specializing first in mechanical and semi-electronic cameras, any
related discussion is also welcome. You can subscribe from the link above, or send blank email
to: [email protected] (contributed by Kelvin Lee)
Add a link
Use | Privacy
Camera and Equipment Insurance
Sign in | Search:
content
Buying Insurance for your Camera and Equipment
By Lisa Surati
Guide Contents:
1. Top
2. What type of policy do I need?
3. What if I use my equipment
commercially only on occasion?
4. I want to add a floater to my
homeowners or renters policy
5. I need a commercial policy
6. Bottom line
7. Survey Results
Reader's Comments
Good camera equipment is not cheap. Most photographers spend years acquiring theirs. If you had to
replace all your equipment at once, or even a portion of it, would you be able to? What would you do if
faced with such a situation? Settle for a fraction of the equipment you once had? Stop taking pictures
altogether and pick up a cheaper hobby?
None of the above sound appealing? Consider insuring your equipment. If your equipment is insured,
check the coverage and exclusions of your policy to make sure you have the coverage you need. If you
lost all your equipment tomorrow, would your insurance company pay for the replacement value of
your equipment? Would you face exclusions if you receive photography-related income?
Understanding your level of coverage today could save you from being unable to shoot pictures
http://www.photo.net/learn/insurance (1 of 12) [5/15/2002 7:16:03 PM]
tomorrow.
What type of policy do I need?
The type of policy you need depends on how you use your equipment. If you do not make any money
through the use of your equipment, a standard homeowners or renters policy should cover against theft
and fire, even when your equipment is outside your home. Typically, standard homeowners and renters
policies cover you against named perils only. They also typically have deductibles. If your equipment
is accidentally damaged, for example, you drop it, chances are it will not be covered under a standard
homeowners or renters policy.
If you use your equipment for non-commercial purposes, another alternative is buying an "all-risk"
floater. This attachment to your homeowners or renters policy includes a schedule of covered items. An
all risk floater generally covers the scheduled equipment against everything except specifically
excluded perils stated in the policy (e.g., acts of war). So if you're walking down a street and you
accidentally drop your camera and a car drives by and runs it over, smashing it into pieces, it's covered
unless that situation is specifically excluded in your policy.
If you use your equipment primarily for business purposes, you should be insured by a commercial
inland marine policy. A commercial policy offers all-risk coverage for equipment, eliminates the
potential of exclusions if equipment is used professionally, and offers a variety of optional floaters
designed to insure against the liabilities faced by a professional (e.g., someone trips over your tripod).
What type of policy do I need if I occasionally use my equipment for commercial purposes?
That's a difficult question to answer. Some photographers who generate revenue from their work, even
if it's not their primary source of income, need a commercial policy. Commercial policies are generally
more expensive than personal policies and might be required depending on the value of your equipment
and the level of income you generate from photography. It's not unusual for a photographer to talk with
two different insurance agents and be told by one that they require a commercial policy while the other
says a personal policy is sufficient. Your best bet is to talk to a number of insurance agents representing
different companies and see which company will offer you the best deal. Remember that
misrepresenting your information could cause your coverage to be denied. Worse, if you are offered a
policy, misrepresenting your information could cause your claim to be denied, even though your policy
is fully-paid!
Due to interest from the community, photo.net has been talking to insurance companies about
potentially offering a photo equipment insurance program for photo.net members. This program, which
will not result in a dime of income to photo.net, could provide photo.net members with a professional
exposure with some combination of all-risk worldwide coverage, competitive rates, coverage for leased
or borrowed equipment and peace of mind that your equipment is properly covered. To determine if
offering a photo equipment insurance program to photo.net users is viable, the insurance
companies have asked us to post this survey to evaluate the demand for such a product. If you
would be interested in participating in the photo equipment insurance program exclusively for
photo.net members, please fill out this survey.
I want to add a floater to my homeowners or renters policy
Items of value, including photography equipment, that are not covered or have limited coverage on
standard homeowners policies may be scheduled on a personal articles floater. Rates for insuring your
equipment on a personal article floater vary among companies. Generally, you should expect to pay
about $1.35 - $1.75 per every $100 dollars of equipment with no deductible. Coverage is usually in
addition to your unscheduled property, giving you more coverage if there is a total loss. Most
homeowners and renters insurance policies provide coverage against named perils only. If your camera
falls off a shelf and breaks, it is not necessarily covered. Personal article floaters are usually written on
an all-risk basis, meaning your equipment is insured against everything except specifically excluded
perils. So, if you're leaning over the side of a boat to get the perfect shot, your strap breaks and your
camera falls to the bottom of the ocean, it should be covered unless that peril is specifically excluded in
your all-risk floater or if you intentionally threw the camera overboard. With a personal article floater,
the burden is on the insurance company to prove that a claim is not covered. With a standard
homeowners policy, the burden is on the insured.
Personal article floaters provide broad coverage, usually with no deductibles. Generally, you're
agreeing on the value of your equipment prior to loss. When you apply for a floater, your insurance
broker will ask you to list all your equipment, the market value/replacement cost, serial number and
other information on your equipment. The market value of an item is the replacement cost of the item
in its current state, not a new piece of equipment. Generally, insurance companies replace insured
equipment and do not pay cash for the value of the item. If you want cash to replace the item yourself,
generally you will have to negotiate with your insurance provider.
Personal article floaters can also cover items you've bought even if you have not told your agent.
Policies can provide coverage for newly acquired items for up to 30 to 90 days if you pay a pro-rated
premium.
I need a commercial policy
If photography is your primary income, or a source of income, a commercial policy might be right for
you. Generally a commercial policy is more expensive than a personal article floater attached to your
homeowners or renters insurance policy. You should expect to pay between $1.75-$2.25 per every
$100 dollars of equipment with a deductible between $250-$500 per claim. A commercial policy offers
a similar level of coverage for equipment as an all risk personal article floater, but eliminates the
potential exclusion of equipment if used professionally.
Additional coverage available on a commercial policy includes general liability, commercial property,
workers compensation, commercial automobile coverage and umbrella liability to name a few.
Most states require you to carry workers compensation insurance(they're so good in Massachusetts of
keeping track of this even photo.net had to comply when sent notice after only a month of
incorporation). Professional photographers operating a studio with employees could be liable for any
and all costs associated with injuries in the event fo an accident. Professionals not only face this
liability with full-time employees, but also with anyone they have hired for an assignment. Carrying
workers compensation protects you from personally being liable for such costs. General liability
insurance further protects you from third party bodily injury or property suits.
Bottom line
The bottom line is that you should get the type of coverage that best fits your needs before you're faced
with the strain of having to pay for equipment, injuries, or other liabilities. If your equipment is
insured, check your policy and make sure you have the coverage you need and that you will not face
exclusion if you receive income from your photography.
Photo.net Survey Results
We ran a survey on photo.net to determine both if there was interest from the community for a
photo.net insurance program and garner the type of demand. There is great interest as we received 699
responses. We determined the average amount of equipment users wanted insured was 8452 and the
median was about $5500. about 15% of the users had greater than $20,000 dollars worth of equipment
to insure. We are currently looking at possible partnerships for a group discount for photo.net users.
More...
●
●
Camera insurance thread in photo.net Q&A forum
Photo equipment thread in the photo.net Q&A forum
Reader's Comments
A note about "theft" versus "mysterious disappearance." You may have theft insurance
with your homeowners policy, which will cover your cameras if you are held up, robbed,
or put in bodily harm in exchange for your property. But if you place your camera on the
park bench next to you and three seconds later it is gone (stolen), it is not considered
theft, but is termed "mysterious disappearance" by your insurance company. In this case,
theft insurance will not cover you. If your camera is stolen from your office while you
are out at lunch, theft insurance will not cover you. This is where the additional insurance
discussed on this page will (hopefully) come into effect.
-- Jay J. Pulli, July 10, 2000
Jay,
I'm not sure if I totally agree with your definitions of "theft" and "mysterious
disappearance".
I ran an insurance agency for 8 years here in New Jersey and what the insurance
companies REQUIRE is a police report. If my camera is with me at work (as it always
is), and it disappears from my bag, I have to contact the police to report a theft. I receive
a report from the police, detailing the theft, which I then turn over to my insurance
carrier who then pays me according to the terms of my policy. While the camera may
have "mysteriously disappeared", it did not jump out of my bag and walk away on its
own. Someone, a person, had to remove it without my knowledge. That's theft.
"Mysterious disappearance", while it can apply to missing property, almost always
applies to life insurance policies where the insured has "disappeared", usually without a
trace. Under those circumstances, the insurance company can withhold payment until
they are reasonably satisfied that the insured had passed away, and is not just simply
hiding in a cave on an island somewhere out in the Pacific. One famous example of a
"mysterious disappearance" was Amelia Earhart, the pilot. Although the Navy searched
extensively, neither Ms. Earhart nor her plane were ever found.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Mysterious Disappearance" can also be the loss
of property under unknown or puzzling circumstances which are difficult to explain or
understand. Leaving your camera on a bench and then finding it has disappeared is not
exactly mysterious, puzzling, difficult to explain or understand. Either the camera fell off
the bench in which case it should be on the ground near the bench, or someone removed
the camera from the bench and this is then clearly theft. Now whether the insurance
company decides to pay you for the missing property is another matter but again, if you
produce a police report, the odds are clearly in your favor that the company will pay you,
assuming of course, you have not filed 200 previous claims for theft of equipment. This
is also a good reason to remember to READ your insurance policy carefully and
thoroughly and consult with an attorney on any segment(s) of the policy that are not clear
to you.
A better example of "mysterious disappearance" as it relates to property, is if you come
home to your apartment and find your stereo, computer and television set are gone and
yet there are no signs of forced entry into the apartment. You will have a very tough time
proving to the insurance company that those items were stolen from your apartment
unless the police can trace the items back to someone who may have had access to your
apartment such as a superintendent or landlord. Insurance companies want to see proof in
the form of a police report, that clearly indicates broken doors, broken windows, or some
other form of forced entry into your premises before they will pay you for a claim of
theft. If the lock has been picked on your apartment door, the police can usually tell, and
will or should include this in the report. (Meanwhile, head down to your locksmith and
pick up a MEDECO lock)
According to Black's Law Dictionary, Theft is defined as, the felonious taking and
removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it;
larceny. Anytime your personal property "disappears", the insurance company has to
assume the property was stolen and pay you according to your contract if you supplied
them with the necessary documents to prove rightful ownership of the property and a
report from the police indicating that the property has "disappeared" in a manner
consistent with "theft"; you are innocent until proven guilty. Again, the key here is to
read your policy and thoroughly understand what is expected of you in the event you
have to file a claim with your carrier. Additionally, many states have laws which require
insurance carriers to finalize all claims within a certain time frame. Check with your state
insurance commissioner for details or again, speak with an attorney.
-- Marika Buchberger, July 12, 2000
For us with digital cameras, there is at least one company that bundles your digital
camera with your laptop and peripherals (http://www.safeware.com/safeware/). If I read
correctly, right now their Texas policy does not cover over $2000.00 in equipment while
in transit (my laptop only cost $500.00 so if I were in Texas it might cover my camera
(Olympus C-2500L), that is, until I buy the Nikon D1). I don't think they cover my
equipment while I am here in Korea.
And if I owned lenses, filters, hot shoe flashes and diffusers, stands, etc., who knows if
that would be covered.
I consider my IBM slimtop, smart media disk, PCMCIA adapter, cheap plastic stand, and
camera all as part of my photography equipment.
It would be great if there were an international insurance policy that would include your
camera, laptop/peripherals, and photography equipment all under one bundle.
That's my 2 cents.
-- N. David Guarneri, July 17, 2000
I have owned an insurance agency in California for the past twenty years and want to
help my fellow camera enthusiasts.
Most homeowner policies have SEVERE limitatins on "business" personal property.
Some companies offer the option to purchase higher coverage and most of them will stop
at $2500 with a 10% coverage off premises. They provide NO coverage for loss of
income or extra expense. They are designed to cover only non-business exposures.
Before you consider purchasing "commercial" insurance you should ask your agent or
broker to see if you have options available on your existing homeowners policy. You
may have to contact several different carriers to get the coverages you need.
One company my agency is contracted with is Allied Insurance, a member of Nationwide
Insurance. Allied offers a Home Enterprise Program (available in 10 states) which is
designed to provide most of the coverges needed by the typical small business being
operated from the residence premises. It combines personal and commercial coverages
on one policy. It is designed for exposures such as barber and beauty shops, dog and cat
grooming, florists, photographers, music instructors and tutoring, etc.. Professional
Liability is specifically excluded. Other companies may have similar products available.
Also, Personal Inland Marine Floaters, Personal Artical Flaoters, Scheduled Personal
Property Endorsements are designed to add "all risk" coverage to specific personal
property owned by the insured. This coverage is so broad as to include loss caused by
accidently dropping a camera over the side of a boat. Don't wait until a loss occurs to
find you have little or no coverge.
-- Steven Hallbert, July 17, 2000
For underwater gear I've been insuring through a company called DEPP, or Diver's
Equipment Protection Program, and been happy with the coverage. The deductable is
low and they cover most losses including flood insurance. Not cheap, but worth the
money to me. www.ProgramServices.com
-- Dan Carey, July 24, 2000
I have an F1n outfit. I have valued the replacement cost today at $3725 Canadian. When
i phoned my household insurance agent he ask me to register the serial numbers with the
carrier. He explained that the equipment would be added on as a named risk. This would
ensure that there was no confusion with the carrier. I dropped off the info and a picture of
all the equipment as well and left it with him. Four days later i recieved the updated
policy and to my surprise discovered that there was a ZERO deductable and it was a no
hassle coverage ( As i requested ) and get this $26.00 per year on top of my home policy.
Good deal or what?
-- Michael Borisko, August 1, 2000
The original article discused costs for personal articles floaters/riders on a homeowners
policyin the range of $1.35 to $1.75 of value. I suspec that rates such as that are for urban
areas where the acturial risks are relatively high. I mentionthis because the rates I have
paid for years are much lower. Currently I am paying $0.13 per $100 of value for
photographic equipment. Check with yoru insurance agent or broker. Even at $1+ this is
relatively inexpensive insurance.
-- Ted Harris, August 4, 2000
I'm a "wanna be" professional photographer, still in the infancy stages of building a
business. I contacted our personal insurer - USAA - about covering my gear. They don't
insure equipment or inventory for business, so transferred me to their "General Agency"
division. Their base coverage was $350 a year, and covered up to $15.0 at CASH value,
not replacement value, with a $250 deductible. any suggestions who to call?
I also hadn't even thought about insuring the office equipment! I've just added a CD RW
and a photo printer. Guess I better check those out also.
-- Steph Thompson, August 10, 2000
If you are not using your photographic equipment as "professional" equipment, you can
add it to your homeowners/renters policy as a rider, usually with little or no deductible
but it's only covered if it's "non-professional use" and it's covered for it's stated value so
make absolutely certain you know what it will cost you to replace the equipment. Keep
this clearly in mind if you decide to go this route.
-- Marika Buchberger, August 11, 2000
I live in Vancouver, BC, Canada, a great city albeit one with one of the largest hard drug
user populations in the western world. When you have a large group of addicts around
you’ll realize they need a lot of money to support their habits. Two weeks ago my
beloved GR1s and a T90 were ripped off when my apartment was broken into. I consider
myself lucky...this is the first equipment loss I’ve had in 25 years. Since then I’ve tried to
get all risk insurance to cover the $20K worth of equipment I use (as an amateur)...no
luck: either the premiums are to high or I’m laughed out of the office. Phil how about
trying to organize some kind of policy in Canada....Anyone else: do you insure in BC?
With whom? Thanks Jim
-- Jim Vanson, September 21, 2000
Jim, if you use your gear for personal use only, a standard tenant or homeowner's policy
will cover it. Just watch for what the perils you are insured against are, and check to see
if there's an off-premises limit.
I'm an insurance broker in Regina, Saskatchewan (Canada), and the carrier I've chosen to
insure my home has no off-premises limit on personal property. I pay a $500 deductible,
but given the value of my gear, that's okay.
-- Jim MacKenzie, September 28, 2000
If insurance is an issue with you NANPA members have an insurer who writes
Commercial Inland Marine Policies for members. I assume that there is a lower rate for
NANPA members. I found that my homeowners insurance limits would not come near
covering a major equipment loss even if I didn't have related income. This policy is all
risk and covers me in most foreign countries. The NANPA website is www.nanpa.org
-- John Pickles, December 10, 2000
My Insurance Company will list camera equipment in excess of 200.00 as scheduled
items on my homeowner's policy. Items with a value less then 200.00 default to my
standard homeowner coverage. This coverage is not as good as a scheduled item.
Now, I have a lot of "stuff" with a unit price less than 200.00 when added together would
be a great loss to me. Am I being too picky here or is there another way to insure my
equipment?
-- Michael R. Amodeo, February 16, 2001
I recently had my residence burgled and most of my camera gear stolen. This was the
first time I've had to deal with insurance companies, and I have to say I learnt a lot from
it. Here are some comments for fellow naive insurance customers.
The first thing is that I didn't think through my policy. My insurance policy covers
camera gear up to $3000 Canadian. I'd bought all my stuff used and didn't think it was
worth that much. Of course, the insurance covers replacement cost of new items. And a
local camera store valued the stolen goods at $4600. Plus tax on top of that. My $3000
coverage doesn't even come close to covering all the items I lost. So when calculating the
replacement cost of your gear remember to factor in both new cost and taxes.
Second, the policy replaces stolen equipment with the rough equivalent that's sold today.
Sometimes that worked out to my advantage. I had an old Canon T50 camera stolen that
was pretty well worthless. But the camera shop rated its replacement as the cheapest
Canon SLR sold as a body (not a kit) - the Rebel G. A Rebel G replacing a T50 is a
pretty darn good deal.
However, I also lost a 30 year-old Pentax Spotmatic that was in excellent condition.
Having that replaced with a Pentax MZ-7 is kind of sad. It's like saying, "Okay - your
beloved 1965 Ford Mustang, your first car, is gone. Here's a shiny new 2001 Mustang!"
It's not exactly the same thing.
Finally, be absolutely sure to record every single item you own in a spreadsheet, with
serial numbers for everything with serial numbers. And keep receipts and proof of
ownership. Otherwise the insurance company may turn down parts or all of your claim.
So. Yes, I had insurance. Did it help me? Well. Kind of. I can't replace much of what was
stolen, and I'm not sure if I will. I could obtain a cash settlement, but it's not going to be a
$3000 cheque or anything - the cash value is depreciated too.
Still. If I get burgled again at least this time there isn't much to take. :)
-- NK Guy, June 12, 2001
I know this is really stupid of me but i don't have the receipts of many of many of the
higher priced items that i own, and also one or two was given as a gift sans receipt (
Mamiya 645 outfit ) is there anything i can do besides photos and serial numbers that
will be adequate proof to the insurance companies of my actual ownership of these
items?
-- Jared Zimmerman, June 17, 2001
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Seems to be a good deal.- http://www.maginnis-ins.com/our_products.asp These guys insure
ALL your photo equipment including bag, cables, etc. WORLWIDE!!!!!!!!!!!! I even asked
about if I droped my Camera off the side of a boat and where unable to recover it. They said it
would still be covered. It's an all risk policy paid yearly. And the replacement cost is the NEW
price. There's a $100 deductible per claim. The price is $2.40 per hundred insured up to $15000.
I didn't get the premium for amount over $15k. Check them out. (contributed by Oscar Banos)
Add a link
Use | Privacy
photo.net optics section
Sign in | Search:
content
Optics
Maintained by David Jacobson
Home : Learn : One Section
And still they come and go: and this is all I know-That from the gloom I watch an endless picture-show,
Where wild or listless faces flicker on their way,
With glad or grievous hearts I'll never understand
Because Time spins so fast, and they've no time to stay
Beyond the moment's gesture of a lifted hand.
And still, between the shadow and the blinding flame,
The brave despair of men flings onward, ever the same
As in those doom-lit years that wait them, and have been...
And life is just the picture dancing on a screen.
-- "Picture-Show", Siegfried Sassoon, 1920
●
●
●
●
Lens FAQ
Lens Tutorial
USAF 1951 lens test chart. Note this a reverse engineered unofficial version. It is easily scalable
to any size. See the notes in the file itself.
Equivalent Lens Focal Lengths For Different Film Sizes
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/ (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:06 PM]
photo.net optics section
David Jacobson
Use | Privacy
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/ (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:06 PM]
Guide to Framing
Sign in | Search:
content
Guide to Framing
●
The Best Framers in the World
●
Notes on framing
Reader's Comments
Anybody ever hear of "swiss framing clips" A.K.A. "gallery clips"? They are a way to
hang a properly matted photo with out the bother of framing. They are very inexpensive,
costing pennies for the clips, I don't know how much for the glass or plexi. So, one
doesn't have to be a web-master to afford a good looking presentation.
-- Tim Even, March 14, 2002
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Holton Studio Frame-Makers- Exceptionally beautiful handcrafted hardwood frames from a
small studio of dedicated craftsmen. Of particular interest to fans of turn-of-the-century work
(pictorialism, etc.), & settings (Craftsman Bungalows) Timothy Holton & staff are in fact truly
versatile, constrained only by their quest for good design marked by artful simplicity. Holton
http://www.photo.net/learn/framing (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:08 PM]
Guide to Framing
Frames are also available at Goldfeder/Kahan (see Philip Greenspun article) and a handful of
other shops nationwide. (contributed by Tim Holton)
Add a link
Use | Privacy
http://www.photo.net/learn/framing (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:08 PM]
Guide to Editing
Sign in | Search:
content
Guide to Editing
●
●
Adobe Photoshop How-to
1. Sepia toning
2. Sepia toning made easy
3. Hand coloring
Fixing the gamma on your monitor
Reader's Comments
The Gimp does have some issues on Windows, mainly:
●
●
●
Scanning problems. It refuses to scan from my Microtek Scanmaker 3700.
No printing option.
Opens a new Gimp instance for each file you click on the Windows explorer.
Nevertheless, it is a great tool that works well otherwise. For those in a budget who can't
afford Photoshop (would you rather pay for a Photoshop license or a film scanner?) a
great choice is to use a lesser tool for scanning and printing - such as the one that came
with your scanner, in my case, PhotoImpact 4 Lite - and use The Gimp for image
manipulation.
If you're wondering about available tutorials, there's an excelent book titled Grokking
The Gimp available on Amazon.com as well as in digital form.
Give The Gimp a try and save the money for equipment.
http://www.photo.net/learn/editing (1 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:10 PM]
Guide to Editing
-- Ricardo J. Méndez Castro, August 28, 2001
WRT GIMP: I have been using GIMP on Linux for a few years and have used it on
windows for the last 18 months. As of 1.2.3-2002-03-10 it is stable and a lot of the plug
in issues seem to have been fixed (But I haven't pushed this version hard yet).
It still doesn't beat photoshop on windows but it is getting closer, it is now a VIABLE
alternative.
-- Mark Reeves, April 8, 2002
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
Making fine prints in your digital darkroom- A three part tutorial on making fine prints in the
digital darkroom. Features a description of an outstanding image editing program, Picture
Window Pro 3.0, a powerful low cost alternative to Photoshop. (contributed by Norman Koren)
The GNU Image Manipulation Program- A free replacement for Photoshop. Unfortunately, as of
July 2001, it only runs well on Linux. (contributed by Eric Hanchrow)
Add a link
Use | Privacy
Comparison shop for SLRs (Canon, Nikon and Minolta), digital point-andshoots, and medium format cameras (Mamiya, Hasselblad and Bronica) and
more at photo.net's ezShop.
(Voigtlander Heliar 12 F5.6 shown)
http://www.photo.net/learn/editing (2 of 2) [5/15/2002 7:16:10 PM]
Nudes
Sign in | Search
Gallery
Learn
Equipment
Classifieds
Travel
ezShop
Community
Nudes
by Philip
Greenspun
It doesn't have to be literal
This is one of my favorites nudes ever. I actually didn't see the picture until I got the film back.
This is about 1/5th of a 6x6 negative that contains the model and a beach and some rocks and a
whole bunch of other stuff. By itself, the picture is a loser. Cropped heavily, I would almost claim
that it is art. That's one of the nice things about medium format.
Rollei 6008, 250mm lens, tripod, Kodak VHC color negative film.
Does it tell a story?
Here's an excerpt from "Career Guide for Engineers and Scientists" ...
http://www.photo.net/nudes/ (1 of 21)12/08/2004 02:14:48
Nudes
Rachel, PhD Biology UCLA 1992, enjoys the wealth of
material comforts that she has accumulated during 10 years
of hard work in science.
(click on the photo for a 500x750 JPEG; click here for a
1000x1500 screen-filling image)
1100 square feet of bare hardwood floors called to me: "You will never have this opportunity again. Tomorrow you are going to move
all of your worldly goods into this new condo. You'd better grab your Canon EOS-5, 20-35/2.8L lens, and TMAX 3200." The model
and room both have to be bare to show the bleak poverty of the unemployed PhD.
Here's another image that I had completely planned in my head before I picked up the camera. It
was during the 1992 presidential campaign when women's rights groups were upset by the
Republicans' rhetoric. I call it Republican Platform. I really should have gone back and redone the
image using smaller feet to create the red, white, and blue footprints on the model.
Remember when date rape was the subject of a TIME cover? This is the image they should have used
IMHO.
Body as Structure
Nudes
I took this in 1981 when I was a junior at MIT. I used a dark brown blanket as the
background and the overhead light in my dorm room for illumination. The camera was a
tripod-mounted Yashica twin lens reflex (6x6), valued at approximately $100.
In 1993, I tried to duplicate the picture with higher-tech equipment. I used a $5,000
Rollei 6008, elaborate studio strobe system with softbox, and motorized seamless paper
background. Even the model was higher tech (taller, thinner). The results? Pathetic. The
room light was too bright for me to adequately judge the outcome with the strobes'
modeling lights. Consequently, the image was much too high in contrast.
Sometimes a brain is more important than a fancy camera.
Motion
Most nudes are static, heir first to the tradition of painting and then to the limitations of early cameras. But with $30,000 of studio
strobes there is really no reason not to show the body in motion. Richard Avedon keeps his models constantly in motion so that he never
gets a frozen deer-in-the-headlights look. To ensure that the light on each model stays constant as he or she moves, Avedon has
assistants follow the models around with lights at the end of booms.
Nudes
(To create some images like these, start by reading the photo.net guide to studio photography.)
Environmental Nudes
I won't say that there is anything wrong with the picture on the left (standard studio shot; seamless background, medium format camera,
softbox), but I really prefer the right hand "environmental nude."
Nudes
This is one of my favorite images from Travels with Samantha. Fuji Velvia film is not really noted
for its subtlety with flesh tones, and therefore you might prefer the version that I hand-colored in
PhotoShop. (If you want to know how I did this, check out my hand coloring tutorial.)
Mostly Covered is Usually Better
People get uncomfortable when staring at other people's genitalia, so it is generally best to either get rid of the genitalia or the face.
Of course, Mapplethorpe made almost a whole career out of violating this rule so if you want lots of money and fame, you should
probably ignore this rule.
Covered by a Dog is Best
me and George (please do not send email asking which one is the dog)
George inspired me to write Travels with Samantha, which begins with his end.
Nudes
Three Graces
"I checked a few different sources for info on the 3 graces, and all I could find is that they are
continually anointing mortals, making them appear extremely beautiful and immortal to their pursuers.
But I couldn't find why there are three of them or why they are called "graces". I think there is some
conflation with the Erinyes, who hounded Orestes after he murdered his mom, but then he sacrificed to
them and they became Eumenides, and at the same time he sacrificed to the Graces. They are
benevolent goddesses - that much I can say for certain."
-- My classics nerd friend (Ph.D. from Princeton)
At right is a copy of a classical statue at the Hearst Castle in San Simeon. Below, in declining order of fidelity
to the classical traditional, are my interpretations of the theme.
Nudes
"Nothing Beats a Wet Beaver"
That's the motto of the MIT men's water polo team. My friend Adriane and I did a fund-raising calendar (September 1998-December
1999) of these beefcake-y guys. Send e-mail to her at [email protected] if you want to buy a copy to help the team (cost will be $10,
available late August).
Nudes
Note: yes, this is the same Adriane with whom I built The Game.
Is it Art?
The line between art and pornography is fairly thin, but it is there. At right is a photo
that I took as an MIT undergrad. A couple of photography professors loved it. They
thought it was art, expression, new, whatever. They hated the arch nude above and
preferred this one. Unfortunately they never did teach me how to describe this as a
tortured artiste project and how to do more, or I'd be exhibiting in the Whitney
museum...
More Practical Tips
Black & white infrared film tends to erase skin blemishes and imparts a lustrous luminous quality to human
skin. It is worth reading Laurie White's Infrared Photography Handbook and then trying out a few rolls of
B&W IR.
Every now and then someone sends email asking "How do you get women to take their clothes off." My
personal theory is that the world divides into two classes of people: those who like to be photographed and
those who don't. Those who like to be photographed think they have beautiful bodies. Naturally, if they look
good in a picture clothed, then they'd look better without all those ugly clothes standing between their
beautiful body and the camera. If you therefore find some folks who have survived the constant assault on
their self esteem by advertisers, the challenge will be to get them to keep their clothes on. It also helps to have
a portfolio of high quality work.
How to develop that portfolio? Here's a 12-step program:
Nudes
1. Read Making Photographs, our free online photography textbook. Concentrate on the "Light" chapter.
2. Read our portrait photography tutorial; the challenges in nude photography are very similar
3. Buy a camera with full manual controls and a fast fixed focal-length lens from one of the photo.net recommended retailers. If
you've invested the time in arranging a venue and a model, you don't want to rely on automatic exposure. The fast (f/1.4, f/2 or
f/2.8) lens is important so that you don't have to use flash for every photo.
4. the photo.net guide to studio photography
5. Practice (repeat).
Big photo labs generally will develop tasteful nudes with no questions asked. I once asked the customer service department at Kodalux
(now Kodak) and they said "if there is only one person in the picture, we're definitely not going to have a problem with it." There are
laws in some states requiring labs to report photographers who bring in images of naked children. More than a few serious
photographers have had unpleasant, expensive, and prolonged dealings with government authority stemming from what you'd have
thought were easy calls (e.g., a San Franciscan who took his 8x10 view camera to a nudist colony and photographed families with their
consent).
Dead Trees
Before burning film, you might want to spend some time with Nude & Glamour by John Hedgecoe. It is not
my favorite hunk of processed tree carcass but it is very pertinent.
If you are looking for inspiration rather than tutorial, you might leaf through the 425 smallish pages of The
Body (William Ewing; Chronicle Books). This covers over 100 years of nude photography, right up to the
repulsively hairy body of John Coplans, whose self-portraits definitely constitute one of the nastiest things
one can do with a 4x5 view camera (actually his assistant takes the pictures; he just sells them for $5000 a
whack).
If you're looking for something more in the coffee table line, then Graphis Nudes (Graphis Press) gives you
200 big well-printed pages of contemporary nudes. Not as huge and only 116 pages long, the Aperture
monograph of Edward Weston's nudes can be awe-inspiring. Do you really have something to say that he
didn't say back in 1930? And if so, is it aesthetic?
More
●
●
●
an ancient page that used to have six in-line FlashPix nudes
the rest of photo.net
body painting
Also check out the user-maintained list of related links at the bottom of the page
Credits
Photo of me and George by Rebecca Schudlich; lighting by me (in my studio); ProPhotoCD scan from 645
negative courtesy Frank Caico.
All other photos are copyright 1981-1995 Philip Greenspun and were scanned to ProPhotoCd by Boston
Photo Lab, my favorite PhotoCD shop.
Nudes
Note: in order to assist parents in keeping their children from seeing my nude images, I have voluntarily rated this site using the PICS
standard. If you wish to set up your browser to block nudity, simply follow the instructions at the rating bureau that I have used: http://
www.rsac.org.
If you're a Web publisher and want to know how to quickly add arbitrary output headers on your site, you might also want to read my
book on Web publishing philosophy and technology.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Just looked over your photography pages, and found the info on B&W IR photography.
I do a bit of freelance work, and I have done some work with IR at nighttime activities, such as dances, when a flash would blind
everyone. I had quite good luck placing a #87 IR Gel Filter (Kodak) over my flash, an old Vivitar 283, set on auto in the "yellow"
range. I was surprised to find that the flash read the IR light as if it was a regular flash.
I got shots from about 50' in to about 15' (and no one was blinded). Of course any closer and people's skin began to take on a strange
appearance.
Just wanted to pass this on. Keep up the good work.
Jim Rementer
-- Jim Rementer, September 30, 1997
The nude is one of the hardest subjects to do well. I have found through my galleries that the images which sell best are ones without
pubic hair. For some strange reason -- prints displaying pubic hair seem obtrusive to the viewer, while the hairless versions are much
more collected. Perhaps we can learn something from 17th century painters? Also, as far as shooting black and white of models, I use a
red filter over my lens and dark haired models for some of my work with great success. The red filter "whitens" the skin tones and
greatly conceals skin blemishes and discolorations. Photographers just starting out may want to try this outdoors against grass -- the
grass turns very dark and contrasts well with the white skin tones of the model. To the artist, my praise. Of the hundred or so gallery
sites I've visited so far -- yours in the best organized and most informative. Thanks!
-- James Falkofske, October 8, 1997
Isn't nudity being able to show who you are beneath the clothing, beneath the flesh, the person you are within the body. Being nude, to
show yourself, be yourself, nothing covered nothing hidden, beneath the clothing beyond the body.
-- Ruey Loke, April 9, 1998
WOW!, first of all. Next, I think that your work is wonderful. You are one of the only artists I've ever read, that i truly able to write - to
convey the emotion of their artwork into language, not just art. My mother is an artist (not starving, I'm happy to say), and I've learned a
lot about art over my eighteen years of life. At least enough to know that you are a "genius" I use the term loosely, only because people
throw the word around way too much, and the true essence of the word is lost. Thank you for your time, and your art. And by the way, I
feel that the one controversial picture is art, not pornography.
-- Jarrod Wolos, July 8, 1998
WOW!, first of all. Next, I think that your work is wonderful. You are one of the only artists I've ever read, that are truly able to write to convey the emotion of their artwork into language, not just art. My mother is an artist (not starving, I'm happy to say), and I've
learned a lot about art over my eighteen years of life. At least enough to know that you are a "genius" I use the term loosely, only
Nudes
because people throw the word around way too much, and the true essence of the word is lost. Thank you for your time, and your art.
And by the way, I feel that the one controversial picture is art, not pornography.
-- Jarrod Wolos, July 8, 1998
A comment on Mr. Wolos' note above:
The image refered to on the gateway page that "might disturb or offend some people" has aparently been deleted. It was a photo of a
stripper on stage, dark background, on camera flash, legs spread directly toward the camera.
I disagree with Mr. Greenspun's choice of examples to illustrate the point that the line between art and porn is a thin one. The arm and
sheets photo is obviously not porn - maybe it's art; while the (now deleted) photo was IHMO, soft core porn and not art. Both photos
were far away from that thin line by my way of thinking.
A photo balancing on that thin line might be the infamous Robert Maplethorp self portrait of himself facing away from the camera, bent
over, with the end of a bullwhip inserted in his rectum. The lighting and sharpness of the large format photograph is very precise. Porn?
maybe - a "penetration" shot. Art? also maybe - a statement about Maplethorp's lifestyle, shocking the viewer into forming an opinion
of him, you pick the meaning or the reason. Viewers' reactions may change after considering that Maplethorp died of AIDS several
years after making this photograph.
-- Mike Rosenlof, July 14, 1998
I enjoyed looking at your photos of nudes in motion. As a sculptor who does figurtive nudes in motion I am always pleased to find
someone who can work with this fascinating subject. The photo reference books I use , however,are few in number: Thomas Easley's
"The Figure in Motion" and the works of Eadweard Muybridge. The latter did not have $30,000 in strobes when he made his 100,000
glass plates at Penn in 1888. Using the sun or whatever reflected light he could capture, he made such a statement that the artists of
Europe treated him as a Messiah when he toured. It would be good if a photographer of today were such an artist that he would seek to
duplicate 1/10th of Muybridge's work with modern equipment. The nude in motion has more than a front and a side. You have made a
good start. Arne
-- Arne Smith, March 6, 1999
I see that the artist is somewhat dismayed that this is a very popular page of his, and feels that there are better works. I for one much
prefer seeing a nude on a beautiful landscape, or a nude on an interesting and artistic backgrounds, etc. than most any other subject.
The artist should ask himself: Why is the viewer bothering coming to his site to look at his nudes when there are literally thousands
(probably millions) of sites out there featuring nude women in an astounding variety of positions and states of exposure?
Because many, like myself, want to see TASTEFUL NUDES. Especially those of us that live in the United States where a nude body
put in an elegant or sophisticated light is so rare to behold that it is craved like gold or money or other precious commodities.
We will spend hours searching the net for a site that gives us nude people (most often nude women) in a high-resolution and highquality format, that (1) aren't sticking strange objects into their body orifices, (2) aren't surrounded by 800 orange, yellow, and red
flashing advertisements, and (3) have words accompanying the image that make our minds actually think a little bit.
For my part, I have found not a single other site on the internet or web besides this one that provides all these things, and FREE OF
CHARGE to boot?!?! I'm surprised your page of tasteful nudes in high-quality format aren't visited so often that your web server
doesn't halt completely!
I have viewed your images (the non-nude ones, too) and enjoyed all of them. But because the nudes are the most rare and precious
images in my society, at least, I keep coming back to them, like an addiction. I never have this urge to go to any of the 1,000,000 porn
sites that are the alternative.
Nudes
Now a shameless plug: my web site, at www.philovivero.com/~philov has a super-small set of static pages that emulate this. No
photographs of nudes, but a few image-manipulated drawings. No commercials, no credit cards. So maybe viewers would like to go
there just to check it out for a little bit.
-- Philo Vivero, May 6, 1999
Beautiful images, I must say. Specially gorgeous is the picture of Heather combing Alex on a bench: the picture looks so simple...
-- Ricardo J. Méndez Castro, May 25, 1999
I would like congratulate you on your excellent photo layout well done!also the photo date rape really touch me.as a man I don't have
any idea what a woman feels after a brutal attack. This photo gave me a tiny insight how horrible rape is.I feel that it is time for society
to conditioning our young boys to be overly agresive and teach our sons how a man should treat others with kindness&respect.9years
ago my wife and daughter were killed by a drunkdriver leaving me alone to raise our son God I hope i did my best.
-- Gary Carnegie, September 13, 1999
This site is simply superb, and of course the way tips are given on such type ofphotography is of great assistance for the amature
photographer. Furthermore thephotographs are not at all obscene, these are the real class photograph.
-- Babul K Jha, September 25, 1999
I was extremely impressed with the shot of the nude with back arched that you did as a junior at MIT. It is actually quite unusual, and
quite original in its feel. I agree that photography has little to do with the camera, and everything to do with what is in your head. Fine
work!
-- David Schwartz, September 28, 1999
Phil, a picutre of your naked friend in an empty condo, or rather your narrative to it reminds me of an excerpt from one of Sergey
Dovlatov's books, who had some mind-boggling humor leaning towars absurd, like a real Russian writer should. You might want to
read his mamoirs of working for an Estonian newspaper in 1970s, where he describes a news photographer, who had cigarette-butts
floating in the developer, etc. Anyway, this is a piece I translated from memory. "In a museum of partisan warfare somewhere in
Russia... A large glass-clad display case with a human skull. The description reads - ""This is a skull of partisan Kowalczuk. Here are
personal belongings of partisan Kowalczuk - a nail which he used to attack the German officer and a bullet from his skull."" ...Partisan
Kowalczuk spared no expenses..." Love the site, BTW.
-- Dmitry Zhukov-Gelfand, October 27, 1999
I am 18 and just getting into nude photography. I really enjoyed looking through the photos because they aren't just pictures of someone
nude, they are feelings, and personalities. I look for the more modern pictures to get my ideas from. I really think this will contribute a
lot to my personal study of black/white nudes. Thanks for a site like this.
-- Jessica Bruso, January 24, 2000
i, myself, speaking as an artist of both audio and visual medium, can honestly appreciate some subtlety and simplicity, meaning that less
is more and does leave the imagination and emotional charges open to the experience that "tasteful nudism" brings to the table. by not
exposing everything to the naked eye, your senses are drawn more to the overall beauty and splendor of the subject rather than a blatant
statement of mere sexuality, as such. the human element in and of itself is dynamic and multi faceted like a cut diamond, and it is the
archetype for every perspective, that we perceive it as such.
-- doug king, June 30, 2000
well, I know within me that I see these things in a very different perspective. others would call it porno but looking at it even without
the paints on the body is per se an art. what is wrong with other prople is their pre-conditioned judgment once they see this thing. one
thing more, this concept of pre-judgment maybe to others would say it just came when they saw it but actually they were conditioned to
Nudes
be so. it was how they were brought up and what kind of environment they used to live in as their consciousness passess through time.
Beowoulf Agate/LSD
-- Leonard Dagaerag, July 3, 2000
I dont believe showing off body parts, especially private parts, for viewing to the public is a form of art. In fact i think its embarassing.
To me this form of activity could lead to a more negative society, a society without rules...maybe a society without dignity. We cant
expect everybody to view these pictures as a form of art? Maybe these form of art should be constrain within its community and not to
the open public especially where places that is accessible to the underage. This is just a comment. No intention whatsoever to offend
anybody. Thank you.
-- Razak Abdullah, August 2, 2000
I think when it comes to decieding whether or not something should be considered ART or PORN, You must analyze your feelings.
Does this photo that your looking at have focus, balance, and point of impact? or does it make you feel like you just took your viagra? If
its's the later, then YOU individually have to deciede whether or not its pornography. I observed all the photo's posted. My personal
feelings say its ART. Not because its in black and white. Not because there seems to be a layout in a respectable nude position, But
because I FEEL its art. Thats what art is.....FEELINGS!
-- Wud Upa, August 13, 2000
girl in blue room
An impressive site, but some words of criticism… first suggestion, perhaps you should use more serious models, or else have the
models perform more serious acts and expressions. I find it very hard to respect a nude photograph of a person smiling or jumping when
put in such a serious atmosphere as a white drop with diffused lighting, such as with the photos you posted of the female nude in motion
or “The Three Graces.” Secondly, try bringing your subjects out of the studio. I enjoyed the photograph of the model in the bare condo
because it gave the subject ground, reality and atmosphere (although your intended message was hard to accept: hardwood floors and
clean white walls are not a typical sign of poverty!). Thirdly, and probably most importantly, research the zone system; try adding some
contrast. Many of your photographs were so grey they bored me, and the only ones I actually stopped to view were the color photos and
the one of woman’s back (torso wrapped in a towel, with a black backdrop). That one was exceptional; very beautiful. But in order to
Nudes
evoke any emotion from a work, light is the key in photography. My photography instructor constantly pounds, “We live and die by
light.” Dramatic lighting is key in provoking any mood from a studio piece. These are the words of a 19-year-old photojournalism
student who hates the studio and produces slightly-blurred movement shots, so you’re getting tips from a completely opposite view of
photography. In fact, my jaw drops in awe of your technical abilities, for I am far from producing such beautiful prints! However, if
your intent is to create a mood, at least consider my comments. I prefer criticism over empty praise, also, so forgive me if I seem harsh.
To Razak, the one who commented that nudes are unacceptable and should be kept private in order to sustain dignity in society:
OBLIVION in society is hollow and unacceptable. Children who are permitted to drink at early ages in other countries proceed to drink
responsibly, while American teenagers are drinking themselves and others dead. Particularly with tasteful nudes, as this site displays,
the unclothed body would be chuckled at less often by immature young adults if it was exposed more freely to them at youth. And
besides, we all wind up getting laid at one point. My site: http://hometown.aol.com/tooonist/Tooonist.htm (this is a rough unfinished
sketch of a page and is not NEARLY as impressive as this one is as far as construction goes!)
-- Danielle E. Corsetto, November 12, 2000
As someone who once had an interest in nude photography ( until society imposed restrictions on this interest ) it was refreshing to see
this site. I think the nude in motion is very hard to do get right, your shoot of the girl dancing in the studio is a perfect example. A nude
should not only be a record of the human body, but to give the mind something to think about, the photos' of the feet and arched back
are good examples, and some are to please the eye with magnificent backdrop of nature that take the eye from the nude so she/he
becomes second to nature. The one thing your site does show very well, is that even here in the work of a serious nude photographer,
male genitalia is still somehow tabu, even if it was not conciously done so. Otherwise some very good photography, keep clicking and
good luck with your future shoots. lance.
-- lance A, December 12, 2000
 I like this page, but the author almost seems to apologizing for its existance in some places. Unfortunately, that attitude seeps into
the rest of the site. I have a number of nude images - art, not porn - posted here on Photo.net, and I have been flamed, both on the
boards and in private email, for them. I have asked the webmaster for help several times in dealing with the posted flames, and my
emails are ignored. This is a site with many well-educated, intelligent members. They are surely aware that the nude has
been a legitimate subject of art for centuries. Yet I still have to stuggle against criticism - not of my technique, which I do not mind, but
attacks on my morals and my character for taking such photos. I think that of the admistrators of this site could be more supportive of
artistic nude photography. They choose not be, which I find significant. I think it limits the site - people moan and complain about the
boring photos here, but until the site administrators show support for more personally risky photos, thats mainly what its going to be. I
like Photo.net - thats why I am here - but I wish it could be less...narrow. 
Amy Powers
-- Amy Powers, March 10, 2001
Phil,
A few things. The first is that I really like your three graces and motion pieces. One of the issues with motion however is lack of
context. You were clearly playing with an undeveloped concept and I regard it as a sort of a "sketch" for the three graces set. The thing I
like most about "three graces is the humor you bring to the subject through the use of props. Others have objected that your studio offers
too serious a setting for smiling joyous models, I disagree; your picture of the three graces skipping rope with the cloth was the first
nude that has ever made me laugh. It captured a wonderful joie de vivre and speaks well of the working relationship among your
models.
The other thing regards Christina. You've framed it badly, tucking it away by itself and contextualizing it as a concession to thrill
seeking teenagers. Why did you actually work with her? There must be a story behind it, and you have done some marvelous work with
it. You've been accused on this comments page about being overly apologistic for your nudes. Nowhere are you more apologistic than
there. Rethink the way you are contextualizing the images.
Nudes
-- Rich Furman, March 13, 2001
I agree with the writer who said that a nude against an interesting backdrop posed artitically is totally captivating and much sought after.
In fact I think that Phil has a lack of interesting backdrops in his nudes, although they are quite good. For a better example of nude
photography in natural settings check out Erick Boutlier Brown, He is a Nova Scotian photographer with an impressive body of work
that relates to the subject. I am grateful to Phil however, I want to get into nude photography and have found this site to be very helpful
and informative on the subject.
-- Traverse Davies, May 7, 2001
Most of all I enjoy the different opionions verbaly fostered by the the viewers, reflecting so many things about us: our religious
upbringing, that of our parents, personal (good & bad) experiences with nudity or members of the other sex, society, parents...I enjoy
the shots for what they show: both the good and not so good. Light is the most important factor in shooting nudes, or anything else,
certainly. I've found some bodies(skin) love light and the camera and even certain types of films and I love experimenting with the
differences. Composition is second. Motion---nearly impossible to get right with nudes (what does one wish to say?). Sort of like
catching a close-up portrait of someone blinking--half-closed eyelids are not so impressive.
A note to anyone using B&W infra-red film. If you have a cloth (non-metalic) shutter you may experience exposure problems. IR light
(or, technically, energy) can be kept away from the film only by metal enclosures so a cloth shutter will change your exposure,
considerably. I've never tried making IR shots with a camera that had a cloth, focal plane shutter. Possibly a contact with Kodak might
offer assistance.
Jerry Revelle
-- Jerry Revelle, May 26, 2001
In the time since I made my first comment, I have percieved a shift in the general attitude of Photo.net habituees towards being more
open to nudes as an legitimate art form. There are still some who will snigger and elbow each other in the manner of sixth grade boys,
but I have also found some insightful and very encouraging voices here, and that really great for me. I hope that this general trend
continues...
-- Amy Powers, May 31, 2001
I am surprised, and disappointed also, about the very reserved attitude I find on this page toward nude photography. I see two main
bordering or parent genres of nude photography being portrait and artistic. Both are about exposing something of yourself or the person
in front of the camera in the picture. For one person that will be very subtile but for the other it is more progressive, striking. That is
what makes photography like any other art form so interesting: it's personal and it shows emotions that are not to be seen all the time.
Remember what Freud says about art: "Art is a form of replacement-satisfaction for unfulfilled desires, like dreams. The difference is
that art forms are not narcistic or a-social, but intended for other people to share and fulfill the same desires." Like Freud or not there is
a truth in it. There is nothing dirty about it other than our nature. In normal life we want to hide it away and it can only come out in
neurotic forms, whereas in art it is "exposed" in a different way that more people can relate to. . Artist in the widest form have always
played a progressive role in history, alowing more of what's inside people to come out. Please don't be too reserved about nude. I'm not
saying you have to share your ideas with everybody but this is a page for photographers and believe me, the distinction with porn pages
if you will is more than evident: we don't have to defend it further. You're nude back with towel in B&W is really high quality and I
loved the nude reflexion on top. Keep up the good work!
-- Remco den Boer, June 5, 2001
Someone with way too much time on their hands!
-- Rog Schmidt, August 6, 2001
I wish you would leave politics and photographic technique separate. Your photo of a woman being stepped on and your association of
Nudes
that with the Republican party is poor. Very weak indeed. Why not do the same but with a baby being stepped on by the woman who
decided to kill it? And associate that with the Democratic party? See, not very appropriate either is it?
Richard Martin
-- Richard Martin, October 22, 2001
As a amateur photographer who is looking to get into more nude-are photography I just want to thank you for giving me some insight
and motivation on this art.
Your insights and photos are wonderful, and they help me come to grips with my creative inabilities of which I am trying to conquer.
Again, Thank you.
Mark.
-- Mark Smith, November 15, 2001
In one of the above comments, Danielle E. Corsetto, (November 12, 2000) said "I find it very hard to respect a nude photograph of a
person smiling or jumping when put in such a serious atmosphere as a white drop with diffused lighting..."
Why only a nude person? Why would a smiling clothed person in such a 'serious' atmosphere be taken more seriously?
While I agree that a beautiful face with a solemn expression has a high element of class, these type of 'candid' shots have their place,
and I personally didn't have a problem with the setting.
In fact, the contrast between the setting and the expressions is what I liked the most.
Artistic nudes have the cliche of being serious, and solemn. They also have the cliche of depicting something depressing, like being
alone and naked to the world, etc. "This is artistic nudity! No giggling allowed! That would be immature.."
Here, for once we can see people in their natural state, expressing natural emotions. I think its quite appropriate.
-- Clint Hobson, April 23, 2002
I've little interest in labels individually assigned to images, nude or otherwise. I enjoyed this tutorial because it displays and explains
photographing nudes. I don't expect to do much (if any) nude photography, but I still want the insight.
I think your work is fantastic. I was impressed with the woman in the empty room.
Jeff
-- Jeff Bishop, May 11, 2002
Shadow, Light, texture, setting, yes... but above all; beauty, strength, grace, intrigue... le femme mystique ... bring forth our sense of
awe and wonder and impel us to LOOK again. Herein the child and the eye meet, something stirs within, and you are responsible for
that. Thank you.
-- Tom London, May 19, 2002
Add a comment
Related Links
Nudes
●
Geogre Losse's Portfolio- Landscapes and nudes printed in Platinum (contributed by George Losse)
●
Stereoscopic Imaging by Ray 3D- 3D Photography and Video by Ray Hannisian. Gallery includes: (contributed by Ray
Hannisian)
●
●
●
●
Ollie'sOddities- Some strange and freaky photos from my collection, (contributed by Oliver Dunlop)
VINTAGE MALE PHYSIQUE PHOTOGRAPHY 1947-1958- Hand printed photos from the original 1947-1958 negatives.
Male nude and posing strap models, leaning against pillars, on bear skin rugs, erotic, campy, beautiful. Rare vintage male
erotica. Catalogs issued (contributed by David Parker)
Horst Werner Gallery- Artistic nude b&w photos by Horst Werner (contributed by Horst Werner)
Chip Page Photography- Photographer in San Jose Cal site shows his photography subjects ranging from glamour to his work in
the local music scene, also his photos of more popular music groups, like Phish, Rusted Root. (contributed by Chip Page)
●
Jaakko Hucklebee- Sorry, I listed it wrong the first time. This one works. (contributed by Jaakko Hucklebee)
●
Dialogue Fine Art Gallery- Take a look at the photographs of Mark James Perry. The Claudia series of nudes is very good.
(contributed by bill wheeler)
●
●
●
●
●
Chapapeela - Robert Baham Photography- fashion, glamour, nudes, and erotica celebrating the madding contradiction of
Woman (contributed by Robert Baham)
Classic Images- Boudoir, Glamour and Fine Art Nudes (contributed by Fred Kost)
Debenport Fine Art Photography- Beautiful fine art female nudes photographed by Robb Debenport. Limited edition Iris prints
available directly from the artist. (contributed by Robb Debenport)
Dale Austin- Online photographic gallery of nudes and other photography. (contributed by Dale Austin)
Works of H.Butz- The portfolio of New York's Henry Butz, alternative black & white fine-art figure photography, featuring one
of the largest on-line collections of female nudes. (contributed by Henry Butz)
●
Zoran Ilic's Homepage- Zoran Ilic Art-Nude Photography,Pandora and Femina series. (contributed by Zoran Ilic)
●
Legrand Art Nude Photo Gallery- The beauty and poetry of incredible male art nude photos (contributed by Allex Legrand)
●
●
Axolotyl Studios- Various galleries showing environmental nudes, fine art photography inspired by art and literature, portraiture,
wildlife & nature, and some reportage from the Minnesota Rennaisance Festival. Photographs are taken on colour, black &
white, infrared film. (contributed by Pat Thielen)
Leroy Dickson's Web Portfolio- An educational work in progress, aimed at photographers of all skill level. Working on the site
improves my knowledge and hopefully will yours. (contributed by Leroy Dickson)
●
JR Photo Jerry Rybansky- Photographer gallery fine-art figure and stock. (contributed by Jerry Rybansky)
●
EASTGALLERY- artist,gallery,paintings,photos,mask (just underconstruction) (contributed by Victor Lee)
●
photo gallery- Go to the part 'glamour' and 'portrait' (contributed by hans molenkamp)
Nudes
●
●
●
Tepuis- Die Beschwörung des Lichts! fine art nudes (contributed by Eschke Yves)
Rene De Carufel Photography Gallery- Creative images in the field of commercial photography, as well as Fines Art Nude
photography (contributed by Rene De Carufel)
Kurai Hoshi Liferoom- The pencil as a camera - realist liferoom studies of the nude by Gerald O'Connell (contributed by Gerald
O'Connell)
●
●
Eagle Photo Labs- advanced photo services for all people. (contributed by john kinson)
Moonlighting - Fine art nude photographs of women- A series of portraits and fine art nude photographs of Australian women by
Ian Scrivener. (contributed by Ian Scrivener)
●
Redd's PHOTO MUSEUM- An on-line Photo Museum in Taiwan. (contributed by Jui-Te Liao)
●
Tom van de Ven -- Photographs- "Queen of Heats" series of young female nudes. (contributed by mark james perry)
●
Nudes. Hector Hernandez Portfolio- A collection of nudes taken by a Mexican Photograper. (contributed by Hector Hernandez)
●
boy- 123456 (contributed by f chen)
●
●
●
Roller Gallery- This site displays over 15 years of fine art nude photography. Most images were taken outdoors, underwater, in
canyons and caves, frozen waterfalls and on the streets of Chicago. (contributed by Dave Riemer)
Photographer.Ru - Everything about Russian Photography- Our site devoted to various aspects of photography. We have several
sections: Museum, Gallery, Magazine, Portal and News&Events section. (contributed by Denis Korneev)
Art Spider: a Fine Art Search Engine- This site has hundreds of fine art nude photography sites. check it out and bookmark it!
(contributed by mark james perry)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Art Nudes by Paul Ward- Studio and available light figure studies. (contributed by Paul Ward)
a head of your own design- A photographic exploration of metacyber nakedness the mask as a self portrait,looking,being seen,
the erotic gaze as well as issues of power and control.A serious,funny,thought provoking discourse, that welcomes your
participation and encourages you to probe the process of active imagination. (contributed by albert morse)
Jari von Behr, photographer Finland- Fine Nude Art photographer from Finland, models ect. (contributed by Jari von Behr)
Carsten Tschach Fine Art Photography- A selection of fine art, erotic and portrait photography created in the studio and on
selected outdoor locations. (contributed by Carsten Tschach)
Interphoto.net - let the journey begin...- Travel photo Web resource plus great selection of free electronic postcards from around
the world (contributed by Brano Gal)
Erotic Galleries- Erotic Galleries, Models and more (contributed by Collin Braun)
Alligator Angel - Nude Photography- A personal site - I am an evolving photographer of nudes. I do a lot of self-portraits, and
images of other people, as well. (contributed by Amy Powers)
Nudes
●
●
●
Digital Art: fine art nudes- Traditional Photographic and Digital Imaging applied to the female nude. Most images taken in the
great outdoors. (contributed by Dave Riemer)
Iowa Nude Male Model- Nude Modeling for artists (contributed by mike emery)
"monochrome" Fine Art Photography- Online portfolio of Fine Art Nudes and Mindscapes and more photography by Japanese
photographer Fumio Hanano. (contributed by Fumio Hanano)
●
Tepuis - english- the invocation of light! (contributed by Eschke Yves)
●
art-nude, the art-community- many different artists on one website (contributed by Eschke Yves)
●
Gothic Nudes- Nudes on the streets of the big citys (contributed by Gary Anderson)
●
●
●
Steve Cornes - Photography- Click to view the portfolio collection of Southampton photographer Steve Cornes (includes
Portraiture, Fashion and Fine Art) (contributed by Steve Cornes)
black and white nudes- A collection by London photographer Nic Tucker. (contributed by Arthur Noel)
Erotic Photography with Live Broadcast Photo Sessions- Think tasteful intelligent imagery of the female form shot in
collaberation with the models and sometimes live broadcast over the web. Check the schedule for upcoming events. (contributed
by Carl Geers)
●
An experiment in nudes using projections- Slides projected on a nude female to create various illusions of skin texture. No body
paint is used. Some slides for projection created digitally, but the end result is the photograph, not an alteration in the computer.
(contributed by Matt Marquez)
●
Lux Vobiscum- Richard Bingham's gallery of photographs, various subjects, but mainly nude studies. (contributed by Richard
Bingham)
●
●
Edwards Fine Art Nude and Glamour Photography- Free fine art nude and semi-nude photos. Five free galleries including
Boudoir, Erotic, Fashion, Portraits and Glamour Model of the Month. Contemporary, Erotic and Nude Photography Website. We
are always looking for new glamour models. (contributed by Tommy Edwards)
FINE ART + NUDE PHOTOGRAPHICS by Alexander Paulin- Fine art + nude photographics in b/w and high quality from the
german artist Alexander Paulin. Look at his outstanding and unmistakable works in 14 galleries. ENJOY ! (contributed by
Alexander Paulin)
●
●
Mark van den Hoven - Visual 4rt- The official site of Mark van den Hoven. Dutch painter and photographer. NEW erotic photos
and paintings have been added recently. Just enough for the imagination. (contributed by Mark van den Hoven)
Darko Prokes Photography- Fashion, Glamor, Nudes & Erotica Celebrating the Madding Contradiction of Woman (contributed
by Darko Prokes)
●
●
●
Menegatos Fine Art Gallery- A collection of Galleries including various Nudes. Abstracts, bodyscapes, figure studies, bondage,
erotica, etc. (contributed by Tom Menegatos)
A Wandering Body- Nude essay in the ruins of a XVth monastery south of Portugal. Also graphic forms in Greece and portraits
in Africa, Europe and Asia. (contributed by carlos pinto coelho)
PHOTO * NUDES- Finding a new form between art & porn, Photo Nudes showcases the nude photography of Ralph Nolte -
Nudes
featuring redhead model Marlene in an amazing variety of settings and situations. With 3D images, interactive sequences, video
clips and extensive background info. (contributed by Ralph Nolte)
●
●
●
●
Artistic nudes from 3 continents- You might be tired of the trash you see under "Artistic nudes" category on the net. Give it one
more try - see the difference between the faces, bodies and feelings from the 3 most beautiful continents, in a well designed
interactive web page. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions/ideas about what you see. (contributed by Chaba Vigh)
Nudes / Erotic / Beauty - by Roman Sluka- art and commercial nudes photogallery selection of photos by roman sluka: nudes,
photo, erotica, sex, art, fine art, photographer, beauty, elite nudes, models, provocative and romantic nudes, portraits, close-up,
model portfolios (contributed by Roman Sluka)
Art nude photography by Ian Scrivener- An extensive photographic collection of art nudes, portraits and dance by Australian
photographer Ian Scrivener. (contributed by Ian Scrivener)
Amit Bar Fine Art Photography- Black&white and colour photos of artistic nudes, body-paintings, landscapes, nature, snapshots,
children and portrait photos, drawings and photo-collages. (contributed by Amit Bar)
●
d- d (contributed by yetofu fs)
●
Usefilm.com- A photo critique site for photographers with constructive critiques. (contributed by Al shaikh)
●
Victoria Anisova - Artistic Nudes- Black and White artistic nudes as well as colour glamour imagery. (contributed by Victoria
Anisova)
●
●
ApertureX - The Sexier Side of Photography.- ApertureX is a free resource for photgraphers interested in glamour photography
to learn and grow. Also, coming soon a photography contest. (contributed by Leroy Dickson)
* PHOTO NUDES *- The complete on-line collection of Nude Photos, Naked Adventures & Video Nudes. (contributed by
Ralph Nolte)
●
Fine art nude photography-
Nudes
Fine art and stock photos - shopping
See also:The Best Photos - Professional, Stock Advertising and Amateur Photos - www.propho.net (contributed by Gencho
Petkov)
●
●
Expon.Net :: Erotic / Fine Art- Erotic galleries, nudes, fine Art. The meeting point in on-line Art. (contributed by Fran HP)
Jeff Norman - Photographer- Jeff is based in Essex in England. He specialises in portrait and figure photography. This was a
quick attempt at a website which Jeff hopes to improve soon. Comments and communication are welcomed to mail@jeffnorman.
co.uk (contributed by Jeff Norman)
●
A Brave Nude World!- A great index to fine art nude & erotic photography. (contributed by Ian Scrivener)
●
JB Microbabe- Great links to a wide range of fine art nude images of the world. (contributed by Ian Scrivener)
●
Gallery of Nudes- Extensive gallery of fine art nude photography form around the world. (contributed by Ian Scrivener)
●
Jerry Avenaim Photography- View the online portfolios of acclaimed photographer Jerry Avenaim. (contributed by Jerry
Avenaim)
© 2000-2003 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Member content used with permission.
About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA Agent | Privacy
Backup Software |
photo.net is sponsored by Digital Camera HQ
Macro Photography
Sign in | Search
Gallery
Learn
Equipment
Classifieds
Travel
ezShop
Community
Macro Photography
"how to take close-up pictures of small
things"
by Philip Greenspun
macro \'mak-(.)ro-\ aj [macr-] 1: excessively developed : LARGE, THICK 2: of or involving large
quantities 3: GROSS
Taking close-up pictures of small things is called "macro photography." I have no idea why. Perhaps because
the small things in macro photography are generally larger than the things you are taking pictures of when
doing "micro photography". If you really want to be pedantic then you should say you are doing
"photomacrography".
What Kind of Camera
You probably want a standard 35mm single-lens reflex camera. You will see in the viewfinder what the film sees. If you have a lot of
money, you can get a 6x6 single-lens reflex such as the Rollei 6008. That's more or less the same idea. If you have a lot of patience, you
can do macro photography with a 4x5 inch view camera.
In the digital world, true macro photography is possible only with single-lens reflex cameras that take interchangeable lenses, such as
the Canon D30, the Fuji S1, the Nikon D1, and the various Kodak professional bodies. One nice thing about these cameras is that their
small CCDs effectively magnify the image captured by whatever macro lens you've purchased. Thus a 100mm macro lens mounted on a
Canon D30 effectively becomes a 160mm lens. And if the lens gives 1:1 magnification on 35mm film, you get 1.6:1 on the D30's
sensor.
Doing it all with a 50mm Normal Lens
In the good old days a 35mm single-lens reflex camera came with a 50mm "normal" lens. These
lenses were extremely light, rugged, and high quality so naturally the consuming public
abandoned them for heavy, fragile, low quality zooms. But that's another story... Anyway, suppose
that you are out in the woods with your Nikon and a 50mm normal lens and you want to take a
picture of the tip of a pine needle.
First, though, you want to take a picture of the moon. That's pretty far away, so you feel
comfortable setting the lens focusing helical to "infinity". The "nodal point" of the optics will now
be 50 millimeters from the plane of the film. [Note: exposure for the moon should be roughly f/11
and 1/film-speed.]
http://www.photo.net/macro/primer (1 of 8)15/11/2004 6:47:08 PM
Macro Photography
The effort of setting up your tripod is so great that you become tired and fall asleep. When you wake up in the morning, there is a bear
standing 10 feet away. You refocus your 50mm lens to get a picture of the grizzly. As you turn the helical from "infinity" to "10 feet",
notice that the optics are racked out away from the film. The nodal point is a bit farther than 50 millimeters from the film plane. The
lens is casting an image circle somewhat larger than the 24x36mm frame. Some of the light gathered by the lens is therefore being lost
but it isn't significant.
After snapping that photo of the bear, you notice that his fangs are glistening. These aren't going to appear very large in your last shot,
so you move up until you are about 1.5 feet from the bear. That's about as close as the Nikon lens helical will let you focus. The nodal
point is now pretty far from the lens. Extra light is spilling off to the edges of the frame , but still not far enough to require an exposure
correction. The bear's face is 1.5 feet high. You've oriented the camera vertically so that the face fills the 36mm dimension. 36mm is
about 1.5 inches. So that means you are working at "1:12". The subject is 12 times the size of the subject's image on film.
You're losing some light, but also you notice that you don't have too much depth of field. A 50mm lens focussed down to a foot from
the subject only has a depth of field of 1/16th of an inch at f/4. No problem. You haul out a big electronic flash and stop down to f/11.
Now your depth of field is a whopping ... 1/2 inch.
Looking down, you become fascinated by some pattern's in the bear's claws. Each one is about 1.5 inches long. You'd like to fill the
35mm frame's long dimension with a claw, which means that the subject and its image will be the same size. You want to work at "1:1".
But those scumbags at Nikon skimped on the helical. You can't rack your optics out far enough to focus at 1:1. It looks like that pine
needle tip photo is completely out of the question.
Why did Nikon limit your ability to focus close? For starters, at 1:1 your lens would be so far away from the film that it would cast a
huge image circle. The standard 35mm frame would only be a tiny fraction. So only about 1/4 of the light gathered by the lens would
reach the film. A scene that required a lens setting of f/16 at infinity would require a lens setting of about f/8 at 1:1. All this other light
would be bouncing around inside your camera and lens, reducing contrast. Finally, a fixed stack of optical elements can't be designed to
form sharp images at so many different focussed distances.
Close-Up Lenses
Your eyes don't focus so great on really small things either. Do you try to pull your cornea a foot
away from your retina? No. You stick a magnifying glass in front of your cornea. You can do the
same thing for your 50mm lens. Unlike your cornea, it even has convenient threads for attaching a
magnifying glass.
A photo shop could never sell you a "magnifying glass" for $50 so they call these things
"supplementary lenses" or "close-up lenses". Good things about close-up lenses:
●
●
they don't require any exposure corrections
you can throw a couple in your pocket in case you need them
Bad things about close-up lenses:
●
●
they aren't very high quality though they might be good enough if you stop down to f/16 and if you can find two-element closeup lenses (e.g., Nikon-brand) instead of the cheapo one-element ones.
you have to take them on and off constantly if you are taking pictures of things at different distances.
I never use close-up lenses but they are described fairly thoroughly in the Kodak Professional Photoguide.
At right: a model of Sacre Coeur, captured with a Minolta 50mm lens and single-element Minolta-brand close-up lens. The image has
lots of problems but I think I was 11 years old when I took it.
Macro Zoom Lenses
Macro Photography
Macro zoom lenses are not macro lenses. They don't allow significantly greater magnification than a 50mm normal lens and they
deliver low quality.
Macro Lenses
What you want is a macro lens. Fortunately, it is difficult to buy a bad macro lens. This is
kind of odd in a world where 90% of the lenses sold are bad. Here's my theory: Every day
at least one man wakes up and says to himself "I have a 1.5 inch long penis; I think I will
buy a big SLR like a pro. But I don't want to spend money on frills like lenses so I'll get a
Tokina zoom." However, no man ever wakes up and says to himself "I have a 1.5 inch long
penis. I think I will buy a macro lens so that I can make a 1:1 photograph of my penis and
distribute this photo from my Web server. But I don't want to spend too much on this lens
so I'll try to find a cheap Sigma."
In short, anyone in the market for a macro lens is already fairly sophisticated and quality
conscious. If you read USENET then you know that the world is full of people asking "is this $150 Tamron 75-300 zoom as good as a
$900 Nikon 300 prime?" Can you blame Tamron/Tokina/Sigma for trying to separate people like this from their $150? But there isn't
apparently a big enough collection of fools in the market for macro lenses to support a junky macro lens subcategory.
In my humble opinion, the best macro lenses are the latest autofocus mount models made by Nikon (my primary 35mm system is
Canon EOS, by the way). Nikon makes 60mm, 105mm and 200mm focal lengths. Each lens will focus continuously from infinity to
1:1. You can shoot the moon and capture the bear claw without stopping to change lenses or screw in filters. How do these lenses work?
Do they just have a much longer helical than the 50mm normal lens? Yes and no.
Yes a macro lens helical has much more travel than a normal lens helical. You can watch the front element move an inch or two.
However, these helicals aren't just pushing a stack of glass back and forth like the 50mm's helical. Inside one of the elements is moving
("floating") so that the optical design changes to a more appropriate one for close-up photography. Thus you get sharp images at all
focussed distances.
How do you choose a focal length? The same way you do with a non-macro lens. If you can't get very close to your subject at a soccer
game, you don't pull out a 50mm lens; you get a 300. If you can't get close to an insect without it getting scared and flying away, then
you want the 200mm lens and not the 50. If you want to compress features in a woman's face, you don't get a 28mm lens; you get a
105mm lens. It is the same with macro work; longer lenses give you a flatter perspective.
What about other companies? Canon makes 50, 100, and 180mm macro lenses. All three incorporate floating
elements. The 50 is cheap but it only goes to 1:2 without a "life size converter" (sort of like a telextender) that
you stick between the lens and the camera. The 50 is also annoying because it has the ancient non-USM
Canon motor. So it can't do simultaneous AF and MF like the ring-USM lenses. The 100 goes to 1:1 but also
has the old-style motor. The 180/3.5 is a new design with three low dispersion elements, a tripod mount, and
USM for full-time manual focus. It is also compatible with the Canon telextenders. At right, you can see
about as close as one can get with the Canon 50 (from my Christina page; part of the reason that photo.net is
banned by most of the Net censorship services).
Tamron makes a newish 90/2.8 macro lens that goes to 1:1. It is probably pretty good.
Macro Photography
If you feel like spending a lot of money then what you want is a 6x6 cm Rollei 6008. The
120/4 Zeiss Makro-Planar (same lens as for a Hasselblad) will set you back about $3400.
That's right, you could buy a Nikon 105/2.8 macro lens and three N90 bodies for the price of
the Rollei lens alone.
Rollei probably has the most intelligently designed macro system in the world.
I photographed these orchids at left in Hawaii with the 120 Zeiss macro lens, Kodak Gold
100 film (120 size naturally), tripod, f/16 and 1/15th of a second.
Exposure
Unless you are using close-up lenses, when doing any kind of macro work, you always have to
consider the effective f-stop. Even if you are using the SLR body's built-in meter, which will
correct automatically for light loss, you can't turn off your brain. Why not? Because the effective
aperture affects picture quality.
Taking pictures through a pinhole results in tremendous depth of field but very low sharpness due
to diffraction. This is why lenses for your 35mm camera stop at f/22 and don't go to f/45 or f/64.
View camera lenses provide these smaller apertures for two reasons: (1) the lenses are longer (f/64
on a 210mm lens is not all that small a hole); (2) the negative won't be enlarged very much.
If you're at 1:1 and have selected f/22 on the macro lens barrel, you need to look at the lens markings and/or the close-up exposure dial
in the Kodak Professional Photoguide to learn that your effective aperture is f/45.
If you're using a handheld meter, then you absolutely must use these corrections (e.g., meter says f/22 but you're focussed down to 1:1
so you set f/11 on the lens barrel).
[Note: the modern Nikons, e.g., 6006, 8008, N90, show you the effective aperture in the viewfinder; the F4 does not; Canon EOS
cameras do not. Another reason to go with the Nikon system if you are into macro photography.]
Lighting
A good quick and dirty lighting technique is to use a through-the-lens (TTL) metered flash with a
dedicated extension cord (SC-17 in the Nikon system). A modern handheld flash is extremely
powerful when used a few inches from a macro subject. That lets you stop down to f/16 and
smaller for good depth of field. I sometimes just hold the flash to one side of the subject and have
an assistant hold a white piece of paper on the other side to serve as a reflector. Anyway, you have
enough power in the flash to pretty much use all the diffusion material that you can find. Let the
camera turn the flash off when enough light has reached the film.
Lighting is the most important and creative part of any kind of photography. I've written an entire
book chapter on the subject so I'm not going to try covering it here.
The Samoyed nose at right belongs to Alex. I captured it with a Canon EOS-5, 180/2.8 macro lens, and TTL-metered Canon flash.
Below: a foot recently pulled out of one of those weird sandals with all the bumps. Nikon 8008, 60/2.8 lens, SB-24 lens with SC-17 cord
Macro Photography
Let's combine what we've learned until now: the aquarium
Combining everything we've learned up to this point, let's look at a case study: the aquarium. The items inside are pretty close, so you
need a macro lens. If you put a rubber lens hood on the front of the lens, then you can mush it up against the glass and avoid reflections.
Now you need light. Well, you can just get a flash on an extension cord and point it into the aquarium from just about anywhere.
Here are some examples from the public aquarium in Monterey, taken with a Nikon 8008, 60mm AF macro lens (set for manual focus),
SB-24 flash, SC-17 extension cord. I wiped the glass with a handkerchief, asked my friend to hold the flash, and pushed the lens hood
up against the glass:
I'm still trying to figure out how I managed to get a lawyer in that last frame...
Focus
With a depth of field of around one millimeter for precise macro work, camera positioning and focus become critical. If you have a
good tripod and head, you'll find that you have at least 10 controls to adjust. Each of them will move the camera. None of them will
move the camera along the axis that you care about.
That's why people buy macro focusing rails. These are little rack and pinions capable of moving the entire camera/lens assembly
forward and back. You use the tripod to roughly position the camera/lens and then the macro rail to do fine positioning.
I snapped the photos below in the garden of the Getty Center and, though I had a fancy Canon 180 macro lens, I didn't have a tripod. So
I couldn't focus precisely and couldn't stop down enough to get sufficient depth of field. The results are rather disappointing...
Beyond 1:1 the Canon Way
Macro Photography
In the Canon EOS system, going beyond 1:1 is as simple as calling up one of the photo.net recommended retailers and ordering a Canon
MP-E 65 1X-5X macro lens. Mount lens on tripod, mount camera on lens, twist ring on lens, release shutter:
(Flower interior at above left was captured with a traditional EOS film body; the jelly bean image at above right was taken with a D30
digital body.)
Beyond 1:1 with Nikon, et al
Going beyond 1:1 requires more than buying a Micro-Nikkor and turning the focusing helical. In fact, you probably should read a real
book by a real macro photographer. [Bob Atkins likes John Shaw's Close-ups in Nature .]
Here's a basic introduction to the tools, though...
First, you can get a bellows (flexible accordion) and/or some extension tubes. These will let you push the lens farther away from the
camera body. Extension tubes are rigid and tough; they only let you separate your body and lens in fixed increments. Bellows are
delicate but they let you continuously control the lens distance from the body. How much magnification this extra extension will get
you depends on the focal length of the lens. If you have a 1000mm lens that already needs its nodal point 1000mm from the film plane
to focus at infinity, then a 50mm extension tube isn't going to be worth much. However, if you have a 50mm lens, then that same 50mm
extension will take you all the way to 1:1.
Second, you probably want a "reversing ring" for your lenses so that you can turn the back element of the lens toward your subject.
Why? Think about the normal way you use a lens. You are taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is larger than
24x36mm. So you point the front element of the lens at the statue and the back element at the (smaller) film. Your lens is designed to
work like this, taking the large and compressing it into the small. However, if you are working at 10:1, where the tip of a pine needle is
going to take up a big portion of the frame, you want the lens to take the small and expand it into the large. So you want to just flip the
lens around.
Third, once you've reversed the lens, you probably want some way to retain the automatic diaphragm. You want the aperture to remain
fully open until just before your exposure and then close down to the selected shooting aperture. My old Rollei 6008 had all-electric
lenses so you could do this with a clean and reliable electric contacts. Nikon has mechanically stopped-down diaphragms for backward
compatibility so they can't do this; you end up with a strange dual cable release contraption. Canon EOS has all-electric lenses but in 10
years they haven't figure out how to engineer a bellows or reversing ring so don't hold your breath (instead they make a kludge to adapt
their ancient Canon FD macro system to the EOS).
Beyond 1:1 the Lazy Way
Macro Photography
At left are a couple of Ant Robots built at the MIT AI Lab by
James McLurkin. Photographed with Canon EOS-5 and Canon
50/2.8 macro lens (lit by off-camera 430 EZ flash). This lens only
goes to 1:2.
At right is a detail of the ant claws, which was taken with the
Raynox MicroExplorer. The Raynox is a set of close-up lenses
available for about $150. I mounted the 6X lens on a Canon 35350L zoom lens (the kit also comes with 12X and 24X lenses). Yes, in the end I stuck a
magnifying glass in front of my lens.
Here is the original ant claw picture. You can see that vignetting was severe at f/16. Fortunately, I
could see this in the viewfinder to a large extent with the DOF preview and Adobe PhotoShop
papers over a lot of photographic sins. Vignetting is the principal drawback of the MicroExplorer
and it is apparently worse at small apertures.
A couple more example MicroExplorer shots (at left is an Ant robot
detail; at right is a quarter on a $20 bill, full frame at f/8 (I think)). Note
that vignetting is not as severe as it was at f/16 (above left).
More
●
●
Macro threads in the Q&A forum
review of Canon MP-E 65 1X-5X macro lens
Macro photography is an equipment-intensive endeavor. If you need to add to your armamentarium, check out the photo.net
recommended retailers.
Top photo: Salmon roe. Nikon 60/2.8, Fuji Velvia, SB-24 flash, SC-17 extension cord, from Travels with Samantha, Chapter XII.
Frog: Canon EOS 50 macro. 430EZ with Off Camera Cord 2. From my Costa Rica story.
Orchids: Canon EOS 50 macro. Tripod and natural light. Fuji Velvia. From Hacienda Baru in Costa Rica.
Text and pictures copyright 1991-1997 Philip Greenspun.
[email protected]
© 2000-2003 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Member content used with permission.
Macro Photography
Backup Software
photo.net is sponsored by Digital Camera HQ
Photographing Comet Hale-Bopp
photo.net
Sign In/Register •
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
A
Quick and Dirty Guide to Photographing Comet Hale-Bopp
●
Equipment
●
by
Russ Arcuri
Forums
●
●
Gallery
Community
This is a guide for people who want to take photos of the comet, but don't have a lot of specialized equipment for
astrophotography. All photo.net regular readers will likely have an SLR, a tripod, and one or two fast prime lenses, right? That's
all that's necessary for reasonably good pics of the comet.
Equipment
The camera: Any SLR camera with shutter speeds up to 30 seconds and/or "bulb" mode will suffice. If you have a modern SLR
that uses battery power to keep the shutter open, pack an extra battery or two. You'll also want a remote shutter release or cable
release. You can do without the remote release if your camera has a self-timer.
The lens: My favorite lens for photographing comets is an 85/1.8. This focal length is long enough that the comet won't be a tiny
blur on your pics, but short enough that the stars won't trail too noticeably in the exposures we'll be using. (I'll explain star-trailing
below.) If you don't have an 85/1.8, don't worry - you can get reasonably good pics with a fast 50, like a 50/1.4 or /1.8. Oh, if you
have an autofocus camera, you have to be able to turn it (autofocus) off.
The tripod: Any tripod will suffice, but the heavier, the better. If you don't have a tripod, forget it. Beg, borrow, or steal one if
need be.
Other equipment: I'd also recommend bringing along a small flashlight, a stopwatch, and a pair of binoculars.
[Editor's note: Where to buy all of this stuff? Check out the photo.net recommended retailers. Adorama has particularly good
selection and prices for binoculars.]
Film
You can pretty much forget about slide film. Anything faster than ISO 100 suffers from terrible grain, and you'll need very fast
film for good comet photos. High-speed negative film is the film-du-jour for astrophotography.
I like Fuji Super G 800 and Kodak Ektapress Multispeed 640 (PJM) for photographing the comet. Others have had good luck with
Kodak Pro 400 (PPF) and Kodak Royal Gold 1000. For simplicity's sake, take my advice and get the Super G 800. It's probably
the easiest to find other than Royal Gold 1000, which I think is too grainy and has a color cast I don't like. Faster (ISO 1600-3200)
films are much too grainy, IMO.
http://www.photo.net/astro/intro (1 of 6)7/3/2005 2:14:43 AM
Procedure
1.) While still at home, load your film into your camera, and take one picture in daylight or with flash of anything you want. (If
you have a gray card, take a picture of that.) This "regular" picture will help the lab when you bring your film in to be processed.
2.) Pack your stuff into a car. If you don't have a car, borrow one. Plan your trip so you'll arrive where you're going about an hour
after sunset. If you live in a cold area, dress warm.
3.) Get out of the city. This is extremely important. Find a spot at least 5 miles outside the city (suburbs don't count -- get at least 5
miles outside of the suburbs, to avoid the glow of the city lights.) 5 miles is about the minimum. The sky won't be pitch black, but
it will be dark enough for the pics. Be sure you drive out of the city in the direction of the comet - northwest. You don't want to
have city lights between you and the comet. If you've got the time and the inclination, go further - 10 or 15 miles is even better.
The first couple weeks of April are especially good because there is no moon in the evening/night sky. The moon's glow will
drown out the fainter parts of the comet's tail when it is visible.
4.) Find an out-of-the-way location, without much traffic, and a good view of the comet. Look at the comet through your
binoculars -- this is absolutely the best view of the comet and tail you will get.
5.) Put the camera on the tripod, and attach the remote release.
6.) Focus the lens on the infinity mark. Be sure the autofocus feature is turned OFF.
7.) Point the camera at the comet. It is bright enough that you should be able to frame it in your camera's viewfinder. You may
want to include the branches of a tree, or other natural objects in the frame too.
8.) Set the lens at its widest aperture, and do a series of exposures as described below. If you don't have a remote release, set the
self timer on the camera to trip the shutter. The exposure times are: 4 seconds, 8 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds, 20 seconds, 30
seconds.
If your camera does not support these shutter speeds, set it on "bulb" and use the stopwatch to time the exposures. Be sure to
shield your flashlight from the lens. (I should have mentioned that a lens hood is quite valuable here.) Be careful not to shake the
camera during the exposures.
Every once in a while (between exposures) make sure the framing is still good. The rotation of the earth will slowly move the
comet out of the frame if you're not careful.
9.) Now stop the lens down one stop from its widest aperture. Again, do exposures of 4 seconds, 8 seconds, 10 seconds, 15
seconds, 20 seconds, and 30 seconds.
The rotation of the Earth will cause the stars (and the comet) to trail across the film in these long exposures, turning round star
images into ovals or lines. However, it probably won't be very noticeable under 20 seconds. It will be noticeable in the 30 second
exposures, but you may decide you like the effect. You can, of course, do longer exposures than 30 seconds, but the trailing is
much more pronounced over 30 seconds.
10.) If you have other focal length lenses, you can try them as well. Try to keep the apertures at f/2.8 or faster. Slower (f/4) lenses
will work too, but you won't pick up as much of the tail. The longer the focal length in use, the more obvious the trailing will be.
With a 135mm lens, the stars and comet will noticeably trail in a 15 second exposure or less. With a 35mm lens, you can do 30 or
45 second exposures without much trailing, but the comet will be smaller in the picture.
11.) When you get the film developed, warn the lab that they are comet photos. Tell them that if they have difficulty finding the
frame edges, they shouldn't cut the negatives. Explain to them that the sky should be fairly dark, but it doesn't have to be pitch
black. If they print the pics for a completely black sky, not much of the comet's tail will be visible. If they let the printing machine
"autocorrect" the exposures, it will badly overexpose them, producing a medium gray sky -- yuck. You might also explain to them
that the comet exhibits two tails - a bright yellow dust tail, and a dimmer blue ion tail going off at an angle to the dust tail.
12.) If the lab is incapable of producing a reasonably dark sky, try a different lab. A good lab may be able to enhance the dimmer
blue tail a bit to make it more visible.
How'd they turn out?
The pics should be good enough to impress your family and friends, especially if any of them tried taking pics of the comet with a
point and shoot camera. Even more so if they used the built-in flash. (Don't laugh! One of your relatives did this just last night!)
If you want better pictures than this, you need one or more of the following things:
Have your film push-processed
Fuji Super G 800 pushes well to 1600. Contrast and grain increase slightly, but higher contrast is good in comet photos and Fuji
800's grain is fine enough that it can afford to be pushed.
A darker location
On top of a mountain, hours away from a city would be ideal.
A tracking mount for your camera
These counteract the rotation of the Earth, allowing you to leave the shutter open for minutes at a time without star trails.
If you'd like info about tracking (barndoor) mounts, or if you want to be really envious of some terrific comet photos, see Brian
Rachford's excellent Wide-Field Astrophotography Page.
Good luck!
Links
●
Bill Hutchinson's comet images, an extensive collection from someone who lives on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula
Copyright 1997 Russ Arcuri.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Hey- I took pictures of the lunar eclipse a while back with my Rebel XS and my 35-80 with a minimum aperature of about 4.
Jupiter was barely visible below the moon, but I didn't think that that would be a problem. I made most of the exposures at 20-30
seconds. When I got the pics back from the lab, the first thing I noticed was the large white blotch over the moon! I guess it was
jupiter, but I am sure that it was just barely visible. Can you help explain this? --ben yaffe
-- Ben Yaffe, April 6, 1997
I've gotten a couple questions via e-mail about photographing the moon and the comet in the same frame later this week
(Thursday). Since this relates to the above question, and might be of general interest, I'm posting my answer here.
Here's the problem: the moon is really, really bright -- thousands of times brighter than the comet. So the simple answer is that
there is no single proper exposure for both the moon and the comet. The moon is an object brightly lit by the sun - the
approximate exposure for it when it's full or nearly full is 1/film ISO at f/11. When it's a crescent the proper exposure is 1/film
ISO at f/8. As you already know, the proper exposure for the comet is around 20 seconds at f/2 with an 80mm lens (or longer, if
you have a tracking mount for your camera).
The complex answer is this: you can do a double exposure. It won't be technically correct, but it will look cool. Here's how:
First, using the longest lens you have, expose the crescent moon at 1/film ISO at f/8. For example, if you're using Fuji 800, the
proper exposure would be 1/800 at f/8. Since most cameras won't do 1/800, you'd pick the closest thing, which might be 1/750 at
f/8, or 1/500 at f/11 if your camera can't do 1/750. Place the moon on one side of the frame - be sure that your camera is set for a
double exposure.
For the second exposure, change lenses, put the comet on the other side of the frame, and expose for 15 or 20 seconds at approx.
f/2. Now you have a picture with both the moon and the comet properly exposed in the same frame.
If you really want to do a single exposure which shows the moon and the comet on the same frame, you have to simply let the
moon overexpose.
-- Russ Arcuri, April 7, 1997
I also should have noted that the ECLIPSED moon calls for a longer exposure than the normal, uneclipsed moon. I'm not sure of
the proper exposure, but it would probably be along the lines of 2-3 seconds at f/5.6. Perhaps someone who knows the correct
answer to this question could comment? I'm really just guessing here.
-- Russ Arcuri, April 7, 1997
I think that comet shots are a great opportunity to "go digital". When I developed my Hale-Bopp shots, I found that I had a
reasonable set of photos, but with one common flaw: grain. This was particularly in the sky and in the silhouette of the treeline
against the sky. I've seen the same in a lot of other peoples' Hale-Bopp shots, which is why I'm bothering to post this.
Here are two ways to fix such grain in an image-editor, once you have a scan of your image: 1. Slam all of the grainy stuff to
black. This is easy to do (by adjusting the input range in the Image:Adjust:Levels dialog in PhotoShop, for example), but very
heavy-handed. For example, it would obliterated the treeline mentioned above. 2. Use an agressive noise-reducing filter. I like
median filters for this purpose. The problem is that if applied to the whole image, any filter agressive enough to suppress grain
would also act upon the stars. The trick here it to create a mask including only the stuff you want filtered (should be everything
but stars), and use that mask to control which pixels the filter can touch. The photoshop "Select Color Range" dialog is a good
place to start for creating such a mask, though there are a vast number of other approaches. I hope this helps someone!
-- Patrick
-- Patrick Chase, July 7, 1997
Two excellent photoshop ways of killing grain are as follows
A. Either in the scanning software(Nikonscan) or in the Adjust curves, use the set black point tool on a dark area of the image.
This will make it a smooth black instead of the grainy black.
B. Convert to CMYK, change to the black channel by hitting CTRL+4. On this channel, use the dust and scratches tool, usually
with a 4 to 5 pixel radius, and a threshold of 0 levels. If you find you lose too much image sharpness, hit CTRL+`, to get back to
all 4 layers, and unsharp mask.
Hope this helps
Ben
-- Ben Woodruff, November 16, 1999
This article talks about only simple astrophotos, if you are taking pictures of Orion through a 12 inch telescope, you'll have more
problems to worry about. A typical photo of deep space objects are going to last about 30 minutes or sometimes even longer. To
eliminate the star circles you'll need a clock drive on the telescope set at the same speed the Earth is spinning at. Because you are
not using a lens, you don't have to worry about expensive fast telephoto lenses, but you do need a fast telescope, f4 - f5(f5 on a
camera lens is slow, but it's very fast for a telescope), a f10 telescope will take forever. Also, you should use a camera that has a
mirror locking feature, a mirror slap can cause an object in space to move thousands of miles. You'll probably want to use a
manual camera, since some auto SLRs can't hold the shutter open for 40 minutes, or if it can, the battery will get drained quickly
on a cold night.
-- Roy J, December 10, 2000
Capturing images of beautiful yet elusive celestial objects is a thrilling experience for me. Like no other form of art,
astrophotography empowers its participants to look back in history by taking pictures from photons that take millions of years to
travel through the vast universe. Like other form of photography though, it requires both technical skills and aesthetic visions. My
passion with astrophotography focuses mainly on capturing dazzling images of galaxies, nebulae or comets etc. on film. There are
other areas of astrophotography (CCD-based or scientific-oriented) which I'm not going to discuss here.
Most astrophotos we see on magazines or posters (except those featuring images taken by profesisonal observatories or the famed
Hubble Space Telescope) require a camera coupled with a telescope or a long focal-length telephoto lens mounted on a equatorial
mount. In general, the focal-length of the telescope/lens depends on the size of the object. The exposure time depends on the
brightness of the object and focal-ratio of the optics. A good way to start taking astrophoto is to buy a used Schmidt Cassegrain
type telescope (about $400- $800) with 8" aperture (such as the CelesXXon or the MeaXX brand). These telescopes are well
suited for basic astrophotography of galaxies, star clusters, comets, moon, some planets and nebulae. They usually come complete
with tripod, electronics (guiding system) and accessories (eyepieces). Exposure is usually long (from minutes to hours) and the
guiding procedure can be tedious but the results are rewarding. Use fast films (ASA 400 - 800) or better yet, use hypersensitized
films. Movements (wind, vibration etc) must be avoided and the atmosphere should be steady and the sky as dark as possible. A
good source of reference is the "Sky and TelesXXpe" magazine or the "AstrXXomy" magazine. Have fun star-hopping and
picture-taking!!!
The author uses a PXXtax LX body, PXXtax SDHF 100 ED refractor with f/3.6 adaptor and PXXtax MS-4 mount.
-- Tak-Ming Leung, March 9, 2001
Have you ever thought about fujipress 1600??? The grain is razor sharp. Or what about b&w??????????????????????
does anybody ever try this with either a 200 or a 300??? you could get some good stuff.
If you are just going for the stars, not a comet or anything, try this. Get some slow film (100-200 should do it). point a short zoom
lens (35-70 or 28-80) at the north star, hold the shutter open for 2 min, and as you do, turn the zoom ring. Good times
-- Rockne Roll, April 20, 2003
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
●
Wide-Field Astrophotography Page- If you'd like info about tracking (barndoor) mounts, or if you want to be really
envious of some terrific comet photos, see Brian Rachford's excellent Wide-Field Astrophotography Page. -- An updated
link with a little help from google.com (contributed by David H. Hartman)
Astrophotographer Jason Ware Featured at PixiPort- Jason Ware's AstroPhotography prints have been featured in several
major magazines and catalogs. Here is a partial list: Nov.1993,Sky & Telescope Magazine,page 46. -Lagoon and Trifid
Nebula. Jan. 1994,Astronomy Magazine,page 103. -Andromeda Galaxy. May.1994,Sky & Telescope Magazine,page 113. Orion Nebula Jul. 1994,Astronomy Magazine,page 82. -Pelican Nebula. 1994-1995,Meade Instruments, Inc. Catalog Orion
Nebula Region, page 27. Veil Nebula, page 29. Andromeda Galaxy, page 30. Jan. 1995,Astronomy Magazine,page 66/67. Rosette Nebula. About the Photographs ALL of the photographs were taken using Meade Instruments telescopes. The
photographs of nebulae and galaxies were taken using auto-guided time-exposure photography on Fuji HG400 film(120
format). The original exposures, lasting between 2 and 3 hours, were then copied onto Kodak Vericolor Transparency film,
from which an internegative was made for the final print. Each step increases contrast and color saturation. The moon
photo was a short exposure on Kodak Technical Pan film. (contributed by Helyn Davenport)
Tripod Astrophotography- For anyone interested in building a "tangent arm drive",there are plenty of links to whet most
appetites. (contributed by Mike Nicholson)
Add a link
© 2000-2005 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Contributed content used with permission.
Disaster Recovery | Concert Tickets | Discount Bridesmaid Dresses
Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of Pentax digital cameras
Star Streak Tutorial
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Star Streaks
a tutorial by Philip
Greenspun
There I was, up in the White Mountains of California, 10,500' high in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine
Forest. The tree in the foreground is probably 3,000 years old. They grow slowly in the dry climate that
results from being in the rain shadow of the Sierra Mountains across the Owens Valley to the east.
I stuck my Nikon 6006 on a tripod facing east, mounted a 60/2.8 macro lens (I think), and set the
aperture for f/4 (ISO 50 color negative film). I opened the shutter with a cable release and screwed down
the lock. Then I went to sleep for six hours. As the morning began to brighten, around 4:30, I unscrewed
the cable release. No clunk. No motor drive whirr. It seemed that the lithium battery had died. I put a
lens cap onto the front of the lens to block stray light and inserted a new battery. The shutter/mirror
thunked closed and the camera wound up to the next frame. I then repeated this procedure with a Nikon
8008 on an adjacent tripod.
The Nikon had been loaded with my favorite landscape film, Fuji
Velvia. Due to the higher contrast of slide film, though, the
resulting image was much less interesting. Color negative film
compresses the contrast in the original scene, so faint star trails
were recorded right alongside the bright ones. Both the slide and
negative films recorded brilliant colors where my eye could see
none.
Here's my advice to others interested in star trail photography:
http://www.photo.net/astro/star-streak (1 of 9)7/3/2005 2:15:29 AM
●
●
●
●
Use a tripod. Of course, if you're serious about landscape photography, you already have one. Big
heavy stable ones are the best if you're looking at 6 hours of wind resistance.
Use color negative film. Ektar 25 is the best (f/2.8 or f/4 is probably the right exposure). Fuji 100
would be my second choice (at f/5.6 or f/8). I used Afga Ultra 50 at f/4 but I don't really like this
film in general (explained in my more general film recommendations).
A moon-free night is best. Failing that, point the camera in a part of the sky where the moon
won't be.
Use a manual camera, e.g., Nikon FM, F3, (F4 can do it also, but I think the camera sucks). If
your only camera is a fancy battery-dependent marvel, make sure you have fresh batteries
available to make it close (and hope that it doesn't somehow close itself prematurely; if you aren't
using a Nikon 8008 or 6006, you might want to test first).
How to photograph the moon
If you can't find a moon-free night then maybe you should try to get a good photo of the moon itself...
Start with a tripod and a 200mm or longer lens. Your exposure should be f/11 and a shutter speed of 1/
film-speed (e.g., f/11 and 1/400th of a second if you are using ISO 400 film). The moon is illuminated
by the full light of the sun, attenuated to some extent by our atmosphere. You could say the same about
your friend's face on a sunny day, in which case you'd apply the "sunny 16 rule" and set f/16 and 1/filmspeed. Why the discrepancy? The moon is made of darkish gray rock. But we see it at night when are
eyes are adjusted to the dark so it looks rather white. In order to have the moon appear white on film,
you need to overexpose it by 1 f-stop, i.e., use f/11 instead of f/16.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Next time you're shooting star trails, try this: Make your long exposure at a small aperture, then open up
the aperture for another five minutes. You'll get a star at the end of the trail, and be able to make out
constellations. I like to hang my hat on the camera for a few minutes in between exposures to make a
slight gap
-- Roger Carlson, December 13, 1996
A point to remember and contemplate with star photography:
as stars are point sources, the numerical aperture of the lens is not the determining factor in the exposure
of stars.
The actual _area_ of the lens is the determining factor.
Thus a 200/4 has as much light-gathering area as a 50mm f1.0 !
So, I had problems recording good star trails on a 45mm f4.0; no wonder !
this has only a 11.25mm effective aperture... that 200f4 has a 50mm aperture !
thus, a shorter lens will need to be faster, or use faster film.
Bear
-- Barry Rowland, April 29, 1997
You recommend a manual camera, because of battery consumtion and this is true for most of the modern
cameras, but the old Canon EOS cameras (600-series) feature a mechanical lock of the shutter and draw
nearly no current (25 microamps, this means a fresh 2CR5 battery will last for 50.000 houres ...)
-- Helmut Faugel, June 17, 1997
Concerning astrophotography and the recording of stars, there seems to be some confusion about fratios, aperture, focal lengths, etc. For point sources such as stars, it is the focal length, not the physical
aperture, that determines the limits of what will be recorded on film. This is because the amount of
background sky included in the picture varies with focal length and thus the amount of magnitudelimiting sky fog goes up as the focal length decreases. Longer lenses include less of the sky and
therefore less of the sky fog. Since the stars are points, their light is not spread out as focal length
(magnification) increases. This effect results in an increase in the ratio of starlight (point source) to
skylight (non-point source) as focal length increases, and fainter stars are recorded before being limited
by the sky fog. This light-source ratio is not affected by the f-ratio or physical aperture of the lens. For
example, a 50mm lens at a dark site has a limiting photographic magnitude of about 11.5. A 500mm lens
has a limiting magnitude of about 16. The magnitude scale is a way of estimating the brightness of an
object, with each successive magnitude number being about 2.5 times brighter than the next one
(magnitude 1 is 2.5X brighter than magnitude 2). The f-ratio does determine how fast the sky fog limit is
reached. Exposures longer than that needed to reach the sky fog limit will not record fainter stars.
For star trails, you should pick an f-ratio that will give you a decent star exposure for the faintest stars
you want to record. For a given exposure time, too low a ratio will cause a fast sky fog build up with
little contrast between stars and sky. Too high an f-ratio will result in fewer stars against a darker
background. The f-ratio you choose will depend on the local sky conditions and the focal length of the
lens for the reasons stated above.
In visual astronomy, the physical aperture determines the limiting magnitudes of stars. At the same
magnification, a 10" diameter scope will display objects at four times the brightness of a 5" scope at the
same magnification. This is probably where the confusion arose.
-- Vince Farnsworth, September 23, 1997
Regarding long exposure star trail photography with camera lenses, remember that in a lot of climates
moisture will condense on the lens surface as the temerature drops to dew point. So, your 6 hour shoot
will be ruined by the lens fogging unless you take care to heat the lens element with a "dew chaser"
assembly. The Kendrick system, http://kendrick-studio.com, is the best commercially available, or you
can make your own using resistors and wire connected to a 12 volt battery source. Consult Sky and
Telescope magazine archives for articles on this subject. The object is to keep your lens surface just
above the dew point so it will stay moisture free.
-- Greg Palman, May 30, 1998
When the objective is to image faint stars, the aperture settings and focal settings are critical. Significant
improvement will likely occur when optimal settings are used. Usually more sensitivity will be achieved
by stopping down the aperture somewhat as reduction in illumination is more than offset by a reduction
in the circle of confusion (ie less light but more tightly imaged).
As for focus, while the factory scale is "good enough" for most purposes, the true infinity focus is often
different slightly than that indicated. Experimentation pays dividends.
If no time to experiment, a rough guideline is to reduce apperture 1 stop from wide open.
For the curious, the circle of confusion will be reduced as the aperture is closed more than optimal for
the above purposes until diffraction effects about the aperture edges add disproportionate degradation.
For a typical 50 mm lens, the smallest circle of confusion is found about f/8.
-- John Ohrt, October 28, 1998
Since no one mentioned it, I'd like to add a quick comment on photographing (or just observing) the
moon. The least "interesting" time to do it is during full moon. Since the light of the sun hits the moons
surface almost straight on, you won't have the shadows that bring out surface detail like mountains and
craters. Half and quarter moons are much more interesting because you can see more of the features of
the terrain.
-- Frank Wortner, March 24, 1999
When's sunset? Where's the moon? When's the sun gonna come up? ...Get a Casio Fish-En-Time or
Forester for $39 and you'll always know. Just punch your lat/lon into it and it tells you all that and even
a graph of where the moon should be right now (if you're indoors and thinking about getting ready to
shoot). It also can be set to calculate the events for past/future dates. A must for any star geek. I'm on my
third one in 10 years now.
-- Bruce Benson, March 26, 1999
To avoid fogging your lenses, and to make a more overall enjoyable experience when photographing
stars, make yourself comfortable. A cheap pup tent of sufficient height can house your expensive tripod,
telescope, camera, your equipment, and you. Setup your tripod in the tent and point the camera out the
main opening. If you shop around in a good camping store, you'll be able to find a tent that has a large
enough opening for you to capture most scenes and leave enough room for you to pass by. (On very cold
or windy nights, cut a small flap in the side or top of the tent, point the camera in that direction, and zip
everything inside. Your tripod might end up just 1 meter off the ground, or you may need to never enter
the tent while filming so as not to disturb the tripod.) You also might want to cut a large hole or flap in
the floor of the tent so your tripod can rest on the earth rather than fabric. Now, a small non-combustible
heat source placed in the tent will keep the temperature warm enough to prevent fogging. Voila! Your
camera is safe(r) from wind, cold, and rain. Plus, you can always sleep in it!
-- Billy Newsom, April 2, 1999
I got an idea from Phil's comment about batteries dying mid-exposure during star trail photography. If
you're interested in doing it, next time you get a low-bat light on one of your cameras, immediately take
out the battery and save it to open the shutter on a star trail picture. So, next time you're going to shoot
the stars, remove your current battery, insert an almost-dead one to open the shutter, and, to close the
shutter in the morning, reinsert the original battery. Unless I'm overlooking something important, that
should help.
-- David Marhadoe, November 14, 1999
It is worth mentioning that the Canon EOS 3 (with its unique shutter system) doesn't exhaust the battery
when performing bulb exposures to anything like the extent of the EOS 5, and other electronic SLRs no
doubt. I wish I had one! See http://www.canon-europa.com/Eos/ and look under innovations/rotary
magnet shutter.
-- Michael Wells, December 27, 1999
For those who don't have a lot of money to spend on a camera body with a manual bulb setting, consider
purchasing an old Minolta SR-T body with 50mm, 55mm, or 58mm standard lens. There are hundreds if
not thousands of these available on the used market at any given time, and you can usually get them
complete for under $140 (except the all-black models, as they're more collectible).
They sell for less nowadays due to the fact that the mercury batteries they used are getting harder and
harder to find. They're an even better deal if the meter is inoperable -- what do you care, you're not using
the meter anyway! I personally recommend the SR-T 101: 1-1/1000 shutter, self-timer, DOF preview,
and mirror lock-up.
[Caveat: not all SR-T's which offered MLU when they were introduced had it near the end of the SR-T
series' production; for some reason Minolta started mucking around with the features each model
offered. You'll know the model you're looking at has MLU when you see the small circular switch on
the lens mount housing, above the DOF preview plunger and right next to the self-timer lever.]
For more information on SR-T's, visit the Minolta User's Group.
-- Christian Deichert, May 1, 2000
Roger said:
Next time you're shooting star trails, try this: Make your long exposure at a small aperture, then open
up the aperture for another five minutes. You'll get a star at the end of the trail, and be able to make out
constellations. I like to hang my hat on the camera for a few minutes in between exposures to make a
slight gap.
Another idea is defocussing. Start the exposure with lens at infinity. Then, every so often (1 hour, say,
on an all nighter), just barely twist the lens the other way, like so (that was obviously few minutes long
at most, but you get the idea). You'll end up with a rather unique photo, heck, combine defocus with
Roger's idea!
-- Acer Iddibhai, August 24, 2001
This page provided me with information, which after significant trial and error, resulted in this picture:
Aurora Australis and Star Trails at Cradle Mountain The additional element of the aurora light
contributed nicely to the picture. I can recommend f5.6 to f8 for Provia 100F.
-- John McLaine, June 12, 2002
View from kilimanjaro, 8-11:30pm
I added a lovely 3.5-hour time exposure from 16,000 feet up Mt. Kilimanjaro just this summer. You can
see the big image here.
This is from my series on Star Trails.
-- Dan Heller, August 5, 2002
I'm surprised no one has mentioned reciprocity failure for long exposures. That is, the color shift that
happens as certain films, namely Velvia, are exposed for long periods of time. Velvia will shift to the
green pretty quickly, and over 3 hours, you're going to have a seriously GREEN sky. I've had 20 minute
exposures with Velvia that haven't been a problem. There are three ways to adjust for this problem.
first, use a FL-D filter. These are normally used to reduce the green tones you get when shooting
flourescent lights. they shift back to 'white' by adding magenta. For long night exposures, this is perfect.
The sky will shift right back to its correct color. (This may or may not be "black", depending on other
gunk in the air that may have its own color.)
Second, use Tungsten film. this is normally used to compensate for indoor shots where "tungsten
lights" (normal lamps, etc) are too warm (red/orange). Tungsten film shifts towards blue to balance
things out. Again, perfect for sky shooting.
The third alternative is to use Color Negative film, which is not subject to the same reciprocity failure as
slide film. I have only tried this once, and while it appeared to work, it's not clear whether it worked
because "it worked", or because the lab that made the print balanced it out for me.
-- Dan Heller, August 5, 2002
im new to this but for star trails i bought a second hand pentax mg for 50 pounds verry cheap and the
shutter is mechanical on bulb and there is a set 100x shutter speed for moon picturs on 100 asa/iso film
to try youre moony eleven as i call it whith
-- martin wright, September 3, 2002
I have experimented with taking star-trail pictures and have found that my f90's 4-AA batteries just didnt
cut it for multi hour exposures,my solution to this problem was to buy a second battery holder and hard
wire a battery of any size you like (the right voltage of course) to the battery holder.The battery can then
be recharged over and over and it will have plenty of juice.I just bought this stuff for my camera a few
weeks ago.6V battery,a piece of coil wire and a new battery holder,it came out to about 50 bucks.now
long nightime exposures with todays battery dependent cameras are not a problem!
-- Jody Deboer, April 16, 2003
I've been investigating star trails and use the following setup. Minolta SRT101 (fully manual) batteries
removed as you're not going to try and meter on a dark sky :D I use the standard lens that I got with the
camera (bargain on ebay I should add) 50mm f1.7. oh, and a cable release. I've been using kodak 100
and 400 film with very nice results. For nice foreground effects try painting nearer object (trees, bushes
whatever) with a flashlight. A couple of seconds over the entire area brings up the foreground nicely.
Have fun!
-- Ben Johnston, February 17, 2004
With regards to astronomical photography, is not the Olympus OM1 the ideal camera? Fully manual and
no batteries required. Still one of the favourites for telescope astronomy.
-- jay rafiq, June 21, 2005
Add a comment
Related Links
●
the nocturnes- A resource for information about Night Photography and its intersection with all
things Nocturnal - music, literature, other night imagery, poetry, pop culture, and science.
(contributed by Lance Keimig)
●
●
●
●
●
Planetarium for Palm Computing Platforms- I've found this software for the Palm, Workpad,
Pilot, etc. to be quite useful when trying to determine positions of the sun, moon, planets and
constellations and when they will rise and set. (contributed by Michael Gindonis)
MyStars v2.7- I haven't tried to take stars streaks photographs yet, but reading this article and
searching Internet to find a software to show sunrise and moonrise times, etc, I found this
fantastic software in which you can see, in the screen of your computer, how to sky is in every
point on the surface of the earth, at any time, in any direction you want. It really impressed me a
lot, and, in addition, you can move in time, forward and backward, so that, you can see how your
photograph will be. (contributed by Roberto de Castro Souza Pinto)
Star Trails on WildRays Photography- Some star trail photography from the White Mountains in
NH. (contributed by Brian Post)
Lost America Night Photography- Night time desert photography by Troy Paiva. Heavy use of
colored flash. (contributed by Markku Kivinen)
Star Trails from Around the World- Ever-growing page of star trails taken from high places
around the world. (contributed by Dan Heller)
Add a link
© 2000-2005 Luminal Path Corporation and contributors. Contributed content used with
permission.
About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of dvd players
Pinhole Photography
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Pinhole Photography - History, Images, Cameras, Formulas
By Jon Grepstad
Introduction
Pinhole photography is
lensless photography.
A tiny hole replaces the
lens. Light passes
through the hole; an
image is formed in the
camera.
Pinhole cameras are small or large, improvised or designed with great care.
Cameras have been made of sea shells, many have been made of oatmeal
boxes, coke cans or cookie containers, at least one has been made of a
discarded refrigerator. Cameras have been cast in plaster like a face mask,
constructed from beautiful hardwoods, built of metal with bellows and a
range of multiple pinholes. Station wagons have been used as pinhole
cameras – and rooms in large buildings. Basically a pinhole camera is a box,
http://www.photo.net/photo/pinhole/pinhole (1 of 28)7/3/2005 2:15:39 AM
Pinhole Photography
with a tiny hole at one end and film or photographic paper at the other.
Pinhole cameras are used for fun, for art and for science.
Designing and building the cameras are great fun. Making images with
cameras you have made yourself is a great pleasure, too. But in serious
photography the pinhole camera is just an imaging device with its
advantages and limitations, special characteristics and potentials. By making
the best of the camera's potential great images can be produced. Some of the
images could not have been produced with a lens.
Characteristics
Pinhole images are softer – less sharp – than pictures made with a lens. The
images have nearly infinite depth of field. Wide angle images remain
absolutely rectilinear. On the other hand, pinhole images suffer from greater
chromatic aberration than pictures made with a simple lens, and they
tolerate little enlargement.
Exposures are long, ranging from half a second to several hours. Images are
exposed on film or paper – negative or positive; black and white, or color.
Pinhole optics, by the way, are not only used in photography. There is one
animal in nature which uses a pinhole for seeing – the mollusk Nautilus.
Each eye has an accommodating aperture – the aperture can enlarge or
shrink. In this drawing, originally taken from a book published by Arthur
Willey in 1900, the eye is the oval opening to the upper right.
History
Early Observations and Experiments
The basic optical principles of the pinhole are commented on in Chinese
texts from the fifth century BC. Chinese writers had discovered by
experiments that light travels in straight lines. The philosopher Mo Ti (later
Mo Tsu) was the first – to our knowledge – to record the formation of an
inverted image with a pinhole or screen. Mo Ti was aware that objects
reflect light in all directions, and that rays from the top of an object, when
passing through a hole, will produce the lower part of an image (Hammond
1981:1). According to Hammond, there is no further reference to the camera
obscura in Chinese texts until the ninth century AD, when Tuan Chheng
Shih refers to an image in a pagoda. Shen Kua later corrected his
explanation of the image. Yu Chao-Lung in the tenth century used model
pagodas to make pinhole images on a screen. However, no geometric theory
Pinhole Photography
on image formation resulted from these experiments and observations
(Hammond 1981:2).
In the western hemisphere Aristotle (fourth century BC) comments on
pinhole image formation in his work Problems. In Book XV, 6, he asks:
"Why is it that when the sun passes through quadri-laterals, as for instance
in wickerwork, it does not produce a figure rectangular in shape but
circular? [...]" In Book XV, 11, he asks further: "Why is it that an eclipse of
the sun, if one looks at it through a sieve or through leaves, such as a planetree or other broadleaved tree, or if one joins the fingers of one hand over
the fingers of the other, the rays are crescent-shaped where they reach the
earth? Is it for the same reason as that when light shines through a
rectangular peep-hole, it appears circular in the form of a cone?
[...]" (Aristotle 1936:333,341). Aristotle found no satisfactory explanation to
his observation; the problem remained unresolved until the 16th century
(Hammond 1981:5).
The Arabian physicist and mathematician Ibn al-Haytham, also known as
Alhazen, experimented with image formation in the tenth century AD. He
arranged three candles in a row and put a screen with a small hole between
the candles and the wall. He noted that images were formed only by means
of small holes and that the candle to the right made an image to the left on
the wall. From his observations he deduced the linearity of light. (Hammond
1981:5).
In the following centuries the pinhole technique was used by optical
scientists in various experiments to study sunlight projected from a small
aperture.
The Renaissance and Post-Renaissance
In the Renaissance and later centuries the pinhole was mainly used for
scientific purposes in astronomy and, fitted with a lens, as a drawing aid for
artists and amateur painters.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) describes pinhole image formation in his
Codex Atlanticus (Vinci, Leonardo, Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, Recto
A of Folio 337), and Manuscript D (Manuscript D, Vinci, Leonardo, Institut
de France, Paris, Folio 8). These descriptions, however, would remain
unknown until Venturi deciphered and published them in 1797. The
following translation from the Codex Atlanticus, in German, is by Eder
(1905:27): "Wenn die Fassade eines Gebäudes, oder ein Platz, oder eine
Pinhole Photography
Landschaft von der Sonne beleuchtet wird and man bringt auf der
gegenüberliegenden Seite in der Wand einer nicht von der Sonne
gotroffenen Wohnung ein kleines Löchlein an, so werden alle erleuchteten
Gegenstände ihr Bild durch diese Öffnung senden und werden umgekehrt
erscheinen". [1]
In 1475 the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Paolo Toscanelli
placed a bronze ring with an aperture in a window in the Cathedral of
Florence, still in use today. On sunny days a solar image is projected
through the hole onto the cathedral's floor. At noon, the solar image bisects
a "noon-mark" on the floor. The image and noon-mark were used for telling
time (Renner 1995:6).
In 1580 papal astronomers used a pinhole and a similar noon-mark in the
Vatican Observatory in Rome to prove to Pope Gregory XIII that the spring
equinox fell incorrectly on 11 March rather than on 21 March. Two years
later, after careful consideration, Pope Gregory XIII corrected the Julian
calendar by 10 days, thus creating the Gregorian calendar (Renner 1995:7).
Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538–1615), a scientist from Naples, was
long regarded as the inventor of the camera obscura because of his
description of the pinhole (lensless) camera obscura in the first edition of his
Magia naturalis (1558). His description has received much publicity, as did
his camera obscura shows, but he was by no means the inventor.
The first published picture of a pinhole camera obscura is apparently a
drawing in Gemma Frisius' De Radio Astronomica et Geometrica (1545).
Gemma Frisius, an astronomer, had used the pinhole in his darkened room
to study the solar eclipse of 1544. The very term camera obscura ("dark
room") was coined by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630). At his time, the term
had come to mean a room, tent or box with a lens aperture used by artists to
draw a landscape. The lens made the image brighter and focused at a certain
distance. Thus this type of camera differed from the pinhole camera obscura
used by Frisius in 1544. In the 1620s Johannes Kepler invented a portable
camera obscura. Camera obscuras as drawing aids were soon found in many
shapes and sizes. They were used by both artists and amateur painters.
During the 19th century several large scale camera obscuras were built as
places of education and entertainment. The meniscus lens, superior to the biconvex lens, improved the quality of the the projected images. Several
buildings or towers with camera obscuras remain today: The Camera
Obscura at Royal Mile, Edinburgh; the Great Union Camera at Douglas, Isle
Pinhole Photography
of Man; the Clifton Observatory at Bristol, England; the camera obscura at
Portmeirion, North Wales; the Giant Camera at Cliff House, San Francisco;
the camera obscura at Santa Monica, California, the camera on the Mount
Oybin in Germany, and others. A few large scale camera obscuras have
been built in the 20th century.
The First Pinhole Photographs
Sir David Brewster, a Scottish scientist, was one of the first to make pinhole
photographs, in the 1850s. He also coined the very word "pinhole", or "pinhole" with a hyphen, which he used in his book The Stereoscope, published
in 1856. Joseph Petzval used the term "natural camera" in 1859, whereas
Dehors and Deslandres, in the late 1880s, proposed the term "stenopaic
photography". In French today "sténopé" is used for the English "pinhole".
In Italian a pinhole camera is called "una fotocamera con foro stenopeico".
In German "Lochkamera" and "Camera obscura" are used. The
Scandinavian languages tend to use the English "pinhole" as a model –
"hullkamera"/"holkamera"/"hålkamera", though "camera obscura" is also
found, and is the term preferred by myself in Norwegian.
Sir William Crookes, John Spiller and William de Wiveleslie Abney, all in
England, were other early photographers to try the pinhole technique. The
oldest extant pinhole photographs were probably made by the English
archeologist Flinders Petrie (1853–1942) during his excavations in Egypt in
the 1880s. Two of his photographs are reproduced in Renner (1995:39,40).
It should be noted that Petrie's camera had a simple lens in front of the
pinhole.
Pictorialism and Popular Pinhole Photography
By the late 1880s the Impressionist movement in painting exherted a certain
influence on photography. Different schools or tendencies developed in
photography. The "old school" believed in sharp focus and good lenses; the
"new school", the "pictorialists", tried to achieve the atmospheric qualities
of paintings. Some of the pictorialists experimented with pinhole
photography. In 1890, George Davison's pinhole photograph An Old
Farmstead (later called The Onion Field) won the first award at the Annual
Exhibition of the Photographic Society of London. The award was
controversial and led to a schism in the Photographic Society of London
(soon to become the Royal Photographic Society) which resulted in the
formation of the well-known pictorialist group, the "Linked Ring". George
Pinhole Photography
Davison's picture is reproduced in Renner (1995:42), and in some histories
of photography, e.g. Michael Langford's The Story of Photography (Oxford:
Focal Press 1992. p. 106), The Magic Image. The Genius of Photography,
edited by Cecil Beaton and Gail Buckland (London: Pavilion Books Ltd.
1989. p. 79), and Naomi Rosenblum's A World History of Photography
(New York: Abbeville Press, p. 310).
In 1892 the Swedish dramatist August Strindberg started experimenting
with pinhole photography. About one hundred of Strindberg's photographs
are preserved, of these three or four are pinhole images.
Pinhole photography became popular in the 1890s. Commercial pinhole
cameras were sold in Europe, the United States and in Japan. 4000 pinhole
cameras ("Photomnibuses") were sold in London alone in 1892. The
cameras seem to have had the same status as disposable cameras today –
none of the "Photomnibuses" have been preserved for posterity in camera
collections. Some years earlier, an American company had actually invented
a disposable pinhole camera, the "Ready Photographer", consisting of a dry
glass plate, a pinhole in tinfoil and a folding bellows. Another American
company sold "the Glen Pinhole Camera", which included six dry plates,
chemicals, trays, a print frame and ruby paper for a safelight. The very first
commercial pinhole camera was designed by Dehors and Deslandres in
France in 1887. Their camera had a rotating disc with six pinholes, three
pairs of similar sizes. Pictures of these cameras are found in Renner
(1995:43).
Mass production of cameras and "new realism" in the 20th century soon left
little space for pinhole photography. By the 1930s the technique was hardly
remembered, or only used in teaching. Frederick Brehm, at what was later to
become the Rochester Institute of Technology, was possibly the first college
professor to stress the educational value of the pinhole technique. He also
designed the Kodak Pinhole Camera around 1940.
❍
Nick Dvoracek's collection of historical articles
The Revival of Pinhole Photography
In the mid-1960s several artists, unaware of each other, began
experimenting with the pinhole technique – Paolo Gioli in Italy, Gottfried
Jäger in Germany, David Lebe, Franco Salmoiraghi, Wiley Sanderson and
Eric Renner in the USA. Coincidentally, many of these artists were working
with multiple pinholes. Wiley Sanderson was a professor of photography at
Pinhole Photography
the University of Georgia and taught pinhole photography from 1953 to
1988. During that period his students built 4356 pinhole cameras (Renner
1995:53).
Two scientists were also working with pinhole photography, Kenneth A.
Connors in the USA and Maurice Pirenne in Great Britain. Connors did
research on pinhole definition and resolution. His findings were printed in
his self-published periodical Interest. Pirenne used the pinhole to study
perspective in his book Optics, Paiting and Photography (1970).
In 1971 The Time-Life Books published The Art of Photography in the wellknown Life Library of Photography and included one of Eric Renner's
panoramic pinhole images. The June 1975 issue of Popular Photography
published the article "Pinholes for the People", based on Phil Simkin's
month-long project with 15,000 hand-assembled and preloaded pinhole
cameras in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. (People came into the museum,
picked up a camera, made an exposure. The images, developed in a public
darkroom in the museum, were continually displayed in the museum.)
In the 1970s pinhole photography gained increasing popularity. Multiple
pinholes became rare. Many pinhole photographers experimented with
alternative processes. A number of articles and some books were published,
among them Jim Shull's The Hole Thing: A Manual of Pinhole
Photography. Stan Page of Utah, a leading historian of pinhole
photography, collected 450 articles on pinhole photography published after
1850. In the USA, however, critics tended to ignore pinhole photography in
art, whereas Paolo Gioli and Dominique Stroobant received more attention
in Europe. In Japan Nobuo Yamanaki started making pinhole camera
obscuras in the early 1970s. Although pinhole photography gained
popularity, few of the artists were aware of the others' images. A diversity of
approaches and cameras developed.
In 1985 Lauren Smith published The Visionary Pinhole, the first broad
documentation of the diversity of pinhole photography. The first national
exhibition of pinhole photography in the USA was organised by Willie
Anne Wright, at the The Institute of Contemporary Art of the Virginia
Museum in 1982. In 1988 the first international exhibition, "Through a
Pinhole Darkly", was organised by the Fine Arts Museum of Long Island.
Cameras and images from forty-five artists were exhibited. A second
international exhibition was organised in Spain the same year, at The
Museum of Contemporary Art of Seville, comprising the work of nine
photographers. A third international exhibition followed at the Center for
Contemporary Arts of Santa Fe in New Mexico, also in 1988. According to
Pinhole Photography
Renner (1995:94), James Hugunin's essay "Notes Toward a
Stenopaesthetic", in the catalogue of the Santa Fe exhibition, represents the
most thorough analysis of pinhole photography in the 1980s. Eric Renner's
book Pinhole Photography – Rediscovering a Historic Technique, published
in 1995 (second edition 1999), mentions a large number of pinhole artists
active in the 1980s and has samples of their work. References to some
contemporary German pinhole artists who are not included in Renner's
book, are found in the list of literature below.
According to Renner (1995:90) at least six commercial pinhole cameras
were manufactured in the 1980s. In December 2003 there were at least 48
cameras on the market, from 18 manufacturers in the US, Europe, Australia
and Asia.
The Pinhole Resource, an international information center and archive for
pinhole photography, was founded by Eric Renner in 1984. The first issue of
the Pinhole Journal appeared in December 1975. The archives contain more
than 3000 images. The journal has published work by over 200 pinhole
artists from a number of countries.
With the advent of the World Wide Web pinhole photography went online.
One of the first artists to publish his work on the Internet was Harlan
Wallach. By January 1995 Richard Vallon of Louisiana had established the
Pinhole Resource on the net. Today a search on the net will return a large
number of URLs. In April 1997 the Pinhole Visions web site was launched
to support pinhole photography as both an art form and a learning activity. It
is now probably the most important pinhole web site, with news and events
sections, gallery, links to resources, directory of pinhole photographers, web
based discussion forums and a discussion list.
The first Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day (WPPD) was held on 29
April 2001. 291 participants from 24 countries contributed images. On the
second WPPD in April 2002 903 images from as many different pinhole
photographers from 35 countries were uploaded to the online gallery. On the
third WPPD in 2003 the corresponding figures were 1082 images from 43
countries.
Pinhole Photography in Science
In the late Middle Ages the pinhole was used to study the projection of light
through a small aperture. In the 16th century and later it was used in
astronomy to study solar eclipses. In the 1940s pinhole cameras found their
Pinhole Photography
way into nuclear physics. It was discovered that pinhole cameras could be
used to photograph high-energy X-rays and gamma rays. Pinhole cameras
were deployed in space craft by the end of the 1950s and beginning of the
60s to photograph X-rays and gamma rays from the sun. The first soft X-ray
pinhole of the sun was made on 19 April 1960. The photograph is
reproduced in Renner (1995:18). In the 1970s scatter-hole X-ray pinhole
cameras were made. Today's pinhole cameras on space vehicles use multiple
pinhole optics. The last 20 years the pinhole has also been used widely by
nuclear physicists to photograph high energy in laser plasma (Renner
1995:21).
A few links to the use of pinhole cameras in science:
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
Ariel V: October 1974 – March 1980
The MOnitoring X-ray Experiment (MOXE)
The Polar Ionospheric X-ray Imaging Experiment (PIXIE)
Indiana University Astronomy Department: Solar eclipse 10 June
1994
Astrophotography with a Pinhole
Other Uses of the Pinhole
Pinholes are also used in surveillance and spy cameras and are used in
combination with a lens for photographing miniature models, e.g. model
trains or architectural models. The pinhole increases the depth of field
radically. Some photographers experiment with pinhole enlargers with one
pinhole or multiple pinholes. And there are pinhole magnifiers and pinhole
glasses.
Cameras
Basically a pinhole camera is a light-tight box with a tiny hole in one end
and film or photographic paper in the other.
A few commercial cameras are available – e.g. the 4 x 5 Rigby camera, the
4 x 5 and 8 x 10 Leonardo Cameras, and the Zero2000 pinhole cameras
(various formats). There are at least two cardboard kits on the market – The
John Adams Pinhole kit in the UK and the kit made by Richard Merz and
Dieter Findeisen in Germany. Most pinhole photographers, however, make
their cameras themselves. The construction is simple. Commercial cameras
in hardwood or metal tend to be expensive – some are very expensive – and
they do not produce better images than a homebrew camera.
Pinhole Photography
Pinhole cameras may differ with regard to (a) focal length, (b) pinhole
diameter, (c) number of pinholes, (d) image format, (e) flat or curved film
plane, (f) type of light-sensitive material, and (g) other characteristics.
(a) Strictly speaking pinhole cameras have no focal length. They have
infinite depth of field. But for practical reasons the term "focal length" is
used here to refer to the distance between the pinhole and the film or paper.
Pinhole cameras may have short, normal or long "focal lengths"; they may
be anything from ultra wide-angle cameras to long telephoto cameras. It
should be noted that as the focal length increases, the apertures decreases. In
other words, exposure times get longer (see Formulas below). (The formula
for calculating the f-stop is f = v/d, where f = aperture, v = distance from
pinhole to film or paper, and d = pinhole diameter.) Pinhole cameras
produce fascinating wide-angle and ultra-wide angle images. Unlike lens
photographs, ultra wide-angle images remain rectilinear. Straight lines are
not curved at the periphery of the image. Beginners should start by making a
wide-angle camera.
(b) For any focal length there is an optimal pinhole diameter for image
sharpness. A number of formulas and charts have been produced. Generally
a smaller pinhole will produce a sharper image than a larger one. If the
pinhole gets too small, the image becomes less sharp because of diffraction.
See Formulas below.
(c) Pinhole cameras may have one pinhole or several. Multiple pinhole
cameras produce overlapping images or, with certain designs, panoramic
images. Beautiful images made with a multiple pinhole camera are found in
Knuchel (1991: cover, p. 35). The beginner should start with a camera with
a single pinhole. My own experience is from single pinhole photography
exclusively. Some advanced pinhole photographers sometimes use a slit
instead of a pinhole. For a beautiful picture made with a single slit camera,
see Knuchel (1991:53).
(d) Pinhole cameras have widely differing image formats. Cameras are
made from match boxes, 35 mm film canisters, baking soda containers,
oatmeal boxes, cookie tins, bags or suitcases, big wooden cases etc. Vans or
station wagons have been used as pinhole cameras, and rooms in large
buildings.
Some cameras were made to take a 126 film cartridge, a format which was
discontinued by Kodak in December 1999, but which is still available from
Ferrania or Film for Classics. There are pinhole photographers who use 35
Pinhole Photography
mm film (e.g. by removing the lens of a 35 mm SRL, taping or gluing a
pinhole plate to a lenscap, and replacing the lens with the modified lenscap).
A cheap 120 twin-lens reflex camera (e.g. a Russian-made Lubitel), an old
120 (non-collectible!) folding camera, a 120 box or a Polaroid camera may
fairly easily be turned into a pinhole camera. Some pinhole photographers
use a large format camera, 4 x 5 in., 5 x 7 in. or 8 x 10 in., and replace the
ordinary lensboard with a lensboard with a pinhole plate. Some make a
lensboard with a pinhole turret, i.e. a disc with a circular configuration of
pinholes in various sizes.
Most pinhole cameras, however, are made from an ordinary box or
container, with a pinhole plate in one end and a simple mechanism for
holding the paper or film in the other. Often the film or paper is just taped to
the inside of the box. Many pinhole photographers start out with an
"oatmeal box camera", a camera made from a cylindrical container in
cardboard or metal.
In my view, best results are achieved with medium or large format film or
with photographic paper in similar sizes or larger. In many areas 120 roll
film is more easily available than sheet film.
(e) A pinhole camera may have a flat or curved film or image plane. If the
film plane is flat, there will be some light fall-off or vignetting at the corners
in a wide-angle or ultra wide-angle pinhole camera. The image may be
overexposed at the center and underexposed at the corners. This vignetting,
however, may be exploited consciously as an esthetic effect. If one wants to
avoid the light fall-off, the film plane should be curved so that the film at
any point is roughly at the same distance from the pinhole. A pinhole
camera may be made from a round ("cookie") container cut in two to form a
semi-circular box. Film or paper is taped to the circular wall of the box.
Many pinhole photographers also make "oatmeal" box cameras with curved
film planes. In my own pinhole photography I use flat film planes.
With flat film planes a pinhole has a usable circular image of approx. 125
degrees. The image diameter is about 3 1/2 times of any focal length. The
image will fade towards the edges because of the increasing focal distance.
With curved film planes a pinhole camera may have a larger circle of
coverage (approximately 160 degrees).
Some photographers experiment with complex film planes. Examples are
found in Knuchel 1991, which is an interesting source for studying the
relationship between image and camera, and also one of the most interesting
Pinhole Photography
European portfolios I am aware of. The book has parallel text in German
and English.
(f) Pinhole cameras may take film or photographic paper. Black and white
film and color film for prints have more exposure latitude than chrome film.
XP-2 for black and white (available in 35 mm, 120 format and 4 x 5 in.) has
extraordinarily wide exposure latitude and may be exposed as anything
between ISO 50 and 800. The latitude makes it ideal for pinhole
photography. Photographic paper for black and white has a low ISO rating.
In my own pinhole photography I have used mainly Fujichrome 50 and
Fujichrome Velvia, XP-2 and Ilford Multigrade III RC. Some photographers
recommend mat-surfaced RC paper for curved image planes (paper curved
in an "oatmeal box camera") to avoid a reflected fogged strip. Glossy paper
may be used in cameras with flat image planes, where light will not be
reflected. Some photographers use Ilfochrome paper with great success. An
85B filter (sometimes in combination with an 81 or 82 series filter) may be
used to change tungsten light to daylight. Because of long exposures
reciprocity failure will often have to be taken into account when calculating
exposure both for film and paper.
(g) Pinhole cameras may also differ with regard to other characteristics.
Cameras are made from different types of material: cardboard, wood, metal
or other. For the beginner a camera made of cardboard may be the best
choice. Cardboard is easy to work with.
Some photographers use a grey neutral density filter to increase exposure
times when using film where exposure times are short. Filters may also be
used to control contrast in multigrade papers, or to control color when using
color film or Ilfochrome paper.
Many homebrew cameras have only a plastic flap or a piece of cardboard
for "shutter". This is my own choice for most of my cameras. Hardwood
cameras may have a simple moveable shutter. With short exposure times it
is important that the shutter opens easily without vibrations.
Some photographers make a viewing frame, e.g. by cutting a window the
same size as the pinhole image in a piece of cardboard. A wire frame
attached to the camera is another solution. The viewing frame is held at the
same distance from the eye as the distance between the pinhole and the film
in the camera. Pinhole photographers who use a large format camera
sometimes use a larger viewing pinhole when composing the image. In my
Pinhole Photography
own pinhole photography I never use viewing frames. I tend to work for
longer periods with the same camera and find I get a pretty good feeling of
the image field.
Some pinhole cameras are beautiful objects in themselves. The Swiss
pinhole photographers Peter Olpe has made cameras from cardboard in the
shape if small castles and buildings (Olpe 1992). The cameras are
themselves objects of art and have been exhibited as such.
I suggest the beginner starts by making an "oatmeal box camera" or a
cardboard camera.
Making a Pinhole Camera
The Pinhole
The most important part of a pinhole camera is the pinhole itself. Precision
made pinholes may be bought. You will find a list of sources for pinhole
sheets here. For most purposes, however, there is no reason why you should
not make the pinhole yourself.
The hole is made in a thin piece of metal, brass shim (available in some car
supply stores) or metal from the lid of small box or glass container (bought
at a supermarket ). Some use aluminium foil from a disposable baking pan.
Ordinary aluminium foil is too thin. My own experience is with brass shim
and thin metal from container lids.
If the metal is taken from a container lid, it should be sanded carefully with
ultra-fine emery paper (e.g. # 600) to remove any paint or varnish and to
make it thinner. The hole is made with a needle. The edge of the hole should
be sharp. The optimal diameter depends on the focal length of the camera, i.
e. the distance from the pinhole to the film or photographic paper. Some
formulas and charts are reproduced below. In general: the smaller the hole,
the sharper the image. If the hole is too small, however, the image gets less
sharp because of diffraction effects (light is bent around the edge of the
pinhole).
Place the piece of metal on top of some hard cardboard. Carefully poke a
hole with a needle taking care that the hole is as round as possible. The
needle may be put through a cork to make it easier to handle. Or you may
put masking tape on the head of the needle. Hold the needle steadily in a 90
degree angle to the surface. Turn the piece of metal and sand the back side
carefully with fine-grained emery paper to remove the burr or debris where
Pinhole Photography
the needle point has penetrated. (The edges of the pinhole should be sharp).
Then place the metal on the cardboard back side up and cautiously spin the
needle in the hole to make sure the hole is round. The hole can be checked
with a magnifier or an enlarger. You can also use an enlarger or slide
projector to check the diameter of the pinhole.
❍
❍
Gord Holtslander's instructions in a file compiled by Bruce Barrett
(#9)
The Pinhole FAQ's description
Can Cameras
Pinhole cameras can be made of many kinds of light-tight containers. A
cylindrical cardboard container, e.g. an oatmeal box or a herb tea container,
is easily converted into a pinhole camera for pieces of 120 roll film or
photographic paper.
1. Start by making a cardboard film holder. The film holder is made of
two pieces of cardboard which fit the internal dimensions of the
cylindrical box (Sketch). One piece (A) serves as the back of the film
holder. The other piece is cut in two, one small piece (B) which is
glued to A and a larger piece (C) with a cut-out window (D) for the
film or paper. Use some good tape (electrical tape or other) to attach
piece C to B. The film holder will be loaded in a darkroom by
placing a piece of 120 roll film or photographic paper between A and
C.
2. The film holder fits into a groove on either side of the box. The
groove is made by gluing cardboard strips to the insides of the box
(Sketch). You may make a supporting back (E) for the film holder by
gluing a piece of cardboard in the groove. This will make it easier to
slide the loaded filmholder into the groove.
3. Spray the insides of the box (including the lid), and the outsides of
the cardboard film holder, with flat black spray paint. Make sure the
lid is not translucent. If necessary glue some black plastic lining or
cardboard to the lid to make it opaque.
4. Make a hole in the front of the box. The "optical axis" should extend
to the center of the window in the film holder – provided you are not
looking for special off-center effects.
5. Then make the pinhole plate. See above.
6. Tape the pinhole plate to the front of the cylindrical box.
7. Make a simple shutter by taping a flap of black plastic over the
pinhole, e.g. plastic from a photographic paper package. The flap
Pinhole Photography
may be held in place by a rubber string. When you take a picture you
remove the string, open the flap for the necessary exposure and close
it.
8. If you want a tripod bush or socket for your camera, use some
araldite to glue a 1/4" or 3/8" nut to the bottom of the box.
9. Since this camera has to be loaded in the darkroom, it will be
practical to make several cameras. The cameras are easily carried in
a bag.
10. If you want a curved film plane for your camera, the cardboard film
holder is left out. Film or paper is taped to the inside of the camera.
A polaroid picture of some "oatmeal box" pinhole cameras which I made in
1990, my first pinhole cameras, and a portrait made with one of the cameras
on Ilford Multigrade III RC paper. The negative was scanned and then
inverted by a photo editing program on my computer.
Some descriptions or pictures of "oatmeal box" or "cookie tin" cameras on
the net:
❍
❍
❍
Wendy Mukluk's description of an oatmeal camera
Susan Addington's Venetian biscotti tin camera
How to Make an Oat Meal Tin Camera (Zero Image)
4x5 in. Film Holder Cameras
Some commercial cameras are manufactured for 4 x 5 in. or 8 x 10 in. sheet
film. In my view, these cameras tend to be somewhat overpriced.
Making a camera yourself is easy. The camera can be made of wood or
cardboard. I build my own cameras from hardwood, mainly because I like
woodworking and enjoy making beautiful objects in wood. Plywood or
other materials may be used as well and require less effort. Cardboard is
probably the easiest material to work with.
A cardboard camera may be made from scratch from sheets of cardboard
cut to the right dimensions and assembled to form a box which will take a 4
x 5 in. film holder. It may also be made from an already existing cardboard
box. The basic component – apart from the pinhole plate – is the film
holder. The back of the camera is designed to accommodate a standard film
holder. The inserted film holder may be held in place by a rubber string.
Make sure the camera back is light-tight. Near the top the film holder has a
locating ridge which is to fit in a groove in the camera back. The groove
Pinhole Photography
may be made by gluing strips of cardboard to the back. Some simple
sketches of a 4 x 5 inch film holder camera made of cardboard:
❍
❍
❍
❍
Sketch a – Side view
Sketch b – End view
Sketch c – Front view
Sketch d – Top view of camera with back flap
I usually use 6 x 30 mm oak strip (1/4" x 1 1/4") as the basic material for
wooden camerasfor 4 x 5 in. film holders. The strips are glued together to
form 6 mm sheets. The sheets are sanded carefully, cut to the right
measurements and glued together to form a box with a simple spring back
for the film holder. The following is a general description of the
construction of a wooden 4 x 5 in. camera.
1. Get a 4 x 5 in. film holder.
2. Make a box of wood (Sketch 1). The internal width should be about
20 mm wider than the film holder. The bottom piece (A) and the side
pieces (B) should be about 40 mm longer than the top piece (C).
Sand the wood carefully before assembling the pieces.
3. Square moulding is glued to the internal angles in the camera to
make the construction stronger. Sketch x.
4. The back panel (D) is made of plywood. A window (E) is cut in the
back panel, the same size as the film holder's window
(dimensions ...).
5. A groove (F) is made in the back piece for the film holder's locating
ridge.
6. Two strips of wood (G), approximately 6 mm thick, are glued to the
back panel, one on the the left side, the other on the right side of the
film holder.
7. Two leaf springs (H) are made of a flexible sink drain (available at a
reasonable price in some hardware stores).
8. Each leaf spring is kept in place by a small piece of wood (I) screwed
on to the side pieces.
9. A hole (J) is made for the pinhole in the front panel.
10. The pinhole plate (P) is attached to the inside of the front panel. A
piece of wood (K) with a hole covers the pinhole plate; the piece of
wood is screwed on to the front piece from the inside.
11. A pressure panel (L) for the film holder is made of wood.
12. Two strips of 1 1/2 or 2 mm brass strip (M), to go under the leaf
springs, are screwed on to the pressure panel.
13. A handle (N) may be attached to the side panel of the camera.
Pinhole Photography
A piece of cardboard is used for shutter, or a moveable shutter is added (O).
For short exposures a cardboard is most practical as removing the cardboard
creates no vibrations.
The same design may be used for a 5 x 7 in. camera or an 8 x 10 in. camera.
For an 8 x 10 in. camera 8–10 mm board or plywood may be used as the
basic material.
Sketches:
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
Sketch 1 – Three dimensional view
Sketch 2 – Side view
Sketch 3 – End view (pressure panel removed)
Sketch 4 – Pressure panel
Sketch 5 – Top view (with pressure panel)
Sketch 6 – Top view (pressure panel removed)
Sketch 7 – Moveable shutter
Polaroid pictures of some of my hardwood cameras for sheet film holders:
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
A 4 x 5 in. pinhole camera
A 5 x 7 in. pinhole camera
An 8 x 10 in. pinhole camera
A 4 x 5 in. camera in its case
A 5 x 7 in. camera and its case
Box Cameras for Photographic Paper
A box camera for photographic paper can be made of a light-tight cardboard
box, from sheets of cardboard or from wood. Peter Olpe (1993) has plans
for a nicely constructed cardboard camera.
I usually use wood for box cameras for photographic paper. Most of my
cameras are constructed for the format 18 x 24 cm (approx. 8 x 10 in.). The
focal lengths differ but all are wide-angle cameras. My preferred 18 x 24 cm
camera has a focal length of 87 mm. Some of my "Oslo pinhole
photographs" were made with this camera.
Although it is easy to make a simple moveable shutter for these cameras
most of the cameras have just piece of cardboard which is taped to the
Pinhole Photography
camera and opened or removed during exposure. For some of my box
cameras I have made a reducing back for 4 x 5 in. sheet film.
A sketch of a wooden box camera for paper 18 x 24 cm. Polaroid pictures of
some of my cameras:
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
An 87 mm 8 x 10 in. camera
8 x 10 in. camera with 4 x 5 film holder
Ultra wide-angle camera
Ultra wide-angle camera with 4 x 5 film holder
Collapsable 20 x 24 in. camera
Folded up collapsable 20 x 24 in. camera
Camera for 120 Roll Film
Cameras for photographic paper have to be loaded in the dark or under a
safelight. They usually take only one sheet of paper at a time. This
somewhat laborious process makes photography slow. The slowness may be
an advantage – the photographer tends to plan his images carefully. But if
you want to take more than one picture you will have to bring several
cameras. Sheet film cameras and cameras for 120 roll film are practical for
photographic tours.
Some pinhole photographers modify an existing 120 roll film camera by
removing the lens and replacing it with a pinhole plate. Others make their
own cameras. Peter Olpe (1993) has plans for a cardboard camera for 120
roll film. The text is in German.
In 1991 I constructed a 120 roll film camera made of hardwood. I used oak
bought at a local lumber yard. The camera has a flat film plane. The
negative format is approximately 60 x 70 mm, and the focal length 45 mm. I
usually use the camera for XP-2 black and white film or Fujichrome Velvia.
Many of my "Oslo pinhole photographs" were made with this camera, as
were my "Pinhole Photographs 1997–98".
A basic sketch of the camera. A polaroid photograph of my 120 roll film
camera and of the camera opened.
A 126 Catridge Camera
A pinhole camera may be made of a 126 film cassette and some cardboard.
Pinhole Photography
Descriptions and plans are found in Olpe (1993:16, 28–29).
❍
❍
The Exploratorium's description of a 126 cassette camera
Frugal Photographer's instructions for making a 126 "Instamatic"
camera
Other Cameras
A few links to descriptions and photographs of various types of cameras:
Guillermo Penate's descriptions of various cameras
❍ Doug Bardell's pinhole cameras
❍ Caroline Knight's Polaroid zoom pinhole camera (#7)
❍ Robert Kosara's Loch-Lomo camera
❍ Making 35mm Film-Can Pinhole Cameras (Stewart Lewis
Woodruff)
❍ Fabio Quadarella's pinhole cameras
❍ Dave Doler's panoramic camera
❍ A 6 x 17 pinhole camera
❍ Dieter Bublitz' pinhole cameras (in German)
❍ Lochkamera zum Selberbauen (in German)
❍ Omniscope and other unusual cameras
❍ Thomas Hudson Reeve's paper cameras
❍ Cecilie Haaland's "Phottery" (in Norwegian)
❍ Thorsten Berndt's wagon camera (in German)
❍ A van camera
❍ Pinhole visions' forum on making cameras and pinholes
Formulas
According to Eric Renner at least 50 charts suggesting optimal pinhole
diameters have been devised in the last 125 years (Renner 1995:118). In my
own reading the last six years I have come across about fifteen charts or
formulas, a few of which may be derived from the same basic formulas. It
should be noted that the diameter of the pinhole is not really critical. But for
every focal length there is an "optimal" diameter, i.e. a diameter which
produces the sharpest possible image. The word optimal actually is not a
felicitous term, since the pinhole photographer or artist may not be striving
for the greatest possible sharpness. There are beautiful pinhole images
which are intentionally softer than what is technically possible. A good
pinhole image is something else than a blurred, out of focus, lens image.
❍
Pinhole Photography
Up to a certain point a small pinhole will produce a sharper image than a
larger one. If the pinhole is too small, the image gets less sharp because of
diffraction. The hole should be perfectly round, without ragged edges. It
may be checked with a magnifier or an enlarger.
Joseph Petzval of Vienna apparently was the first, in 1857, to attempt to find
a mathematical formula of the optimal pinhole diameter for the sharpest
definition in a pinhole image. The British Nobel Prize winner Lord Rayleigh
(John William Strutt, 1842–1919) worked on pinhole diameter formulas for
ten years and published his work in Nature (1891). Lord Rayleigh's formula
is still one of the formulas used to today. A number of others have been
published since the 1880s.
Lord Rayleigh's formula for subject distances above 1 meter may be written
as follows:
d = 1.9 * sqrt (l * f),
where d = pinhole diameter, l = wavelength of light and f = focal length or
distance from pinhole to light-sensitive material.
For the wavelength of light different average values may be substituted.
Often the value of the yellow-green spectrum is used, i.e. 0.00055 mm.
According to Renner (1995: 117) most formulas used today are of the
following general form:
r = sqrt (l * c * f)
r = pinhole radius
l = wavelength of light
c = a constant, usually a decimal fraction between 0.5 and 1
f = focal length
Platt (1989:73) provides the following optimal pinhole formula:
d x d = f/k, where k is a constant of approx. 1300
Dobson (1991) provides this formula:
d = sqrt (f)/25
Lord Rayleigh's formula and those published by Platt and Dobson all give
somewhat different results. Andrew Davidhazy of the Rochester Institute of
Technology lists several other formulas in a posting on the net.
Pinhole Photography
Four, slightly different, charts of optimal pinhole diameters are reproduced
below. Some of the charts have been simplified by leaving out references to
needle numbers. Holter's chart, published in Norwegian, has been translated
by me. Platt's chart differs from the others by consistently giving smaller
apertures.
Bogre (1988)
Focal
length
50 mm
75 mm
100 mm
125 mm
150 mm
200 mm
250 mm
300 mm
Best aperture
diameter
0.29 mm
0.35 mm
0.41 mm
0.45 mm
0.50 mm
0.57 mm
0.64 mm
0.70 mm
Equivalent fstop
f/174
f/213
f/246
f/275
f/203
f/348
f/389
f/426
Exposure factor for
f/22
63 x
94 x
125 x
157 x
188 x
250 x
313 x
376 x
Platt (1989)
Focal length
(mm)
130
210
260
320
420
550
650
750
1000
Pinhole diameter
(mm)
0.33
0.40
0.46
0.50
0.58
0.66
0.74
0.79
0.91
fstop
380
500
550
650
690
800
930
960
1120
Holter (1990)
Focal length
(mm)
Pinhole diameter
(mm)
fstop
Exposure factor for
f/16
Pinhole Photography
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.14
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.31
0.34
0.37
0.40
0.42
0.45
0.54
0.63
0.70
0.78
0.84
0.89
70
100
125
140
160
180
190
200
214
220
280
318
360
380
418
450
20
40
60
80
100
125
140
160
180
190
300
400
500
560
700
800
Pinhole diameter
(mm)
0.26
0.32
0.45
0.55
0.63
0.71
0.77
0.83
0.89
1.00
Approx. fstop
200
220
240
270
320
350
390
420
450
500
Fuller (1992)
Focal length
(mm)
50
75
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
500
It should be borne in mind that for most purposes the diameter is not really critical,
as the different values in the charts above may demonstrate.
Pinhole Photography
Larry Fratkin's Online Pinhole Calculators
David Balihar's PinholeDesigner
The Pinhole FAQ (English)
FAQ du sténopé (French)
Lochcamera FAQ (German)
Postscript
Photographers photograph in varying degree for (a) the experience or for (b) the
images. When you photograph for the experience, the emphasis is on the process
itself – the pleasure of the making a pinhole camera, the pleasure of planning
pictures, and the pleasure of making pictures with a simple device. When you
photograph for the images, the emphasis is mainly on the result. The pinhole
camera is basically an imaging device with potentials which other cameras or
techniques do not possess, e.g. softness of definition, infinite depth of field,
rectilinearity.
In photography certain subjects may be better suited for a particular technique than
others. Photojournalists, for example, normally use 35 mm SLRs in their work.
Portrait photographers often use medium format cameras. Architecture is best
rendered by large format cameras. Also in pinhole photography some subjects are
better suited than others. Long exposures exclude certain subjects, softness of
definition exclude others. Infinite depth of field and rectilinear ultra wide-angle
images represent a special potential.
Beginners should start with subjects with clear graphic shapes or bright colors in
sunlight. Cityscapes tend to make better pictures than rural landscapes with their
soft lines and softer shades of color or grey tones – at least for the beginning
pinhole photographer. Portraits may prove slightly more difficult than still lifes,
objects, structures, buildings and cityscapes.
Note:
[1] English translation: "If the facade of a building, or a place, or a landscape is
illuminated by the sun and a small hole is drilled in the wall of a room in a building
facing this, which is not directly lighted by the sun, then all objects illuminated by
the sun will send their images through this aperture and will appear, upside down,
on the wall facing the hole". (Eder, 1945:39).
Literature
1 History
Aristotle. Problems. I. Books I-XXI. With an English translation by W. S. Hett, M.
Pinhole Photography
A. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1936.
Eder, Josef Maria. Geschichte der Photographie. Halle a. S: Verlag von Wilhelm
Knapp, 1905. (Chapter Three: "Zur Geschichte der Camera obscura", pp. 26–38.
Eder, Josef Maria. History of Photography. Transl. Edward Epstean. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1945.
Hammond, John H. The Camera Obscura. A Chronicle. Bristol: Adam Hilger Ltd.,
1981. 182 pages. ISBN 0-85274-451-X.
Renner, Eric. Pinhole Photography. Rediscovering a Historic Technique. Boston
and London: Focal Press 1995. 176 pages. ISBN 0-240-80231-4
Second edtion 1999. 228 pages. ISBN: 0-240-80350-7
2 General (including cameras and formulas)
Adams, Ansel. The Camera. Boston, Toronto, London: Little, Brown and Company
1991. pp. 3–6.
Bogre, Michelle. "Pinhole Revival". Popular Photography, January 1988, pp.
46–53.
Bogre, Michelle. "A Small Window of Opportunity. Pinhole Photography
reappears after 50 years". American Photographer, December 1987, p. 18.
Brenner, Paul. "Making your own Pinhole Camera". View Camera, July–August
1996, pp. 58–59.
Brenner, Paul. "Pinhole Cameras". View Camera, September–October 1995, pp.
44–46.
Chernewski, Anita. How-To Make Three corrugated 8x10 Pinhole Cameras: Wideangle, Normal, Telephoto. The Pinhole Format Co. 1999. 16 pages. # ISBN:
0967914701.
Clerc, L.P. Photography. Theory and Practice. London and New York: Focal Press
1972, pp. 61–62.
Die Lochkameras von Peter Olpe. Ausstellung in der Buchhandlung 'das
Labyrinth', Basel/Nadelberg 17, 19. November 1992 bis 2. Januar 1993. Basel
Pinhole Photography
1992. n.p.
Dobson, Michael. "Pinhole Power". Amateur Photographer, 23 March 1991, pp.
52–53.
Evans, John. "Custom Cameras. Spare Parts". Amateur Photographer, 9 December
1995, pp. 46–48.
Evans, John. Adventures With Pinhole and Home-Made Cameras. Rotovision
2003. 144 pages. # ISBN: 2880467144
Fuller, Tom. "The Pinhole Resource: At the Point of Lensless Photography".
Camera and Darkroom, February 1992, pp. 44–49.
Holst, Trond Kjetil. "Hvem trenger elektronikken?" Fotografi, 5, 1990, pp. 48–49.
Oslo 1990.
Holter, Tore. "Bygg ditt eget kamera av en kakeboks". Fotografi, 5, 1990, pp.
44–47. Oslo 1990
Howard, Dave. "Painless Pinhole. Small Format Photography Gets Off The
Sidelines." Shutterbug, June 1998, pp. 42–48.
Joseph, Cathy. "Through the Pinhole". Amateur Photographer, 8 January 1994, pp.
20–21.
Langford, Michael. The Book of Special Effects Photography. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf 1981. pp. 32–33 and 146.
Laverrière, Sophie. Chasseur d'images. Paris: Editions Gallimard 1974. pp. 88–93.
Laverrière, Sophie. Fotografering er gøy. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag 1975. pp.
88–93. (Norwegian translation of the preceding.)
"Make a Pinhole Camera". Photography, August 1954, pp. 46–49 and 90–91.
Martyn, Roger. "A Hole in One". Practical Photography, August 1992, pp. 58–61.
Merz, Reinhard / Findeisen, Dieter. Fotografieren mit der selbstgebauten
Lochkamera. Augustus Verlag 1997. ISBN: 3-8043-5112-3
Pinhole Photography
Olpe, Peter. Die Lochkamera. Funktion und Selbstbau. Lindemanns Verlag 1993.
48 pages. ISBN 3-928126-62-8
Platt, Richard. The Professional Guide to Photo Data. Manchester: Mitchell
Beazley, 1989. p. 73.
Quinell, Justin. "Make your own 126 pinhole camera". Amateur Photographer, 8
january 1994, pp. 23.
Resnick, Mason and Wolff, Ilan. "Persistently Pinhole". Modern Photography's
Film Guide, 1989, pp. 48–49 and 94.
Shull, Jim. The Hole Thing. A manual of Pinhole Photography. New York: Morgan
& Morgan, 1974. 64 pages.
Shull, Jim.The Beginner's Guide to Pinhole Photography. Amherst Media. Inc.,
1999. 80 pages. ISBN: 0-936-26270-2
Smith, Lauren. The Visionary Pinhole. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc.,
Peregrine Smith Books, 1985.
Talén, C.W. Amatørfotografen. Kristiania (Oslo): Steen'ske Bogtrykkeri og Forlag
1901. pp. 7–10.
The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography. Desk Edition. London and New York:
Focal Press, 1969. pp. 1124–1125.
Voog, Geerlig. "Back to the basics. Drie Pinhole camera's van de Lensless Camera
Manufacturing Company of Santa Barbara." Camera, 1, 1995, pp. 50–53.
Wernersson, Mats. "Ta bilder utan objektiv". Aktuell fotografi, 5, 1993, pp. 60–62.
Stockholm 1993.
Wiklund, Peter. "Den hålögda kameran." Fotografi, 6, 1994, pp. 42–46.
Helsingborg 1994.
Young, Matt. "The Pinhole Camera, Imaging without Lenses or Mirrors." The
Physics Teacher, December, 1989.
Pinhole Photography
3 Images and Portfolios
Bachler, Thomas. Arbeiten mit der Camera Obscura. Lindemanns Verlag 2001. 95
pages. ISBN 3-89506-222-7. Text in German and English.
Die Lochkameras von Peter Olpe. Ausstellung in der Buchhandlung 'das
Labyrinth', Basel/Nadelberg 17, 19. November 1992 bis 2. Januar 1993. Basel
1992. n.p.
Fuss, Adam. Pinhole Photographs. Washington and London: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1996. 64 pages. ISBN 1-56098-622-0.
Jasud, Lawrence. "Tom Harding - Through a Pinhole Brightly". View Camera,
September–October 1995, pp. 4–8.
Johnson, Lizabeth A. "Rebecca Sexton Larson – Visual Diaries". View Camera,
September–October 1995, pp. 22–28.
Knuchel, Hans. Camera obscura. Baden: Verlag Lars Müller 1992. 72 pages. ISBN
3-9067700-49-6
Schröder, Hartmuth. Der Besucher. Magister Hölderlin baut sich eine Lochkamera
und macht eine Spazierfahrt in die Zukunft oder Liebst Hölderlin, magst'
weiterziehen? Hannover: Hartmuth Schöder 1993. n.p.
Smith, Lauren. The Visionary Pinhole. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc.,
Peregrine Smith Books, 1985.
White, Garrett. "Yasu Suzuka. The Horizon of Time". Camera and Darkroom,
June 1992, pp. 34–39.
Zwichenzeit. Camera obscura im Dialog. 20 Fotograf/innen und 7 Textautor/innen
äussern sich zum Thema Lochkamera. ISBN 3-928126-60-1
Some Pinhole Photography Links
❍
Pinhole Visions
Pinhole Photography
Pinhole Visions – Gallery
❍ The Pinhole Resource
❍ The Pinhole Resource – Gallery
❍ The Pinhole Gallery
❍ The Pinhole Format Gallery
❍ Linsenfrei (Lensless, in German)
❍ Nick Dvoracek Pinhole Photography
❍ Microtopographic web (Sato Jun Ichi, Gallery 3: Pinhole)
❍ Casado Pinhole Gallery
❍ Pinhole Photography Australia
❍ Dieter's Lochkamera Seite (in German)
❍ David Balihar's Pinhole Pages
❍ Pinhole & Beyond
❍ George L. Smyth: Handmade Photoraphic Images
❍ Edward Levinson's portfolios
❍ L'Invitation au voyage (Philippe Moroux)
❍ Martha Casanave's pinhole narratives
❍ Toshihiro Hayashi's Gallery
❍ The Pinhole Photography Webring
❍ Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day
[email protected]
❍
First published 1996. Last updated 18 December 2003. Copyright 1996 Jon Grepstad
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: Camcorder HQ - Excellent reviews of camcorders
History of Photography Timeline
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
by Philip Greenspun
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
ancient times: camera obscuras used to form images on walls in
darkened rooms; image formation via a pinhole
16th century: brightness and clarity of camera obscuras improved by
enlarging the hole inserting a telescope lens
17th century: camera obscuras in frequent use by artists and made
portable in the form of sedan chairs
1727: Professor J. Schulze mixes chalk, nitric acid, and silver in a flask;
notices darkening on side of flask exposed to sunlight. Accidental
creation of the first photo-sensitive compound.
1800: Thomas Wedgwood makes "sun pictures" by placing opaque
objects on leather treated with silver nitrate; resulting images
deteriorated rapidly, however, if displayed under light stronger than
from candles.
1816: Nicéphore Niépce combines the camera obscura with
photosensitive paper
1826: Niépce creates a permanent image
1834: Henry Fox Talbot creates permanent (negative) images using paper soaked in silver chloride and fixed with a salt
solution. Talbot created positive images by contact printing onto another sheet of paper.
1837: Louis Daguerre creates images on silver-plated copper, coated with silver iodide and "developed" with warmed
mercury; Daguerre is awarded a state pension by the French government in exchange for publication of methods and the
rights by other French citizens to use the Daguerreotype process.
1841: Talbot patents his process under the name "calotype".
1851: Frederick Scott Archer, a sculptor in London, improves photographic resolution by spreading a mixture of collodion
(nitrated cotton dissolved in ether and alcoohol) and chemicals on sheets of glass. Wet plate collodion photography was
much cheaper than daguerreotypes, the negative/positive process permitted unlimited reproductions, and the process was
published but not patented.
1853: Nada (Felix Toumachon) opens his portrait studio in Paris
1854: Adolphe Disderi develops carte-de-visite photography in Paris, leading to worldwide boom in portrait studios for the
next decade
1855: beginning of stereoscopic era
http://www.photo.net/history/timeline (1 of 6)7/3/2005 2:16:09 AM
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
1855-57: Direct positive images on glass (ambrotypes) and metal (tintypes or ferrotypes) popular in the US.
1861: Scottish physicist James Clerk-Maxwell demonstrates a color photography system involving three black and white
photographs, each taken through a red, green, or blue filter. The photos were turned into lantern slides and projected in
registration with the same color filters. This is the "color separation" method.
1861-65: Mathew Brady and staff (mostly staff) covers the American Civil War, exposing 7000 negatives
1868: Ducas de Hauron publishes a book proposing a variety of methods for color photography.
1870: center of period in which the US Congress sent photographers out to the West. The most famous images were taken
by William Jackson and Tim O'Sullivan.
1871: Richard Leach Maddox, an English doctor, proposes the use of an emulsion of gelatin and silver bromide on a glass
plate, the "dry plate" process.
1877: Edweard Muybridge, born in England as Edward Muggridge, settles "do a horse's four hooves ever leave the ground
at once" bet among rich San Franciscans by time-sequenced photography of Leland Stanford's horse.
1878: Dry plates being manufactured commercially.
1880: George Eastman, age 24, sets up Eastman Dry Plate Company in Rochester, New York. First half-tone photograph
appears in a daily newspaper, the New York Graphic.
1888: first Kodak camera, containing a 20-foot roll of paper, enough for 100 2.5-inch diameter circular pictures.
1889: Improved Kodak camera with roll of film instead of paper
1890: Jacob Riis publishes How the Other Half Lives, images of tenament life in New york City
1900: Kodak Brownie box roll-film camera introduced.
1902: Alfred Stieglitz organizes "Photo Secessionist" show in New York City
1906: Availability of panchromatic black and white film and therefore high quality color separation color photography.
1907: first commercial color film, the Autochrome plates, manufactured by Lumiere brothers in France
1909: Lewis Hine hired by US National Child Labor Committee to photograph children working mjills.
1914: Oscar Barnack, employed by German microscope manufacturer Leitz, develops camera using the modern 24x36mm
frame and sprocketed 35mm movie film.
1917: Nippon Kogaku K.K., which will eventually become Nikon, established in Tokyo.
1921: Man Ray begins making photograms ("rayographs") by placing objects on photographic paper and exposing the
shadow cast by a distant light bulb; Eugegrave;ne Atget, aged 64, assigned to photograph the brothels of Paris
1924: Leitz markets a derivative of Barnack's camera commercially as the "Leica", the first high quality 35mm camera.
1925: André Kertész moves from his native Hungary to Paris, where he begins an 11-year project photographing street life
1928: Albert Renger-Patzsch publishes The World is Beautiful, close-ups emphasizing the form of natural and man-made
objects; Rollei introduces the Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex producing a 6x6 cm image on rollfilm.
1931: development of strobe photography by Harold ("Doc") Edgerton at MIT
1932: inception of Technicolor for movies, where three black and white negatives were made in the same camera under
different filters; Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, Willard Van Dyke, Edward Weston, et al, form Group f/64 dedicated
to "straight photographic thought and production".; Henri Cartier-Bresson buys a Leica and begins a 60-year career
photographing people; On March 14, George Eastman, aged 77, writes suicide note--"My work is done. Why wait?"--and
shoots himself.
1933: Brassaï publishes Paris de nuit
1934: Fuji Photo Film founded. By 1938, Fuji is making cameras and lenses in addition to film.
1935: Farm Security Administration hires Roy Stryker to run a historical section. Stryker would hire Walker Evans,
Dorothea Lange, Arthur Rothstein, et al. to photograph rural hardships over the next six years.
1936: development of Kodachrome, the first color multi-layered color film; development of Exakta, pioneering 35mm
single-lens reflex (SLR) camera
World War II:
❍ development of multi-layer color negative films
❍ Margaret Bourke-White, Robert Capa, Carl Mydans, and W. Eugene Smith cover the war for LIFE magazine
1947: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, and David Seymour start the photographer-owned Magnum picture agency
1948: Hasselblad in Sweden offers its first medium-format SLR for commercial sale; Pentax in Japan introduces the
automatic diaphragm
1949: East German Zeiss develops the Contax S, first SLR with an unreversed image in a pentaprism viewfinder
1955: Edward Steichen curates Family of Man exhibit at New York's Museum of Modern Art
1959: Nikon F introduced.
1960: Garry Winogrand begins photographing women on the streets of New York City.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
1963: first color instant film developed by Polaroid; Instamatic released by Kodak; first purpose-built underwater
introduced, the Nikonos
1972: 110-format cameras introduced by Kodak with a 13x17mm frame
1973: C-41 color negative process introduced, replacing C-22
1975: Nicholas Nixon takes his first annual photograph of his wife and her sisters: "The Brown Sisters"
1977: Cindy Sherman begins work on Untitled Film Stills, completed in 1980
1980: Elsa Dorfman begins making portraits with the 20x24" Polaroid
1982: Sony demonstrates Mavica "still video" camera
1983: Kodak introduces disk camera, using an 8x11mm frame (the same as in the Minox spy camera)
1985: Minolta markets the world's first autofocus SLR system (called "Maxxum" in the US)
1992: Kodak introduces PhotoCD
1997: Rob Silvers publishes Photomosaics
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
"1961-65: Mathew Brady and staff (mostly staff) covers the American Civil War, exposing 7000 negatives"
I wonder how I missed this... :):):)
Cheers, Sreenivas
-- Sreenivas Talasila, October 23, 2000
First auto exposure mode camera? Pentax maybe?
-- Jay J. Pulli, October 26, 2000
Check out this URL for a more comprehensive study of the very beginnings up until 1920: A HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY
-- T T, October 27, 2000
An interesting if somewhat spotty listing.
There's a timeline called Pentax History that lists the introduction years for importent Pentax products.
Quite a few of the listings predates what's in philg's listing or seems to be missing from his list.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
1954 - Asahiflex II, world's first SLR with an instant return mirror
1957 - Asahi Pentax, world's SLR with a penta prism thus allowing eye-level viewing with correct perspective
1960 - world's first automatic diaphragm
1964 - TTL metering, the Spotmatic is the world's first SLR with ttl metering
1971 - SMC coating for lenses, the world's first effective lens coating system.
1980 - ME-F, the world's first 35 mm SLR Auto Focus camera
1986 - world's first 35 mm compact with a built in zoom lens
1997 - 645N, the world's first autofocus medium format SLR
I'm sure that if someone took the time to properly research this subject, many more corrections and missing pieces of historical
evidence could be brought forward.
-- Kristian Elof Sxrensen, October 28, 2000
The Nikon F was introduced in 1959, not in 1957. Have a look at http://www.cameraquest.com/fhistory.htm and http://www.mir.
com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/michaeliu/cameras/nikonf/index.htm to verify this.
-- Cesar Martin, October 31, 2000
1993: photo.net started ..... also check out Masters of photography for short intro to great
photographers and A History of Photography -from its beginnings till the 1920s .
-- ranjeet utikar, March 1, 2001
I guess the first 'photogram' was some ancient person falling asleep in direct sunlight with an object on their flesh (such as a fallen
leaf) and waking to find the image faithfully recorded due to the tanning effect of the sun being obscured by the object. (First
negative?)
-- Trevor Hare, April 28, 2001
Where is Canon? Canon EOS?
-- David Magradze, July 13, 2001
Since Disc is included, should we also add the current (debatable?) flop APS. I believe it was introduced in May 1996 (could have
been June). Perhaps one of the biggest marketing and inter-company attempts at industry revitalization in the past 20 years?
Agfa-Gaevert?
1st modern One-hour photo?
-- Brad Walker, August 23, 2002
This timeline seems to be missing basic facts. for example it's "Joseph" Nicéphore Niépce and there is no mention of him teaming
up with Louis Daguerre or that his son sold the families rights to the process which is how it got to be called Daguerreotype.
perhaps this timeline should be replaced with one that actually shows the correct history of photography.
-- Tegan Halliday, September 1, 2002
Maybe someone should predict the future of photography! Like when will film no longer be sold in stores? When will the Nikon
D600 be released? Thoughts about how PhotoShop 17 will be any different than PhotoShop 7?
-- Jason Hudson, October 23, 2002
In reading through the timeline of photography it seems that the initial intent was to document or record history/information. As
photography progressed it seems that the purpose was maybe two-fold...first a purpose of compassion, documenting poverty and
social injustice so that something might be done to help...second a purpose of anthropological voyuerism, documenting how others
lived or died, war, famine, prostitution, homeless...Could this be accurate? Does this pose implications for modern photography?
-- Chapin Young, March 5, 2003
I praise this attempt at summarizing the history of photography.
However, as a non-American fond and interested by the history of your country, I am saddened by the fact that, albeit your
mentioning of a couple of photographic exploits related to your country (Lewis Hine and Walker Evans) you fail to even mention
one of the most enourmous personal tasks, IMHO, in the entire history of American photography
I refer to the lifelong dedication of Edward S. Curtis (1868-1952) who gave his entire life and fortune to record on photographic
film the memories of the last native nations of North America from the Apache, down in the South, to the Nunivak in Alaska.
I do feel sorry when so many modern photographers forget about such a great photographer and anthropologist. His task took him
over 30 years -from 1895 to 1928- with an estimated cost in excess of 500,000.- $ (of the time) which was, partially, financed by
JP Morgan -ironically-.
The work was published under the title of "The North American Indian,...,in twenty volumes". It was published by the University
Press of Cambridge, MA and of the 500 numbered sets originally planned to be printed (it is unknown how many were actually
printed) only 272 copies were sold at a price of 3,000 $ each.
His work occupied some five feet of shelf space. Curtis visited 80 tribes and exposed some 40,000 negatives and, even, filmed the
Snake Dance. He, also, recorded with a primitive Edison wax cilinder, songs and music as well as writing down stories, legends,
customs, etc. The hugest task related to the American Indians ever done
Edward Curtis died unknown to all but some learned few. When he died, the New York Times published a 76 words obituary
which ended with this terse statement: "Mr. Curtis was also known as a photographer"
Since the times when it was believed that the best Indian was the dead one have long passed (or have them?) I would like a site
like this rending hommage -or, at least, a mention-to this great American photographer.
Should you be interested in knowing more about this great American photographer you can visit any of the following links:
Edward S. Curtis Collection at library of Congress
Smithsonian Institution’s Frontier photographer Edward S. Curtis
The Curtis Collection Homepage
-- Alberto Conde, September 22, 2003
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
Albumen photography: History, Science and Preservation- An extensive site at Stanford on the history, processes and
preservation of albumen photographs. Includes monographs on older processes, videos, exhibition, and discussion.
Emphasis on historical processes. (The 1863 and 1864 books include how-to on almost every 19th C process.)
Recommended! (contributed by Paul W Romaine)
The Development of 35mm Photography- Soon after its conception, 35mm cameras and 35mm photography have ruled as
the most popular photography system ever. Yet few people know how this success came to be. It is often said that the Leica
was the first 35mm camera. However, its introduction date of Spring 1925 was preceded by a number of other 35mm
cameras. The idea obviously was to utilize the rather good, fine grained motion picture film for still photography. If we
look at some of the 35mm cameras which were (unsuccessfully) marketed prior to the Leica, it should quickly become
obvious why 35mm photography as we know it today is a direct descendant from the first Leica. (contributed by T T)
●
Hockney and Falco on mirrors and lenses at the birth of photography- Pushes the date of the earliest optical imaging
systems in western art back to 1420s and 30s. Simpler than camera obscura - the guys would use a convex mirror to reflect
an image of a very brightly lit subject onto a canvas shaded from the light then trace it. Explains why sudden outbreak of
portraits of sunlit squinting people in this era. Painter David Hockney's views were first published in the New Yorker in
January 2000, and have already been discussed on Photo Net. This link takes the story on to work done by optical expert
Charles Falco and an expanded version of the argument in Hockney's forthcoming book. I've just watched a TV
programme the BBC put out yesterday, which is very convincing. The most primitive mirror systems give a bright but
small upside-down image you could easily paint from. Main benefit was an immediate improvement in rendering complex
shapes like the folds in clothing and the reflections on armour - and a more photographic-looking depiction of people.
(contributed by Ian Stobie)
●
Antique & Classic Camera Web Pages- Learn about the development and history of the CAMERA ! (contributed by D
Colucci)
●
The Empire That Was Russia- (100+ years old color pictures) The photographs of Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii
(1863-1944) offer a vivid portrait of a lost world--the Russian Empire on the eve of World War I and the coming
revolution. His subjects ranged from the medieval churches and monasteries of old Russia, to the railroads and factories of
an emerging industrial power, to the daily life and work of Russia's diverse population. (contributed by Denis-Carl
Robidoux)
●
Economic History of the U.S. Photographic Industry- Describes employment, revenue, prevalence of cameras, and total
end-user photographs taken from about 1890 through about 1995, with comparison to the growth of telephone service.
(contributed by Douglas Galbi)
Add a link
Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of Pentax digital cameras
Portrait Photography
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
an exhibit/tutorial by Philip
Greenspun
A face devoid of love or grace,
A hateful, hard, successful face,
A face with which a stone
Would feel as thoroughly at ease
As were they old acquaintances,-First time together thrown.
-- "A Portrait" by Emily Dickinson
http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro (1 of 37)7/3/2005 2:16:41 AM
I share a studio with a world-famous portrait
photographer: Elsa Dorfman. We have access
to the same location, background, lights, and
equipment. But I'm not a portrait photographer
and Elsa is. What's the difference? Elsa cares
about people. She is genuinely curious about
people she has never met and can connect with
them in just a few minutes. After a one-hour
session, she knows more about her average
subject's life than I do about my sister's.
Elsa uses a 20x24" Polaroid camera. Film costs
about $50/exposure, so she limits herself to two
exposures per subject. Yet her photo of me and
Alex (at right) is one of the only pictures of
myself that I like. I'm sometimes able to
capture the essence of a friend's expression, but
I give myself 36 tries with a 35mm camera or
at least 12 tries with a medium format camera.
Studying Elsa's artistic success has made me
believe that the most important thing about
portrait photography is an interest in your
subject. If you are so busy working that you
can't care about strangers then don't take their
photos! Or at rate, don't expect those photos to
be good. I'm reasonably happy with some of
the portraits I took on my trip to Alaska and
back because I had 3.5 months in which to be
alone and learn to appreciate the value of a
stranger's company and conversation.
Location
If you don't have or can't create a photo studio then you'll have to concentrate on
environmental portraiture. Show the subject and also his surroundings. These tend to
work best if you can enlarge them to at least 11x14 inches. Otherwise, the subject's
face is simply too small. Taking photos that will enlarge well is a whole art by itself.
Your allies in this endeavor will be slow film, prime (rather than zoom) lenses, a
tripod, and a larger-than-35mm camera format.
There are two elements to a photo studio for portrait photography. One is a controlled
background. You want to focus attention on your subject and avoid distracting
elements in the frame. Probably the best portraits aren't taken against a gray seamless
paper roll. On the other hand, you are unlikely to screw up and leave something
distracting in the frame if you confine yourself to using seamless paper or other
monochromatic backgrounds. You don't have to build a special room to have a
controlled background. There are all kinds of clever portable backdrops and backdrop supports that you can buy
or build (call 1-800-CALUMET and ask for a catalog). If you absolutely cannot control the background, the
standard way to cheat is to use a long fast lens, e.g., 300/2.8. Fast telephoto lenses have very little depth of field.
Your subject's eyes and nose will be sharp. Everything else that might have been distracting will be blurred into
blobs of color.
The second element of a portrait studio is controlled lighting. With lights on stands or hanging from the ceiling,
you get to pick the angle at which light will strike your subject. With umbrellas and other diffusion equipment,
you get to pick the harshness of the shadows on your subject (see my studio photography article for more detail).
There are some pretty reasonable portable flash kits consisting of a couple of lights, light stands, and umbrellas.
These cost $500-1000 and take 20 minutes or so to set up on location. If you don't have the money, time, or
muscles to bring a light package to a project then the standard way to cheat is to park your subject next to a large
window and put a white reflecting card on the other side. Make sure that you bring a tripod because you'll
probably be forced to us slow shutter speeds.
Lighting
The most flattering light for most portraits is soft and off-camera. A large north-facing
window works, as does the electronic equivalent, the softbox (light bank). The Elsa
Dorfman photo of me and Alex was taken with two large light banks, one on either side
of the camera. Note that there are essentially no shadows.
If your subject is outdoors, an overcast day is best. If the day is sunny, make sure to use
a reflector or electronic flash to fill in shadows underneath the eyes.
At right: In a New York loft, light coming from a bank of windows at left. Canon 70200/2.8 lens on tripod. Possibly some fill-flash but I don't think so. Fuji ISO 400 color
negative film.
Want more? See my tutorial about photographic lighting.
Lens
If you want to flatter your subject, you'll probably want
to deemphasize his nose. That means you want to stand
at 10 or 15 feet away from him so that his nose isn't
significantly closer to you than the rest of his face.
However, at such a large distance from the camera, if you
want to fill the frame with just your subject's face, then
you need a high magnification (i.e., telephoto) lens.
Typical "portrait" lenses are therefore between 90 and
135 millimeters long (for 35mm cameras). Many
professional fashion photographers use 300mm or
600mm lenses, resorting to using a walkie-talkie or
bullhorn to communicate with the model!
At right: South Beach. Miami. Fashion photography
capital of the world. Here a yuppie photographer (note
Reef Runners) sneers from the back of his 600/4. He's
unhappy with me for walking by with my Rollei 6008 and
50mm lens. The model is way down the beachfront and
he's using a radio to communicate with an assistant
holding a reflector by the model (in yellow).
With a Canon or Nikon, most professionals end up using their 70-200/2.8 or 80-200/2.8 zooms as portrait lenses.
These 3 lb. monsters aren't very pleasant to handhold, though, and if you know that you're only going to do
portraits, you're better off with a prime lens. Prime lenses are lighter and give better image quality.
Unfortunately, the prime lens in this range that a serious photographer is most likely to own is the 100 or 105
macro. These are very high quality optically but difficult to focus precisely since most of the focusing helical
precision is reserved for the macro range. Here are some great portrait lenses: Nikon 105/1.8 (MF only), Canon
100/2 USM, Canon 135/2 USM.
There are folks who argue that a portrait should not be clinically sharp. I'm not one of
them. If I could conveniently use a 4x5 view camera and the latest high-contrast
Schneider lens for every picture, I would. Then I could get wall-size enlargements with
good detail. Conventional wisdom, though, holds that even a standard Nikon 105
macro lens is "too sharp" and that you should fuzz up the picture at exposure time with
either a lower tech lens, a filter (e.g., Zeiss Softar or Tiffen SoftFX), or a stocking
stretched over the lens. My attitude towards this has always been that if I wanted to
fuzz up the photo, I could do it post-exposure under the enlarger or in PhotoShop. In
any case, true connoisseurs of soft focus insist that you must have a lens with
uncorrected spherical aberration. You can get spherical aberration either by using a
very old camera/lens or by buying a purpose-built modern soft focus lens. I own a
Canon 135/2.8 SF lens (example at right). With the twist of the ring, you can vary the
softness from none (normal high-grade telephoto lens) to rather soft. I don't use this
lens too much but the photo at right is luminous in a way that is tough to explain and would be difficult to
reproduce in PhotoShop. It saddens me that Canon has not updated this lens with an ultrasonic motor, which
would allow simultaneous manual and auto focus. That's why I have to recommend the 100/2 USM or 135/2L
USM instead.
As far as doing soft focus in other formats, Rodenstock makes an Imagon lens for 4x5 view cameras. It has
perforated disks that you shove into the middle of the lens. Unfortunately, different softness and aperture settings
affect the focus so you have to focus with the lens stopped down. In medium format, people like the old Zeiss
150 lens for Hasselblad because it simply isn't all that sharp.
Film
Most people probably look better in black and white. If you want the sharpest results,
you'll get them with Agfapan 25, Kodak TMAX-100, and Kodak TMAX 400 CN.
Kodak's ancient Tri-X emulsion has enough grain that it may flatter certain subjects. I
don't really like Tri-X in the 35mm format; the grain is simply too obtrusive. Tri-X
works for me in 120 or 4x5 size, though.
If you're doing color, you'll want subtle tones, low color saturation, and low-ish
contrast. My favorite films are Fuji Astia, Kodak 100SW (ISO 100 slide) and Fuji NPS
(ISO 160 color negative).
See my film article for more on this subject.
At right: my grandmother Shirley on Tri-X.
Camera
Any 35mm single-lens-reflex will work fine. The snob 35mm rangefinders are
probably great, e.g., the Contax G2 or Leica M6 with a 90mm lens. The standard
medium format approach would be a Hasselblad and a 150mm lens. If you have a
flotilla of assistants like Annie Liebowitz, you could use the camera she uses: Mamiya
RZ67. If you have a lot of patience, a 4x5 view camera with 270mm lens isn't a bad
option.
The worst possible camera is a zoom point and shoot. Their lenses are far too slow at
the telephoto end. So you get f/10 instead of f/2.8 and your background is sharp
instead of blurry. Or you have to use the on-camera flash instead of natural light. It
really is a waste of film. See my point and shoot article for more on these otherwise
remarkable cameras.
Among the digital cameras, it is tough to do good work unless you have a true single-lens-reflex. The photo at
right was taken with a Nikon D1. As of April 2001, an excellent digital choice for portraiture is Olympus E-10.
[If you're in the market for a new camera, check the photo.net recommended retailers.]
Environmental Portrait
Here's a photo I took in Costa Rica. That's Diane Ewing, consummate
horsewoman and proprietress of Hacienda Barú. Her face would be completely
black if I hadn't used the built-in flash of my Canon EOS-5 body to fill in the
shadow under her hat. I hope you'll excuse any technical errors in the photo. I was
sitting on a horse myself. Canon 20-35/2.8L zoom lens. Fuji Sensia film.
Note that with environmental portaits, you don't necessarily use a "portraitlength" lens. In fact, usually a wide angle lens of some kind is used, though
probably closer to 35mm than 20mm.
Here are some more examples of photos that might reasonably be called
environmental portraits:
Note: these are from my New York pages and Travels with Samantha.
Do you really need the wide aperture?
Well, you can tell me. The photo at left (Dieter) was taken with a
Canon 35-350L zoom lens. I was traveling light in Costa Rica
and didn't have room for a supertelephoto. The 35-350L slows
down to around f/5.6 at longer focal lengths. The photo at right
(Emma) was taken in Alaska's Katmai National Park. I was there
to take photos of bears so I had my 300/2.8 with me. For my
taste, the portrait of Emma is vastly better due to the shallower
depth of field and consequently less distracting background. Too
bad I was using Fuji Velvia film, which is not the best for skin
tone.
Is the 80-200/2.8 zoom useful?
Though the big professional zooms are heavy and not as sharp as primes, I find that
they encourage me to experiment. At right is a standard portrait that I took for my New
York section. If I'd had a fixed 180 I probably wouldn't have been able to back up far
enough to get in this much of Tal's body. On the other hand, if I hadn't been able to
rack my Canon 70-200/2.8L lens out to 200, I might not have gotten the photo below
(sadly the negative was damaged by the Duggal lab in New York).
6x6: Give your subjects some room
The rectangular format of most cameras encourages photographers to crop rather tightly around a subject's face
or torso. The 6x6 cm square format encourages you to give subjects a little bit of space.
George, my old companion. This was hand-held with some TriX on the carpeted floor of an office building. I was using Adobe
PhotoShop to crop this image for the Web when an art director
from Hearst walked by. He grabbed me by the shoulders and
shook me until I realized that it was the space in front of the
dog that made the photo work.
Roommates. The MIT nerd perfectionist in me can't avoid
seeing the horrible technical flaw in this photo: the reflector
edge in the lower left corner of the frame.
Reading. From my Cape Cod series. This was taken with the
80mm lens, a normal focal length for 6x6. If you're not trying to
fill the frame with the subject's face, you don't actually need a
telephoto lens to avoid an unflattering perspective. In medium
format, this can have economic implications. A telephoto lens
for a 'Blad or Rollei 6008 is about $2000!
Generation
Gap.
More pictures of my family
My grandfather Nick
Gittes
Cousin Douglas and wife Leslie at Harry and Katerina's wedding. Fuji NPH lowcontrast wedding film, Canon EOS-3, 28-70/2.8L lens
Pictures that I'm too lazy to write about
(but that might give you a good idea)
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
I just finished reading your portrait section and have to take exception with you about equipment. Not everyone
can afford a Blad, I know if I brought one home it and I would be sleeping under the stars, or an EOS 1, N90,
etc., these are really great cameras, but beyond most peoples means. Something I learned a very long time ago
was how perfectly suited a TLR is to portraiture. Here is camera that allows you to constanly view your subject,
avoiding closed eye shots, relatively comfortable on a neckstrap, easy to handle, and for flash a 500th sync speed
is hard to beat. Unfortunatley those that are still produced are priced well beyond the means of mere working
folk, but fortunatley their are alot in good to mint condtion used. Just browsing some ads, I've seen YashicaMat
124G for $200-$300, MamiyaFlex with 80mm lens $175. These are just the tip of the TLR market, Minolta,
Ricoh, Zeiss, Aires (with Nikkor lenses), are other companies whose TLRs are still available and repairable for
under $300. So lets start a revolt and tell camera companies we're not going to spend 1K for a new camera. We'll
go to the photo flea market, buy a used TLR, handheld meter, "L" bracket & strobe all for under $400, load it
with FP5 or PlusX and go out and shoot portraits.
Regards
Rich Jacobs
-- Rich Jacobs, February 11, 1998
I sometimes use a Yashica-Mat 124G with the normal 80mm lens. Properly used, it can give superb results. The
challenge for portraits is that the lens perspective is too close. And you're on your own for filters if you want a
warm or soft effect. So, get creative, back up and crop the big square negative later. And speaking of film,
because of the higher cost, you'll be enticed to slow down and shoot more efficiently.
-- Albert E. Anderson, March 22, 1998
Great article.
I have a couple of points though. You mentioned in the article about film selection: "If you're doing color, you'll
want subtle tones, low color saturation, and low-ish contrast. My favorite films are Fuji Astia, Kodak 100SW".
Those choices of films kind of contradicts your statement though. Astia is considered by many to be almost
"Velvia Light". Great color saturation but acurate skin tones. And of course, Kodak 100SW has high saturation
too. That's what the "S" in SW means...the W means toward the warm tones.
Fuji NPS is a great one though for low contrast/ saturation...which is why it's such a great wedding film.
-- Scott Gant, June 28, 1998
Scott's right of course about the ISO 100 slide films being pretty saturated. Still, that's sort of all that you can get
these days in slide film.
-- Philip Greenspun, June 28, 1998
On the subject of using fast primes for portraiture, I'd like to offer a lens that is: Inexpensive,Sharp, and handy to
use. That is the Nikon 100mm/2.8 E (AIS) lens that has been around for years. This lens is available (used) in the
neighborhood of about $100 or so. Several lens raters have noted that this is a good lens for optical quality, but
seem to downcheck it somewhat for mechanical quality because of the plastic build. That's not a problem for
studio work though, and for the field -- just don't use it to pound nails. Any comments by others?
Bill Briggs - [email protected]
-- Bill Briggs, February 24, 1999
As a professional photographer specialising on location fashion and potrait shoots, I can vouch for the countless
times an 80-200 f2.8 has saved me from many a tight corner. Shiv Saran
-- shiv s, February 26, 1999
I can only agree with Shiv S. Though a 2.8/80-200 zoom is indeed huge and heavy, it gives the freedom of
getting closer to and getting further away from your subject without moving from the spot you're standing. Apart
from the thus gained advantage of speed when trying to catch spontanious moment in just the right frame, I find
it a huge advantage that, e.g. when working with a inexperienced model, you don't have to run around the place
to get a close up or a medium or three-quarter shot, and thus avoid unsettling the model with the unrest otherwise
created.
-- Paul Koster, March 23, 1999
I agree with Paul Koster. I recently purchased the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 D ( non S ), and it as sharp as my 135 f2.
This is an amazing lens and it provides for great flexability. Although heavy, it's well worth it. Portraits have a
great look. Give it a try, you will be amazed.
Mark Tuccillo
-- Mark Tuccillo, March 29, 1999
Hi,
Before I got my Canon, I was using a Nikkormat with a 50mm lens. Check out my photographs at http://www.
tanchung.com.
All my recent shots are done on a Canon EOS 28-105mm at the longer end. Tell me whether you can see the
difference in quality. Except for the fact that the photos on my website are a little small, you can't really spot any
difference.
I agree with Philip that I want my original shots to be sharp and if I want some parts to be blurred, etc, I can
always touch them up in Photoshop later.
My point in showing you the comparison: it is not the lens/camera/film that counts but the eye.
-- Tan Chung, April 8, 1999
I do "environmental" portraits, where the subject is in their natural environment. After all, the point of a portrait
is to reveal something about the subject. That's why I find most plain background studio shots sterile. It's always
a struggle deciding how much of the background to include. Usually the old rule applies: less is more. The face
usually says it all.
http://www.accesshub.net/naturalight/PEOPLE/People.htm
-- George Struk, May 18, 1999
Pretty informative user friendly site. You know, one of the things that has always both fascinated me and irritated
me is what I call the "expensive camera mystique" or ECM. I swore that ONLY a Nikon 90s or Canon EOSn1
could take the great pictures. An impressive photo exhibit held by a woman armed with only a measly Canon AE1 changed all that. The way I figure, some of my most favorite photos were shot on cameras many times inferior
to the so called pro gear. I still however would like to own the 90s for its high ratings, lens availability and
versatilty. It's a great camera to hold and prices on the model have dropped in recent years. I must add that
portrait photography is my favorite category next to still life and I prefer b/w to color about 75% of the time.
Nikon prime lenses are expensive but the only ones I want are the 20mm, 24mm, 85mm and 105mm macro.
Hopeully I can find some used ones! Favorite shutterbugs: annie l. richard avedon linda mccartney (r.i.p.)
mapplethorpe
shutterbugs i disl
-- greg b., May 30, 1999
For the longest time, my main portrait lens was a nikon 75-150 3.5 Series-E. This lens was very sharp, and great
in the studio due to the constant maximum aperture. When I got my F4s, I decided to get an 85 1.8 af, and have
sworn by this lens ever since. The wide aperture REALLY makes the subject pop! I like this lens so much, that I
sold the 75-150!
-- Robert Mossack, October 20, 1999
Hi Philip,
Just visited your portrait photo page. Thanks for the infos, really helpful. However, you seem to concentrate in
using expensive equips. For a lowly cheap (and poor) student like me, it's kinda hard to get them. Personally, I
found out that using Canon 50mm/1.8 Mk. II is enough for my need. As I like to get up close and personal to my
subjects. For candid portrait (capturing expression), it seems to me that people notice you less when you're close
to them. They thought you were focusing on something else. I'm just an amateur, however, so my opinion might
not be correct. Thanks again for the website, really helpful.
Regards, fajar
-- Fajar Reksoprodjo, October 22, 1999
Here is what I did for buying portrait lens. First I bought cheap so called universal zoom lens. I think those lens
really give some idea of charateristic focal length and give a chance novice like me to explore the different focal
length. Eventhough quality of those lens was not great, To me It was acceptable. and later I can use as a preview
lens for medium format camera that doesn't have camera meter. After analyze the picture I took, I can break
down portrait into couple of the situation.
1)Standard portrait: 2)Telephoto portrait:candid, natural unposed, long enough to be subjects aren't aware of
them being photographed 3)Environmental portrait:The subject and surroundings are equally important 4)
Detailed Body part:Macro works on portrait 5)Exaggerated body portion portrait:So called wide angle close up
portrait, for thsoe fun special effect, Using a distortion a minimizing hadicaped body portion for example making
short leg looks longer. 6)Group portrait:Family photo, wedding photo something like that kind of gathering. Then
think each case what kind of the lens will be useful. For the case 1), Something like 85mm/1.8 or 100mm/2 will
be useful. For2), 300mm focal length is minimum. For3), lens like 24mm 28mm 35mm will be ideal For4),
Dedicated macro lens, or medium telephoto lens with extension tube For5), 24mm or at least 28mm will be ideal.
this one should be single focal prime For6),35mm or 50mm will be ideal.
next set the budjet.and study the which brand is ideal for me
My choice for portrait lens was -->
24mm/2.8 Eos USM(35mm format) 34mm/2.8 Sekkor manual(medium format)(this is 35mm equivalent focal
length) 50mm/1.4EOS USM(35mm format) 93mm/3.5 Sekkor manual(medium format)(this is 35mm equivalent
focal length) 135/2 EOS USM(35mm format)+Et-25 300/4IS EOS USM(35mm format)+1.4X
I think this is minimum for the portrait. My point is this is almost every kind of the lens. I can shoot with this lens
almost any kind of situation not just portrait nature, concert, indoor or outdoor event,sport, action etc.
-- joon um, October 24, 1999
I think it's a good idea to use a medium format camera for people pictures. I use a Pentax 645 with a 150 lens
often. I do 100% black and white because I do it myself. I like having proof sheets that are viewable and 15 shots
is economical but still greatly superior to 35 mm for portraits. I have a square "clunker" camera which is a
Bronica S2A and a 75 mm Nikkor-Q lens, both 30 years old. That's nice for group shots or full-body shots. Like I
said, the quality is superior to 35 mm and the proof sheets are easy to view. I like to use a medium-speed film
like Plus-X or my all-time favorite is Agfa APX 100 which is sharper and gives a lovelier image than Plus-X, and
it's generally cheaper.
Another thing about people shots, I like to do the old-fashioned type of portrait that is mainly window light. Onehundred years ago, portraits were made with a soft north light from a window and I love that look in black and
white. I generally make my pictures sharp too, or I'll use a very minor diffusion filter that barely alters the image.
-- Paula Swaim, April 27, 2000
Colin Hastings
Actually, I started doing portraits with Tri-X and a Nikon FM2N and a Vivitar Series-1 28-105 lens. This portrait
is an example. It's good quality, but it would be better in 645 format. The proof sheets were hard to view. This
image is on Ilford MG RC warmtone paper, toned in selenium 1:8 for a chocolate look. The subject loved it.
-- Paula Swaim, April 27, 2000
There seems to be too much concentration on equipment and too little on the core subject which is people. I have
noticed that the older I get, the less likely I am to approach people and take portraits in the street. I used to enjoy
it so much, but now don't do it as much. How do most street photographers do it? Do you just click away? Do
you try to engage the person in some conversation? Any pointers? Thanks.
-- Marcelo Salup, December 22, 2000
Good article, but a lot of the comments confirm the belief that most photographers are just equipment buffs.
When I used to shoot professionally, I was appalled that when you get a group of photographers together in a
room, invariably they are talking about equipment, not how to get the shot, marketing, composition, rapport, etc.
Can someone please tell me what difference it makes whether an Nikon FM, FE, F2, or F5 are used to make an
image? A camera body should be viewed as something to hold the film and lens and be good at that. I love it
when I see great images being made on what some would call "inferior" equipment.
-- Mark McCombs, January 9, 2001
i liked the portrait article. but i also understand the other comments. it seems to me that about 80% of creative
portraits is the photographer. Knowing how to use your equipment and its limits. I've seen some great portraits
with equipment most people would have given to the kids. When in doubt shoot the picture. then analyze the
results and learn from them. when you reach the limits of your equipment then move up.
-- steve wall, January 28, 2001
I have two lenses that I prefer to use for portrait: my Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 and my Sigma AF 70-200 f/2.8 HSM
APO. Both of these lense are fast and allow shallow dept of field.
I love the 50mm for getting "up close and personnal" with my subjects, where I can have that special interaction
wich make for great candid portrait. It will ofthen gives a very intimate look to your portrait that is difficult to get
with telephoto lenses. It is also quite fun to play around and improvise the shots with such a small tool (I use a
Rebell 2000). Better yet, the 50mm cost 1/10 of the 70-200!!!.
I usually use the 70-200mm with kids or when getting too close would intimidate the subject. It is also great for
environmental portrait for its ability to compress perspective at the same time.
For some examples take a look at:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=107614
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=49319
-- Ans Beaulieu, March 13, 2001
I shoot with a Nikon N90 and a Yashica D. The Nikon is more for the action/fast moving pictures, and the
Yashica is for my portraits and still lifes. I would like to scrap them both and purchase a Mamiya but the price is
a little to high. I will say that despite the ugly appearance and technical limitations(by today's standards), my
Yashica is a workhorse and for quality the 6X6 destroys 35mm. I shoot portraits of friends and coworkers using
Ektachrome 100S and have never been happier. You'll never see them on the cover of Cosmo and Cindy
Crawford isn't beatng down my door to have her picture taken, but I still get excited every time I see a roll of my
pictures. At the end of the day I'm happy(for the most part) with the pictures I took, enjoyed the time working
with the models, and look forward to critiquing(?) my own work. To me that's what the art of photography is
about. However I wouldn't mind being in the business of photography either!
-- John Kahmann, May 26, 2001
The 8x10 camera is one of the most luxurious portrait tools available. I use this format for portraits taken in my
home. If you can afford it - by all means...... Nothing beats the flattering presence of camera offered by an 8x10.
Except maybe the 20x24 Polaroid.
-- Bruce MacNeil, June 1, 2001
Very good artical.Do agree that you bring up alot of highly priced equipment not everyone can afford.i've found
that all of my pentax cameras are comfortably priced and do a wonderful job no matter what i'm shooting.On the
comment made about street photography,its all about human contact.talk to people,make them feel comfortable
with you and the sometimes scary to some people piece of equipment your carrying.I have been in the lower side
of east philly and got wonderful shots of the people who live there and had great conversation too.Its a nice way
to spend your sunday afternoon and it reacquaints you with you "people skills".
-- margaret martin, June 2, 2001
For portraits, technically, I have to say for the majority of the time I use my Nikon bodies (F100 and FM2n) and
an 80-200mm 2.8 nikkor zoom and the cheap 50mm 1.8 made in china nikkor that costs around $100.
Occasionally I might shoot with a 24mm 2.8 nikkor that is quite sharp and gives me distortions that for some
reason I find pleasing and humorous. All three lenses give me what I want in doing portraits for people either
posed or candid. I have a 105mm 2.8 micro nikkor lens but I never use it. People always stressed how this is a
great portrait lens but I've found it to be a little limiting due to its picky focusing and awkward focal length for
me personally. I much like the results with my 50mm or my 80-200mm lenses. Anyone want to take this macro
lens off my hands for a price??
When I shoot portraits I always try to have conversations with my subjects about things like what they like, what
I like, the news, weather, etc. I don't shoot and say "oh thats great," or "beautiful", I'd rather ask them "so where
are we going for lunch?" or "did you see that guy on the news that attacked his dog?" I want let my subject relax
and just be themselves. Thats why I like shooting people who are actors or just have a knack for it. But of course
it isn't as easy as that. I think the main thing is, is just getting people to become comfortable even if it takes a few
tries to get it right. But one thing I always like to do when I meet a subject for the first time, leave the camera at
home.
-- William Cordray, June 22, 2001
Zeiss Sonnar 180 f2.8, shot
I do a lot of "available light" environmental portrairture work, both indoors and outdoors using highly saturated
(albeit "slow" 50 -100 ASA) films. My absolutely favorite lens is the Zeiss Sonnar 180 f2.8 multicoated lens
(adapted to fit my trusty manual Minolta system) that allows me to take both indoor and outdoor shots when the
subjects are comforable in a natural form and setting. Also with the big glass wide open, it allows me to take
pictures in fairly ugly backgrounds without disturbing the composition Here is an example (also see the picture
submitted). I dislike the tension of "posed" portraits, especially with younger people and children. When the
subject is willing to go through some film and spend some time, I usually use the Minolta Rokkor 85/f2.8
Varisoft lens, probably one of the best lenses made that would allow you to create photoshop-like (but much
more natural) effects on your slide or negative.
-- Emmanouil Skoufos, June 29, 2001
Yashica T5, Kodak 400CN
"The worst possible camera is a zoom point and shoot."
I've to disagree with this statement. P&S camera can take good portrait too! The T5 has a f3.5 aperture. If u are
close enough and light level is low, you too can have a nice background blur.
-- Wee Keng_Hor, June 30, 2001
To address Wee Keng Hor's comment:
The Yashica T5 is not a zoom point and shoot. Heck, I have an XA, and I love it. Not all point and shoots are
bad, just the zoom point and shoots where the F-stop at the long end falls below about f5.6. Even those are
GOOD cameras, they just aren't ideally suited to portraiture.
-- William Baguhn, July 9, 2001
A portrait is a broadly defined term. Though my favourite head and shoulders portraits were and are taken with
an old 1.4/85mm lens, a skilled photographer does definitely not need one to take good portraits. I do use 35 and
50mm primes for people and my 28-70mm zoom is also used frequently, while my 135mm prime sits on the
shelf.
"Portrait" may even be considered the subject which requires the least specialised equipment in photography.
-- George D. Gianni, August 11, 2001
Ah, the vexed issue of street photography (see above). I'm generally pretty shy and have a hard time approaching
interesting subjects. I have the best success when I wear a big grin and a have a neat appearance (this depends, if
you're in, say the East Village of Manhattan, you can dress arty and you'll probably have better luck). Always,
always ask before snapping away, unless you see a decisive moment, in which case have a chat with your subject
afterwards. Be sensitive, too: during the recent nightmare here in NYC, I saw thousands of shutterbugs shooting
away with what seemed to be little regard for the people around them. Personally, I feel this is intrusive and
slightly unethical. But then, it's up to you to decide whether the art you create in these situations will transcend
the exploitative quality inherent in photographing people at the limits of despair. On a happier note, many of the
photos I've seen of the rescuers and survivors of the terrorist attack have been exceedingly moving. I salute
everyone for their bravery.
-- R Murray, September 22, 2001
Regarding p&s zooms - I have a Samsung Maxima Zoom (38-145), and although it has gotten some great shots
for me, I must say that in general - for portraits as well as general photog - the f/11 maximum aperature at 145
can be EXTREMELY frustrating. It'll take great pics on a bright sunny day, but even on overcast days it'll
sometimes "get ya". I'm poor, and a beginner, so I just have a Rebel 2000 w/the kit 28-80, (f/3.5-5.6), and even
this is far better for portraiture than the p&s. It would be very cool to have a f/2.8 lens for portraits but frankly I
just can't afford them. So that basically just means I have to control my background more. A bit more of a hassle,
but it works.
2 of my favorite portraits taken w/the cheapo 28-80:
<http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=298364> <http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?
photo_id=251884>
-- Elaine Robbins, October 15, 2001
I'm not certain that a fast lens is required for portraits. Particularly not if we are shooting for a crisp image and
softening it in Photoshop. It is just another step to blur the background, not too much trouble.
-- Patryk Soika, November 14, 2001
One comment I think others may find useful: If you're taking a portrait of a difficult subject, like a child who
doesn't want to hold still or anyone who isn't comfortable in front of the camera, I've found that handing my
camera over and letting them burn a couple of frames on me or anything else they'd like to photograph has fixed
this problem 100% of the time. My son used to run from me when I said I wanted to take his picture. I had my
tripod and the subject stool all set up and suggested he snap a couple of pictures of his stuffed animals with it.
After he did that, I got a whole roll of portraits that he would never have allowed me to take of him before.
-- Tony Samples, November 23, 2001
You ask for a different perspective. This one may sound self indulgent but its factual. I know nothing about
techtalk or f stops or even how to read light meter. But I take beautiful portraits so much so that I am asked by
friends to take a couple of master frameable ones at weddings even when pros are there for the general
photoshoots. I am an interior designer. Having taken some pics of my own work clients have asked me to do
photo work for them. Portraits. I look through the lens moving it and the subject till I find that expression which
in 2D is the same as I would see it in 3D. When I get the subject in his most natural element, specially laughing,
which essentially means the showing of teeth, that makes a good pic. This is because frozen laughter is better
than a frozen smile which starts out frozen and unnatural.Teeth are natural elements that add ivory or white color
to a colored photos thus showing a kind of hot spot with the eyes. I use little background as I crop close. Always
black. I shoot fast in a series with a Nikon F5 and Tamron zoom 28 to 210 on full auto. I pick the best out of
postcard prints, design the cropping with a white bracket as I give the large 10 by 12s a thick 1" border of the
white photopaper. I am lucky enough to be friends with the owner of the city's best studio where I frame the
image on the enlarging plate. THIS PART IS VERY IMPORTANT. I could never tell the actual correct scale of
the faces on paper until I saw this on the paper. I Ok this then the technician does his job. Sometimes a tilt to the
face breathes unbelievable life to the portrait. But really, go for the laughter. It comes alive. Also I would never
take a pic without studying the subject as others ordinarily see him. Ordinarily, with his gestures or expressions
or tilt or agression and t shirt or tux . Ordinarily. Now I have just bought an F5 and must learn the sophisticated
language of cameras. All my pics are easy daylight but with a handheld background. Amateurish. But they like
the protype results. Keki Unwalla.
-- keki unwalla, March 1, 2002
Portraits are a subject where one can get away with pretty little in the way of equipment. Autofocus is a
convenience but not a necessity. Lighting outdoors is as nice as lighting indoors, if you try for the same
combination of lighting effect on the subject(the ratio business and the big light source business meaning
naturally soft without soft focus lenses courtesy old "Sol". Late in the day or early in the morning I like. Even
after sunset. I started this comment because I keep on thinking about the eyes,seen by some as the center of the
soul thing and the place to focus critically. Because I dont want the eyes to be deadish looking I try to use a small
flash to put a sparkle in them. Its formulaic true, but the formula is one that most subjects come to expect. Some
people have really dark eyes that need it more than others. But the psychology of getting someone to relax is
tough. You might need to waste some film doing that. Anybody that can do it with one or two frames, (as in big
Polaroids)whoah my deepest admiration. Thats a portrait photographer. I like to use an 85mm which is not as
sharp as the the sharpest lenses out there. Wide open it gives some softness to the edges and an out of focus
background. Environmental work is the kind that is the supreme example of the art. These are the portraits that
never get forgotten. Show some of the subjects life, and they relax more. And love the result more. A pretty face
is a pretty face, but a person in their home or on their tractor. That is ageless.
-- Gerry Siegel (Honolulu), March 17, 2002
As always, an item on photo.net talking too much about cameras, lenses and films, and not enough about
photography.
I don't care whether you used an SLR, TLR, P&S, rangefinder, 35mm, 6x6 or even flippin' APS. I care what
pictures you take.
You don't meet up with other writers and talk about typewriters and pens. You don't meet up with other artists
and talk about paintbrushes. So why do photographers always seem to spend hours talking about flipping
cameras!
-- Tom Morris, May 14, 2002
Check out this Portrait of my 5 months old son
-- Kalpesh Sheth, June 13, 2002
Alex Lee's picture of Camille (two above at this writing) is a perfect example of the need for short-telephoto
portrait lenses. If I were shooting her in a tightly cropped frame as he did, I would have used a 135mm, because
beautiful as she is, I'll bet she goes on and on about her ski-jump nose. That's what a girl friend of mine called
hers, but I loved it, too. Mr. Lee's objectivity has been clouded by his appreciation of her beauty, and the use of a
short-tele would have made her nose less prominent, instead of exaggerating it, even beyond how she appears to
the corporeal eye-brain connection that cancels out the phenomenon of optical physics, perspective.
If Mr. Lee's intent was to lend emphasis to the subject's nose because he likes it, then his choice of a 50mm lens
in a tight shot is appropriate. A subject with a broad, flat nose would be better served by use of a 50mm, the
closer perspective narrowing the nose and bringing it out. The perspective shaping power of lenses is the first and
most effective tool a photographer has to emphasize or de-emphasize a subject's features, for good or bad, or
different.
And to Gerry Siegel, I envy you your 20/20 vision, but when it begins to fail you so that you can't clearly see the
image in the viewfinder as quickly as you used to, you'll think that AF is a Godsend and realize that it IS a
necessity, because without it you'll lose shots. In portraiture or candid people photography, time taken to frame
and focus, if more than an instant, is the killer of the first, honest expression, the natural smile and the subject's
patience. After you've learned to see your AF's focus-lock indicators (depending on mode and lens) as quickly as
you see a flash-ready light come on, then you can trust the camera and go with the shot you know you want, even
if your eyes haven't caught up with the camera's yet.
-- Malcolm Kantzler, July 14, 2002
A 50mm lens is good lens to have especially with the new dSLRs. A 50mm becomes about an 80mm on my d60.
Here's a portrait experimenting with colored gels:
Model: Jules
More of my photos
-- Paul Andre, July 22, 2002
Chestnut Hill Street Fair Mime
I am in agreement with Alex Lee. Too many people view photos and one of the first things they check is the
photo equipment. Professional equipment does not make for a professional photographer. Whatever equipment a
pro is using, instead, becomes pro equipment. Any decent camera and lens will give great results, when used
properly.
-- Jeff Bishop, December 8, 2002
The D-30/D-60 class of digital SLRs can certainly take fine portraits. I have been using my D-30 for that purpose
for some time, and even an off the cuff "snapshot" can turn out quite well with this camera, an 85 1.8 lens and a
bounced 550EX flash. Here's an example of one I shot around Christmas. ISO 100.
Image:father.jpg
-- Stephen Lutz, January 20, 2003
As a new member of photo.net, it has been a real pleasure reading this article and the responses from so many
members. Having been involved with photography since 1970, I would like to put in my two cents. My first
camera was a Canon Ftb and I took some of my most flattering, sharp, and valued portraits with that camera and
the 55mm lens that came with it. Today, I own my second camera, an Elan bought in 1992, before they started
numbering them. I purchased it because of my failing eyesight; I could no longer see well enough to focus
manually. I still take flattering portraits but with all the focusing assist of the Elan, I feel like I've lost some
control of my portraits. Even still, I love my Elan because it allows me to still be involved in photography. So
I've owned two cameras in 32 years. I've heard people argue about equipment for decades, and now that digital is
on the scene, I'm listening to the digital/chemical debate. It all comes down to one thing though. Its the way we
see. It doesn't matter whether its using a point-and-shoot or a Hasselblad, an S-100 or a D-1, its the final result
that matters and in the case of portraits for pay, its what the client sees that matters too. When I listen to others
talk about equipment, I really hear them talk about how they love to see, what a beautiful world they see through
their own eyes, how their equipment helps them see, and how they want to share what they see with others.
-- Jon Revere, January 24, 2003
I found the Portait article to be very informative, the only comment is that I personally like zooms they allow me
a student on a budget to get the photos I want without having to dish out for extra lenses, I currently use a
Minolta x-700 for studio work, and a canon eos 1n with a 70-200mm 2.8 sigma for outdoor,location work. I am
not a portrait photographer, I shoot rock bands but have been hired to photograph bands for promotional work
and I like the lens I have just fine. I think tele zooms do have a place, the optics are really good, and the allow
more creative freedom. -Mark
-- Mark Whitaker, January 31, 2003
The portrait page is good, but I agree with a couple of the comments that there is too much talk about equipment.
I have a Blad with the 180mm, and the M6 with the 90mm, and the F5 with the 80-200 2.8. What I've discovered
is that all that is not nearly as important as the lighting and the connection with the subject. You should expand
you those areas, as those seem to be where a photog can distinguish him or her self.
-- Bruce Thee, February 12, 2003
Hi, I am a Photo-journalist based in India and occasionally dabble in location fashion shoots...a Nikon 80200/2.8ED is great, but, this new 135/2 DC and a simple 50/1.4 can do wonders. Have you ever tried a portrait
with a normal lens ? I am also dying to see Nikon's 70-200/2.8 VR...guys feedback please !
-- Anamitra Chakladar, February 24, 2003
I guess "pro" photographers really have some egotistical need to fill when they talk about all their equipment and
techniques you know the Rollies and the Hassies and the Nikon F's LONG FAST AND MOST OF ALL
Absurdly Expensive, I mean you can buy a car for the price of an outfit.But I hate to bust your bubble folks most
of the above lesson is nonsense. ANYBODY can take a great Portrait with something as cheap as a $269.00
Nikon N65 with a stock short zoom lens,some Kodak Portra asa 160 or 400 NC or VC film set on apiture priority
or (A) and an $79.00 flash attachment. Give the subject some natural light morning or evening is best a nice
background and VIOLA!!!! Unless you want to be able to shoot the bull in psudo-intellictual photog circles its all
a bunch of HOOIE!! I'll put any of my pics up against the best of the best and let the masses be the judge.Not
some bafoon who likes to hear him or herself talk. This page reminds me of a Jackson Pollak review of fine art.
-- ben michalski, September 20, 2003
Reading this article, I wonder if it is meant for amateurs or pro. For amateur, the equipment must be pretty
humble, by your standards. It would be good to encourage amateurs to take pictures with simple and humble
equipment. Otherwise, some beginners might go away with the impression that we need expensive equipment to
take great pix, including portraits. I have taken quite a few rolls of portraits, both in a studio environment and
outdoors, using an F80 and a Tamron 28-200XR and a 50D F1.8. They are sharp enough for me, at 8x12
enlargement. Upon scanning the negatives, viewing them on the screen at full size, I am pretty satisfied with it. I
find that I am naturally shooting at around 100-110 of the zoom. I would like to get a SIMPLE 105 prime lens for
this purpose, but what is available are those with macro or soft-focus. These are not so suitable and expensive.
We should all concentrate more on composition, lighting, colour, contrast, film, rapport with the subject.... and
less on the equipment, as someone has said that most modern equipment are better than most photographers.
Image:00330002.JPG
-- Vic Chui, September 27, 2003
I appreciate that someone wrote this article, but like a lot of people, i find it too much focusing on the 'what' of
equipment rather than the 'how-to' use equipment... if i want to read about 'what' equipment, i will read in the
equipment sections... However, the 2 best peices of advice I have had about photographs came from the lens
section of this learning forum on Photo.net, and a photographer friend who said that pictures taken from above
are thinning to the face... both of these might be said to be obvious, but that is why i'm reading a learning section
right? I do plenty of experimenting with my camera, so finding my own perspective is a task i reserve for myself,
but what about tips on the basics, like placing of external flashes, and camera angles... these are things that are
useful for the sort of people reading a learning section... Some of my best pictures that i am saving were taken
before i learned how to do anything other than put camera in auto and click... and they can certainly could have
been better (and i choose not to post-shoot-alter my pictures with what i feel to be artistic merit, so i have to do
my learning)...
another comment is on the oddity of one person who commented that artists don't get together and discuss
brushes, they just paint, but wouldn't it make sense that a person with an artistic eye who lacks the how-to
knowledge ends up putting together a mediocre result? I have taken many pictures that are great scenes, but lame
2D reproductions of that moment... the art is in the heart, but the expression of it is in the method... for an
example, look at the comment by keki unwalla... an excellent example of someone who has a great eye, but
admittedly knows little about the working of the equipment... now, when more powerful equipment must be used,
keki has to start to learn how to use the equipment a little more to correct for the failing of the physical eye... in
the end, it is true that the eye makes the picture, but there is still a place for the technical discussion... if you don't
believe that, try painting a ceiling mural with a stick and mud... at some point, you have to move forward... and
when you do, you will need to learn how to do that in an informed and educated way.
-- Keiran Earl, October 31, 2003
definetly visible blurring with big zoom lenses 420mm/2.8
-- Orlin Stoilov, February 4, 2004
I photograph children predominantly and find a prime 50mm 1.7 lens a godsend. Some children are quite
intimidated by the long lens - even when you sit back and I have snapped some of my best shots with the tiny
50mm wide open - usually in the kids own home. The small size of the prime seems less intimidating and wide
open with no flash - they often don't even realise you are taking their picture.
-- Amanda Radovic, March 7, 2004
Look into my eyes...
This is a lovely article, its nice to keep coming back and seeing newer posts. As there was a mention of
photographing children, i am not sure if kids are very intimidated by the cameras, yes they do get attracted to it
and inquisitive about it, but all it needs a colorful distraction and they forget you or the camera exist. I find kids
to be the best subjects to shoot, and i think i would love to do more of child photography, done a few so far with
a Canon G2 and the results are good, atleast for me :). But i do agree, i would love to shoot with a SLR and a
50mm 1.8 lens to get more candid shots. cheers! and happy shooting! Just a note, the picutre attached looks better
when viewed big to see the reflections in her eyes, you can see the photo in my portraits folder here - My
Portfolio
-- P r a d e e p R a g h u n a t h a n, May 8, 2004
I would like to post a couple of portraits here. I am not a member. Can someone show me the simple way of
doing this? I have the photos on computer.Thanks,
-- keki unwalla, June 25, 2004
Since I started with photography I rather the art photos than portraits, but when I got home and showed my work
to my friends and family, the said "how come you dont take a pictures of us" I said why not!!!, what I've find out
is work with a NON DISTRACTIVE Background, set your camera at the highest apperture (small f/number) to
blur the background, also try green on the background, works really great. Here is an example of my friend and
his girlfriend portrait.
PS: I am new in this, please comment.
Regards,
Miguel Torres
Image:Jose y Laura 2.JPG
-- Miguel Torres, July 4, 2004
I agree with the other postings that there is too much discussion about camera bodies and lenses. Most any 35mm
SLR will generate the same portrait results, with only marginal differences in metering performance. The author
DOES provide a service by touching on the use of alternate lighting sources and backgrounds. I suggest that
inexperienced photographers look at their shots with an eye towards what they don't like. Is the perspective
wrong? Was the lighting or exposure unflattering? Does the background interfere too much? Is the focus good?
Was the subjects expression and body position appealing? The things that bug you most are the things you need
to resolve...Example...My biggest problem used to be (and often still is)uneven/harsh/contrasty lighting when
outdoors. The fix for this was not to buy a Canon 1Ds. I picked up a compact 5-in-1 reflector and a flash unit.
Bang...problem improved and learning has taken place. Take this approach and pick off YOUR issues and you'll
be taking better portraits.
Image:Sammy.jpg
-- Michael Hansen, July 5, 2004
First Smile- EOS Elan in P&Shoot mode
I'd like to offer a balance here. What seems so obvious to me is the level of comfort of the portrait photographerdoing what feels most natural to them. Among all the diverse tastes and techniques of us as photographers- there
are inevitably going to be techno-driven, budget-driven, and prestige-driven photographers. Each of the best are
complimented with a good eye and a level of comfort in what they do. If the fact that you have the sharpest glass,
most perfect combination zoom, or incredibly high-priced equipment makes you confident- perhaps this shows in
your work! If, like me, you lack the budget (and fear damaging,) expensive equipment- using lower-priced
equipment may be a necessity. You may be more likely to take your "crappy" equipment somewhere that another
shooter, safeguarding a prized Hassy, will not. This will give you an edge in some circumstances.
I've moved from camera and system to system, as life's budget required it, and I can say unequivocally, that I
have the same tendency to fail or exceed that I have always had. Few things have changed, except where I?ve
used the knowledge of my shortcomings in constant trial-and-error. In no particular order, I?ve shot with highend Canon, entry-level Minolta, Olympus XA, 4x5, twin-lens, and now digital.
I find my latest woes being that of learning the capacity in shooting, editing, and printing in digital. This, for the
first time ever, has been a technical dilemma for me. At all other times, it has been an issue of what is
comfortable for me to use. I can totally understand the need and want for expensive equipment- I understand that
you can get to a level where this is the only thing holding you back from -consistently- getting the images you
really want. I think technocrats and elitist-types both understand that a community college student with a ?crappy
system? has every potential in the world to create an image that ?beats? that of the pro with the high-end
equipment.
Be comfortable in what you choose- and learn to use the tools you can afford. If you?re fidgeting around with a
system?s features at the moment which is supposed to be immortalized in film- you?ve completely defeated your
own purpose. Don?t let that moment slip away?forever.
Thanks everyone for creating this article, keeping this net going with such great opinion and experience! -Shawn
ps- Sorry about the question marks. I have no idea why they appear, but can't change them, either.
-- Shawn Sauerwine, October 18, 2004
When I finally took the plunge and went digital the salesman who sold the camera to me summed it up best. He
said people come in the store and ask "Does this camera take good pictures?" He wants to tell them "That
depends on who is standing behind it." I don't know a lot about the technical parts of photography, being self
taught there is a lot of it that I just don't get. I find for portraits a long lens gets the best results. It is intimidating
to the subject to be right in their face.
-- DEBBIE MORTON, November 13, 2004
It is nice to come back after a couple of years and see people still excited about this article.
Juan Carlos www.juancarlosphoto.com
-- JuanCarlos Torres, December 4, 2004
I love Debbie Morton's comment about good pictures. It's not the camera that makes a good picture, but the
photographer. And, as Philip commented in the article, the photographers who most consistently make good
portraits are people who are genuinely interested in their subjects.
Whatever equipment you have, learn how to use it. Learn it so well that you don't have to think about it. Every
camera and lens has its strengths and limitations. Utilize the strengths of your equipment.
My father was a very challenging photographic subject. He put on his "camera face" whenever a camera was
aimed at him. I finally made a good portrait of him with a $2.50 plastic camera, because he didn't take it
seriously.
I am sympathetic to Rich Jacobs' plight. (The first comment in this thread.) Indeed, there are many fine twin-lens
reflex cameras in the used market. I began photographing with a 1940s-vintage Kodak Twin Lens Reflex that had
been my mother's. It was a fine camera, albeit with its unique set of limitations.
One challenge I've had making portraits with a twin-lens reflex has to do with the fact that you look down onto a
ground-glass viewer rather than through an eye-level viewfinder. I've found that often my subject is looking at
me rather than at the camera, so that in the photograph he is looking above the viewer. Generally this is not a
good thing. (Recently I've used a digital camera with a tilting LCD display. Working with children I often hold
the camera down at the child's eye level and look down at the tilted display. This produces the same challenge as
the twin-lens reflex.)
Regarding the disadvantage of a point-and-shoot camera of always having much depth of field, the same is true
of many digital cameras, particularly those without removable lenses. Most digital cameras on the market have
very small sensors and therefore very short focal-length lenses. Short focal-length lenses produce great depth of
field, even at a relatively wide aperture. With such cameras, to get the least depth of field (for a blurred
background), zoom all the way out and use a wide-open aperture (small f/stop number).
There are as many ways to make portraits as there are people making them. Be creative!
-- Arlin Geyer, December 9, 2004
I own a Canon EOS 50mm/1.8, and a Sigma 70-200mm/2.8. The first lense I bought new for ~$75.00. The Sigma
I bought used for ~$400.00.
I've taken fantastic portraits with both.
-- Heather Thivierge, December 18, 2004
That picture of your gandfather with the dog...I don't like it. I personally think it is an example of a horrible
portrait. Not that I can say much, i've only been shooting for a year, but i am practicing, and I would never use
that photo as an example for anything. This is just my personal opinion on the content and execution of the
photograph...not on you as a photographer.
-- Emily Rose Bennett, January 3, 2005
In his wonderful book "Once" photographer/author Wim Wenders provides a brillient and gritty perspective on
capturing images. Of importance to this thread on portrait photography, Wenders notes, "Taking pictures is
always an act of presumption and rebellion."
I have observed through the years that the formula for a good portrait requires that the "permission" of the subject
be in equal or greater measure to the "presumption" of the photographer. So too, the photographer's rebellios
drive to capture an image must be accompanied, again, in equal or greater measure, with respect for the soul
within the subject.
A good portrait, of course, will exhibit good light and composition, but if it is to capture the imagination of
anyone not related to the subject, it will exhibit passion and respect.
Image:So warm PN.jpg
-- Patrick MacDonald, January 6, 2005
A good portrait can tell a lot about the subject, not just show the forms. For that, it helps if the subject is
comfortable with the photographer.
Having some attribute of the subject can help establish the person's character also.
-- Oleg Volk, February 9, 2005
Grandmother and granddaughter playing cards
I think nothing equals spontanous photos of people, when these are not aware of being photographed. Here is my
favourite (me on the right, long ago), photo by my father.
-- Maria Bostenaru, March 26, 2005
Portrait in red
I was surprised to read about the recommandation to take pictures of people in black and white.
And there is an aspect not mentioned at all in the article regarding the so-called environmental photography: the
accordance between the colours of the background and those concerning the clothes, hair, eyes of the subject.
I try to illustrate this with a photo of my daughter (thanks to her for the translation, I speak no english) in the
Japanese Garden in Monaco, taken in April 2003.
-- Magdalena B., April 8, 2005
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
William McEwen - Portrait Photographer- Black and white portraits taken with an 8x10 view camera.
Includes a portrait gallery and technical information. (contributed by William McEwen)
Leslie's Photo Gallery- A fun portfolio of some of my favorite photographs. (contributed by Leslie
Dickson)
●
The Golden Magazine- One of the Best in Denmark (contributed by Kenneth Villadsen)
●
Beanboxers Photography- The Casual Portrait. Fashion/Portfolio. Indoors & Out. On location too.
(contributed by Mitch Sprowl)
●
●
●
Contemporary Potrait, Celebrity, and Nude Photographs- Discover works by some of the top artists in
Europe and elsewhere at PicassoMio.com (contributed by Allan Majotra)
Paul Andre : Experimental Fashion & Fine Art Photographer- Many experimental portrait photos with
beautiful models! (contributed by Paul Andre)
Edwards Fine Art Nude and Portrait Photography- Edwards Photography specializes in portrait, fine art
nude and glamour photography. Please visit our site to view our portrait gallery. (contributed by Tommy
Edwards)
●
Portrait Photography Tips- Concise listing of invaluable portrait photography tips. (contributed by Sean
Noonan)
●
●
●
Art Photography Gallery by Nick Chaldakov- Fine Art and Stock Photography Gallery - abstract
impressionism, and realism in black and white, portraits, travel, landscape and digital photography. Stock,
links, rings, add URL. (contributed by Nick Chaldakov)
Mark van den Hoven - Visual Art- Official site of Dutch painter and photographer Mark van den Hoven.
NEW photos added recently (contributed by Mark van den Hoven)
Menegatos Portraits- Color and Hand printed black and white portraits and other infromation.
(contributed by Tom Menegatos)
●
●
Portraits from 5 Continents- Striking images capturing the moment from Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia,
and North America (contributed by Todd Brown)
Grlamour Portrait Photographer in California- Glamour Photography in the eyes of my Nikon Lens
(contributed by Rick Photographer)
●
Candid Children's Photographer- Jennifer Fox-Armour is an Atlanta based photographer who specializes
in capturing the ever changing and fleeting, moments and moods associated with childhood. (contributed
by Jennifer Fox-Armour)
●
Anthony Jones | Portraits- Black and white corporate and editorial portraits by UK based photographer.
Commissions welcome. (contributed by Anthony Jones)
●
●
●
Portrait & Art Nude photography by Ian Scrivener- Beautiful art nudes, portraits and dance photogrpahy
by Australian photographer Ian Scrivener. (contributed by Ian Scrivener)
Digital Media by David Ball- An assortment of media, but the photo section might be of most interest to
folks on this web site. (contributed by Dave Ball)
Caryn B Davis Photography- Speciliazing in fine art documentary portraiture and photo essays.
(contributed by Caryn Davis)
●
Visible Grain - Black and White Photography- A black and white photography portfolio, of portraits,
events, protests, shootings, apartment fires, travels, dead birds, and street scenes (contributed by Rev.
Donald Almquist)
●
●
Portrait Oil Painting from Photo- e-softtech.com can turn your photo into everlasting oil painting on
Canvas. The painting is really 100% hand-painted by our artists. (contributed by Fu Wing Cheung)
Fine Art Pencil Drawings- instantpainter.com offers pencil portraits from your photo. (contributed by
tanata madraiter)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
old photo to new- I am from China ,I study land manage speciality .I have graduated for 4 years . I work
about computer the whole time.It is my gusto.All is my sely-study. Now ,I set up a little numerals photo
room .I like dance,drawing,web,computer. I like English but not good at it. (contributed by ts lsz)
Don Satalic | Portraits- Portraits of children and their families. (contributed by Don Satalic)
Juan Carlos Photography- wedding photographer in portland, salem, corvallis, eugene and other oregon
cities (contributed by JuanCarlos Torres)
Luca Patrone Advertise photography web site- Here you can find some portraits made for advertise or
editorial, also some fashion and glamour shots (contributed by luca patrone)
Mary Ball Photography- Here are some natural wedding portraits from Vermont to Virginia weddings and
DC weddings. (contributed by Mary Ball)
Image Galleries Lee Hinton-McLaughlin Photographs- high quality photographs, portraits, documentary
and editorial portraits. Urban street scenes and humorous photos by Lee mclaughlin. Links to
Documentary film work. (contributed by Lee McLaughlin)
LINSY LOOSE PHOTOGRAPHY- A portfolio of high quality pictures from a belgian photographer.
Portraits, fashion, journalism, music and travelphotography by Linsy Loose. (contributed by linsy loose)
Add a link
About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA Agent |
Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Video Games
Spectral Selectivity
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
by Ed Scott [email protected]
and Hollis Bewley [email protected]
Spectral selectivity is a technique for creating images which uses intentionally limited ranges of radiation
in the ultraviolet, visible or infrared portions of the spectrum. It has uses in artistic and scientific
photography.
Early day photographers often needed to work around the inherent spectral sensitivity limitations of the
photographic materials available to them. Their photographic materials were sensitive primarily to blue
light. Rich blue skies photographed much too light while vegetation and skin photographed too dark.
Look closely at the actors and actresses in early motion pictures. Often the white powder makeup they
used did not get applied too close to their eyes and the result can be quite comical in close-ups.
Fortunately, current photographic materials extend well past the approximately 500 nanometer upper
limit of early day imaging.
Modern photographic materials are available with sensitive to a wide portion of the spectrum, ranging
from 250 nanometers (ultraviolet) to 925 nanometers (infrared). There are many applications for the
selective use of this spectrum. Specific characteristics of a subject can be emphasized or selected out by
limiting the range of spectrum used to create an image. Colored filters are the primary tool for selective
use of spectrum with conventional photography. Digital image editors open up some new possibilities
for the creative use of spectral selectivity.
The topics linked below provide an introduction to spectral selectivity, some technical information for
http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/spectsel (1 of 4)7/3/2005 2:16:52 AM
making use of it and a few typical applications.
Contents
Color Vision
●
●
Color Vision - Human perception of different wavelengths of light
Color Space - The color space defined by three color sensors
Reproduction of Color
●
●
●
●
Tri-Color Photography - Spectral response of tri-color filters
Color CRTs - Spectral response of Cathode Ray Tubes
Color Slide Film - Spectral sensitivity of Kodachrome 25
Web Browser Color - Down coloring an RGB image to 8-bit video
Photographic Spectral Sensitivity
●
●
●
B&W Films - Spectral sensitivity range of B&W photographic materials
Exposure Meter - Spectral sensitivity range of exposure meters
Panchromatic Film Ad - Photos from an early ad for panchromatic film
Filtering Spectrum
●
●
●
Color Filter Absorption - Absorption curves for some typical color filters
Filter Factors - Exposure adjustment for B&W photography
Light Source Color Temperatures - Color temperatures for some common light sources
Masking Spectrum
●
●
●
●
●
Combining Images - Masking off a range of spectrum by combining images
Raster Ops - Useful Adobe Photoshop raster ops for masking spectrum
A Notation For Spectral Selectivity - A tool to plan and record complex operations
A Spectral Selectivity Metric - The digital image as a spectral selectivity data set
Image Color and Tone Mapping - Altering images in an imaging editor.
Infrared Photography
●
●
●
●
Infrared Characteristics - Infrared conditions and recommendations
B&W Infrared - Spectral sensitivity of Kodak HS Infrared film
Color Infrared - Spectral sensitivity of Kodak Color Infrared film
Infrared Exposure - Determining exposure for infrared film
Ultraviolet Photography
●
●
Ultraviolet Characteristics and techniques of ultraviolet photography
Ultraviolet Photographic Materials Spectral sensitivity plots for UV films and filters
Applications
●
●
Camouflage Detection - A WW-II Kodak ad for infrared film
Forest Vitality - Measuring the health of conifers with infrared
Links
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Infrared FAQ - Some useful information on infrared photography
IR & UV Photo Info - A page of technical information on UV and IR photography
Infrared Gallery - An infrared photo gallery with some nice IR images
Joseph Paduano's Web Page - Author of The Art of Infrared Photography
Invisible Light - A nice infrared photography site with a many links
The Ghostly Gallery - A nice collection of B&W infrared photos
Color Infrared - A small collection of color infrared photos with filter examples
Beyond Photographic Infrared Georg Dittie's Thermal Infrared & Thermography site
Satellite Imagery - A collection of interesting satellite images
Kodak Aero Infrared - Kodak pages on Aero Infrared film for aerial photography
Digital Infrared Cameras - Product information on Kodak digital infrared cameras
B&H Photo - Mail order photo dealer that stocks infrared films and filters
Freestyle - Mail order photo dealer that stocks some infrared films and filters
C1997 by Ed Scott - <[email protected]>
and Hollis Bewley - <[email protected]>
Return to photo.net
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of home theater
Photography of Gardens
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
How
to Photograph Gardens
●
Equipment
●
by
Philip Greenspun
Forums
●
●
Gallery
Community
Make sure that you have an image showing the garden and its context, i.e., the surrounding buildings
and landscape.
http://www.photo.net/architectural/gardens (1 of 13)7/3/2005 2:17:06 AM
Include people in the garden for scale:
Wherever possible, show views framed by objects or structures within the garden:
A general view of the garden works best if the image has a distinct foreground, middle ground, and
background:
Here is an example of two "flat" images. The one on the left seems to be a failure photographically. The
one on the right comparatively successful. How to explain the difference between the two images
below? Perhaps the designer of the garden intended the right-hand view to be dwelt upon whereas the
left-hand view is seen only from a path.
Here are a few more foreground-middle ground-background images that seem to work reasonably well...
If there is flowing water in the garden, a tripod and a slow shutter speed (1/4 second or longer) are best
for capturing the spirit of the water:
If there are bridges in the garden, either capture the reflection or the path over the bridge:
Check for underwater life... (some of these images would have been improved if taken with a polarizing
filter to remove surface reflections)
Get some images of single plants or flowers but remember that even a comprehensive inventory of these
won't capture the design of a particular garden.
When photographing sculpture in the garden, try to capture as much of the context as possible. Your
images shouldn't look the same as if you'd brought the sculpture into a photo studio.
Don't neglect interesting architectural details within the garden. Iron gates and stonework are
particularly photogenic.
Try for color balance, remembering that red and yellow are two or three times visually more powerful
than green or white. In the images below, note how easily red can overwhelm your eyes.
Practical Details
Whenever possible, use a tripod. Unless it is very windy, elements of a garden won't be moving around
much and you'll get higher quality images as well as have the freedom to employ smaller apertures. The
small apertures will give images a wider depth of field, i.e., more objects will be in focus from
foreground to background.
If you can't use a tripod, make sure to pack relatively fast lenses
(f/2.8 or faster) and ISO 400 film. Among the ISO 400 films, my
favorites are professional color negative films, intended for
weddings. These have less color saturation and contrast than
consumer films and therefore will render distinct green tones more
distinctly. Check the photo.net film page for our latest
recommendations in professional ISO 400 negative film. Most of
the images on this page were taken with Fuji NPH or Kodak Portra
400NC film; click on the thumbnails for technical details. If you
are using a tripod, you can indulge in the luxury of slide film. Again, pick one with a painterly palette
and good separation among green tones.
A 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR camera can be ideal for garden photography. It can focus close enough to
isolate a plant. The normal perspective gives a viewer an accurate idea of what the garden will feel like.
A 50/1.4 lens is fast enough to permit good photography without a tripod, assuming extensive depth of
field is not required.
You can do some fun things with a wide angle lens. It is useful for exaggerating the structure of a formal
European garden or getting a frame-filling picture of a sculpture while still including a lot of
background. Here are a couple of examples taken with a 20-35mm zoom lens:
A telephoto lens is good for compressing perspective and is particularly good in European gardens with
their lanes of trees. Here are a couple of snapshots from Giardino Giusti in Verona (sadly they are
miscaptioned as being from the Boboli garden in Florence):
Text and pictures Copyright 1990-2000 Philip Greenspun. Most of the pictures are from the photo.net
Japan guide, the public Chinese Garden in Singapore, Powerscourt (south of Dublin, Ireland), the photo.
net Sweden guide, the photo.net California guide, and the photo.net guide to Italy. If you click on a
thumbnail image you'll get a larger photo with a caption underneath.
PhotoCD scans by Advanced Digital Imaging.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
A few things I would like to add concerning photographing gardens. As a professional photographer
who shots gardens for a living a really important aspect of gardening photography is getting colour into
your shots, which could be from plants, flowers, painted walls or sculptures. Also eliminating unwanted
background material, ie: if you are shooting a Formal English style garden and there is a giant palm tree
growing next door, avoid it at all costs. Also try shooting from different perspectives, on the ground,
from the top storey of the house or from the top of a fence. Also try and be sensitive to the overall
aesthetic of the design, if it is a Japanese garden be aware of the way the garden is designed and why.
Cheers Brent.
-- Brent Wilson ' The Shallow DOF Man', January 12, 2002
Hawaii orchids in a window in Germany, winter 2004/05
Also that single flowers can be shot in another environment as a garden: above my hawaii-orchids with a
winterly landscape from Karlsruhe in the background.
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Omar Bahra Gallery- Images for syria Damascus city , fort Omayyad Mosaic Palmyra Aphmea
Swidaa Emirates Al Ain Dubai Abu Dahbi Khor kalba Underwater persomal images (contributed
by Omar Bahra)
●
Villa Filoli Gardens- Beautiful gardens in the Bay Area (SF) (contributed by Uwe Steinmueller)
●
Floral Photography- Some nice examples of good floral photography. (contributed by Al Soles)
●
egzotik meyve-PEPINO- TURKEY Trabzon (contributed by pepino pepino)
●
Harika meyve feijoa-( feiko )- Turkey Trabzon (contributed by pepino pepino)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Photography of Architecture (Exterior)
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
by Philip
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
How to Photograph Architecture (Exterior)
Greenspun
This is an example-based tutorial on photographing buildings.
Your pictures need not be pretty
Architectural photography at its best will convey the experience of being in and around a built environment. In the case of the Dachau Concentration Camp, this won't result in comforting attractive images.
Below is a parking garage in Kyoto. The colors and industrial appearance of the structure are remarkable in the middle of a city known for its ancient temples and gardens. The purpose of the image is to capture the
feeling of walking by the structure, not to delight or decorate.
A supermarket exterior is a subject that will probably never make a wall-worthy image by itself. However, the image below (from the Hawaii flowers collection) captures the spirit of being in the parking lot at
night:
http://www.photo.net/architectural/exterior (1 of 23)7/3/2005 2:17:26 AM
Give old buildings some space
In general, the older the structure, the more environmental context is required.
Using your hands or your mind, crop the preceding images to include just the structures and see if they would still work. Also, compare them to a few modern buildings where hardly any context is required:
(The Big Boy pictures are also a good example of coming back repeatedly to a building in order to capture it in different lights and weather.)
Farms are a good example of where the structures don't make any sense removed from their context:
Even a bit of space helps
If you're not capturing an entire village or farm, it still makes sense to think about the space around your subject. Even a little bit of context helps anchor the image. For example, the image at right, from the sunset
district of San Francisco, shows us a house clearly enough to serve as a real estate advertisement. The fragment of the house to the left, however, isn't wasted space. It tells us how tightly packed the neighborhood
is.
In the image below, the sidewalk, the fragment of street, the pedestrian, and the little open market to the left of the shop help establish the Guatemalan context:
Step back and use a telephoto lens
Back up from an work of architecture and use a telephoto lens to compress the perspective. This often brings out an interesting pattern.
The images below, from Provincetown, Cape Cod, show the increased abstraction of a telephoto perspective. The picture on the right was taken with a much longer lens than the one on the left.
Include the Fence
A fence can be an important image element. In the left-hand photo below (from Gotland, Sweden), the fence works with the trees to frame the barn. It helps that the fence is not brightly lit and is a bit out of focus.
The viewer's eye will therefore naturally be drawn to the main subject of the photo, i.e., the barn. In the right-hand photo, from Cape Cod, the fence immediately clues a viewer into the exclusive nature of the beach
club.
Straight on Till Morning
Sometimes a direct approach is all that you need:
Watch the Shadows
Before color, Hollywood directors and cinematographers worked carefully to cast interesting shadows into scenes. Here are some examples of images where shadows set the mood.
Watch the weather
What's the best weather for photographing buildings? Consider the following photo, from Travels with Samantha:
The sunlight adds punch to the fire hydrant and makes urban life seem more appealing. However, if you were trying to show people details in the buildings, a high overcast day would have been much better. For
example, here is an image from Visby, Sweden:
The Drama of the Staircase
It would seem that staircases are inherently dramatic.
Lead the eye by leading the person
If your composition includes a visible footpath into the scene, it should naturally draw the viewer.
Natural Frames
It is a contrived and hackneyed idea, but it does work to use natural frames. If you're working without a tripod, you probably won't be able to stop down the aperture enough to get everything into focus. But it is
okay to have a soft frame and a sharp subject.
Private Courtyards
Public Squares
The left-hand image, from Rome, has a classical composition leading the eye into the center of the frame. But the overview image to its right conveys a truer feeling for the Spanish Steps.
Michelangelo designed the Campidoglio (left) to be viewed from above. The photo at right is from Burano.
Here is a Soviet-built memorial to the Second World War in Berlin:
People
Include people in an architecture photo if they give unexpected information about how a building is being used.
Don't forget the sculpture
Swimming Pools
Occasionally, a swimming pool is a work of art by itself, as in the image at left (Hearst Castle, from the photo.net California guide). But most of the time, a pool is best used as an abstract element in a composition
from above, as at right (Israel).
Fountains
Narrow Streets
The narrow streets of Europe are always interesting to American eyes. We're accustomed to structures built on an inhuman scale (cf. the Mall in Washington, D.C.). To get a better-than-average picture of a narrow
European street, start by looking for an arch:
Both of the above images could have been better. In the left-hand image, the subject (woman on moped) could be more interesting and more engaged either with the camera or another subject. In the right-hand
image, some of the black shadow should be cropped out.
If you can't find an arch, try filling the foreground with an interesting subject of some sort, e.g., this old Citroen:
Another effective technique is to use a long lens to compress the perspective:
"Streets flooded. Please advise."
-- Robert Benchley (telegram to his editor upon arrival in Venice)
Bridges
The three pictures below show increasingly less literal views of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. My favorite is the one on the right. It isn't a very good view of the bridge--one can hardly see that there are
two towers--but it shows tourists gawking at the bridge's construction and an avid cyclist using the bridge.
For the next bridge, the story behind it is more important than the structure. This is the Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick, a subisland of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts (almost part of Cape Cod). In 1969, Ted
Kennedy drove off the side of this bridge into the water. He abandoned his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, to her death by drowning. Kennedy did not report the incident to the police until the following morning
and was found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident. The bridge fell into disrepair and was subsequently rebuilt to absurdly heavy duty standards. The photographs below therefore concentrate on the superstrong guard rails and the heavy metal gate that is used to close the bridge every night.
The next example is that most tired of photographic subjects: the covered bridge. For starters, here is the Chamber of Commerce view:
One approach is to get inside the bridge:
Another is to wait for darkness or gloomy weather:
Here are a couple of early morning Brooklyn Bridge photographs. This is one of the best bridges because of the unusual cabling pattern and also the backdrop of the Manhattan skyline.
San Francisco's Bay Bridge is a poor stepchild to the Golden Gate in terms of photographic coverage. However, if you get off in the middle of the bridge, at Treasure Island, and are willing to do a little bit of
creative parking, you can get a good picture of the bridge as it is used:
Below we return at different times of day and from different vantage points to capture the multiple moods of the Ponte Vecchio, in Florence:
The stone bridges of Europe are spectacular:
Doors and windows
Details
A good architect is a fanatic for detail and some of the most beautiful parts of a structure are best captured in isolation.
Night
A lot of buildings become more interesting at night:
Modern 35mm single-lens reflex cameras have such good metering systems that the suggested exposure for a picture like the ones above is almost always within 1 f-stop of the best exposure. With slide film, it is
probably best to take 5 bracketed exposures at 1/2 f-stop intervals. With color negative film, take four pictures: one at 1 f-stop less exposure than recommended, one at the camera's recommended exposure, one 1 fhttp://www.photo.net/architectural/exterior (16 of 23)7/3/2005 2:17:26 AM
stop over, and one 2 f-stops over.
Industrial
The world of industrial architectural is the world of the large but simultaneously extremely detailed. If you're using a 35mm camera, use a tripod, sharp lenses, and slow fine-grained film, as with these photos of the
Glen Canyon Dam on ISO 32 Kodak Panatomic-X film:
Here is an image from Vallejo, California taken with the Fuji 617 panoramic camera:
Ruins
A good perspective on a ruin is some rubble in the foreground and the standing structure in the background:
For ruins in the American Southwest, the best images almost always show quite a bit of context (these are from New Mexico):
Perspective Correction
The average building is taller than the average photographer. This is the source of 99% of the distortion in the world's architectural photos. Distortion isn't always bad. Note the converging vertical lines in the
following image, the Cathedral of San Giovanni in Laterno in Rome:
This is an extreme example and it comes from cozying up to the facade of the building, mounting a wide-angle lens (14mm) to the camera and tilting the camera body back so that the entire facade fits in the frame.
This has the effect of projecting a flat surface (the front of the building) onto an angled surface (the film). Hence the distortion. Is it bad? The photo isn't very descriptive or accurate. It won't be bought by any
guidebook publishers. However, it expresses the idea of the enormous cathedral looming over mankind better than a perspective-corrected image.
Suppose we have a humbler building, like this wood-framed house in Cambridge that contains a few condominiums:
The above left image was taken with a 24mm wide-angle lens held parallel to the ground. The vertical lines in the subject do not converge. All is well with the photograph except that the composition. The bottom
third of the frame contains the snow drift on the city sidewalk. We're trying to get a picture of the house. In the middle photo, we've tilted the camera back. The snow drift is out of the frame but notice that the
vertical lines are converging. The house appears to be falling backward. In the right-most photo above, we've kept the camera level, with its film plane parallel to the building facade. To change the composition,
we've shifted the lens up. This is only possible with a view camera or a special perspective correction lens on a 35mm camera. In this example, the lens was the Canon 24mm tilt-shift (TS) lens. Perspective
correction lenses cast a larger image circle than necessary to cover the 24x36mm frame of a 35mm camera. However, it is possible to exceed the limits of the lens, in which case the corners of the frame will
perceptibly darken:
The above left photo, of the same house in Cambridge as above, is taken with the camera level to the ground. The composition contains far too much of the street and the roof of the house is cut off. The center
photo is shifted up enough to center the house. The right-most photo above shows that the Canon 24mm TS lens can be shifted beyond the limits of its image circle--note the dark corners at the top. Below is an
example from Sweden:
a 17mm lens with the camera back tilted
up
a 24mm PC lens shifted up
A cheaper method that yields much higher image quality, is to use a view camera:
Click on the photo above to view a larger version and note the detail in the church. This photo was taken with Kodak Tri-X film (ISO 400) in 1981. The camera was on a tripod at about the same height as the very
bottom of the church steps. Raising the lens eliminated the uninteresting green lawn in front of the church and included the steeple in the composition. See "Choosing a Large Format Camera" if you're interested in
joining the view camera club. If you hope to do architectural photography commercially, the view camera is an essential tool. Clients will expect you to use one.
Whether you use a view camera or a tilt-shift lens on a rigid camera body, you'll need a tripod.
(See "Using Tilt-Shift Lenses" for more on the topic of achieving correct perspective with a 35mm SLR system.)
Hardware
Buildings don't move. Ergo, only a lazy photographer would use fast film or a handheld camera to take a picture of a building. The professional approach is to start with very slow film for
finest grain, between ISO 25 to ISO 100 for a 35mm camera. Generally a large depth of field is desirable in architectural photography. The viewer should have the choice to look at any
part of the structure and find it in adequately sharp focus. Large depth of field implies a small aperture. A small aperture plus slow film implies a long shutter speed, too long for steady
hand holding. Consequently, any serious architectural photographer will carry a tripod.
As noted in the perspective correction section, a professional architectural photographer will always have some means of controlling perspective, generally with a view camera.
For capturing the sweep of a courtyard or exaggerating the lines of a modern building, wide angle lenses are useful. A 17-35mm professional zoom is adequate 99% of the time. For
showing a building and its environment in natural perspective, carry a 50mm lens. For compressing perspective and isolating inaccessible details, carry a telephoto lens of at least 200mm
in length.
Finally
Sometimes buildings are just beautiful...
Text and pictures Copyright 1990-2000 Philip Greenspun.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Great photography and great technique notes as always, but just one little quibble: you note that in general, older buildings will require more environmental context. This may well be true in the countryside, but in
most cities, if you want the building to look old you'll probably want to crop out the McDonalds next to it. (Unless you specifically want the contrast, that is...)
Two weeks back, I walked around Tokyo with a camera in tow, trying to capture what the city would have looked like before the war -- if you've ever been to Tokyo, you'll know that this is a very difficult task
indeed! Due to the profusion of pachinko parlors and whatnot, I had to frame my pictures very carefully to avoid breaking the illusion... but I think a few of the pictures succeeded quite nicely, partly because I
didn't even try to squeeze the whole building on film, just an evocative part of it. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself:
●
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=71687
-- Jani Patokallio, November 27, 2000
About context and older buildings: I wonder if the rule is really about old/new? It seems to me that all the buildings that benefit from context relate to their environment. Newer buildings are often designed without
consideration of their surroundings, but this is a design choice (or failing, if this choice never even occurred to the 'architect') rather than an inherent property of new buildings. Older buildings generally were
designed to function as part of a larger fabric, so they lose something when shown in isolation.
-- Sean Foy, December 3, 2000
Correct perspective.
I think there are missing "feature" of this guide. Many people that are new to photography do not have the kind of lenses, or a view camera to correct the perspective.
If you are using a digital camera, or scan your pictures or dia you can easily correct for perspective "errors" in programs like Adobe Photoshop. Probably also in most other image editing software.
The drawback with this technique ("Free Transform" in Photoshop) is that you will most likely loose contrast or detail.
-- Anders Widman, July 21, 2002
re: Perspective - yes it's true, the casual user will not have the smarts (why would they?) to have a tilt-shift lens for their 35mm SLR (film or digital). You can rent them and I can say at least Canon's will integrate
with the D1 series. I can only say this having seen the pins on the lens body. It's not hard to correct in Photoshop if you use a specific app-plug in such as Image Align PRO which is geared to architectural
photographers. If you do the correction before resizing, loss of detail, etc isn't an issue.
-- Nick Gorski, February 2, 2005
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Something About NAKI- "Abstract Portrait of Architecture" - Images from Photo Exhibition at the De Young Fine Art Museum of San Francisco,2000. (contributed by NAKI STUDIO)
●
Fine Contemporary Architectural Photography- Discover photographs of architecture and exteriors by leading contemporary photographers at www.PICASSOMIO.com (contributed by Allan Majotra)
●
James Willis Photography - Bibliotheca Alexandrina- Site focussing on images of the new library in Alexandria by the UK based architectural photographer James Willis. (contributed by Ian W.)
●
Mark Brown's Photography: Tokyo Architecture- Photography of modern architecture in Tokyo. (contributed by Mark Brown)
●
Grabshot- Website showcasing the informal 'human environment' images of UK stock photographer Ian Watts (contributed by Ian W.)
●
Industrial Ruins (Black & White)- Haunting landscapes of industrial ruins. (contributed by Don Satalic)
●
Cambridge in Colour Photography- Architectural photography of Cambridge University in England, primarily at night or in low-light. (contributed by Sean McHugh)
●
Andrew Prokos Photography: New York City Architecture- Black and white and color photos of New York City architecture and landmarks (contributed by Andrew Prokos)
Add a link
Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of digital cameras
Photography of Architecture (Interior)
photo.net
Search
●
Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
How
to Photograph Architecture (Interior)
●
Equipment
●
by
Philip Greenspun
Forums
●
●
Gallery
Community
This is an example-based tutorial on photographing building interiors.
People and Interiors
The most commercially profitable images of interiors are those devoid of people. Shelter magazines like
to enable their readers to project themselves into a pictured dream house. That projection isn't possible if
the rooms are already filled up with strangers. Nonetheless, many of the pictures of interiors that are the
most successful as photographs are those that show people relating to what the architects have built.
Here, for example are a few snapshots from the photo.net Japan guide:
http://www.photo.net/architectural/interior (1 of 14)7/3/2005 2:17:36 AM
The photo below, of the Great Hall at Ellis Island, wouldn't work nearly as well without the two
teenagers waiting where so many immigrants waited for so many hours and days (from the photo.net
New York exhibit):
People don't always improve an image but they always change it. Below, for example, is the Great Kiva
in Aztec Ruins National Monument in Aztec, New Mexico (from the photo.net New Mexico exhibit).
The photo at left, without people, conveys more accurately the feeling of being in the kiva. Probably this
is because the people aren't using the architecture in the way that the architects intended; they are merely
posing for an unseen photographer. The human presence doesn't ruin the image, however. It might be a
better choice for a travel guidebook than the empty kiva.
Similarly, as part of a page describing Hearst Castle, these two people-filled images give a better record
of the experience of touring the castle than do the detail images underneath:
San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art opened as a beautiful building with hardly any art. Pictures of
the stark atrium without people might give a viewer the impression that the museum hadn't opened yet
when the photos were taken. With the people, though, the idea of a building filled with human beings
fruitlessly searching for art is conveyed (from the photo.net San Francisco guide).
Careful with the Light
Most photographic film and lenses are designed for handheld use outdoors. As soon as you take them
indoors you discover that, on average, it is much darker indoors than outdoors. You won't be able to
create a sharp image handholding your camera indoors. Suppose that you stop the lens aperture down to
f/11 to ensure adequate depth of field (objects at differing distances from the lens all in reasonably sharp
focus). You'll now need to leave the shutter open for a 1/2 second to get enough light to the film to make
an image. You won't be able to hold your camera steady for 1/2 second. You have two obvious options:
(1) carry a tripod, and (2) illuminate the scene with an electronic flash.
A flash is a lot easier to carry than a tripod. Many cameras have built-in flashes. So why not use the
flash for an interior architecture photo? Because you won't capture the architecture.
Rooms and houses are designed around light. Architects who've read A Pattern Language will tell you
that you need light from two sides of a room in order to be comfortable in that room. If there is a
window on only one wall, the light inside the room will be too contrasty. Architects are very careful
with windows and artificial lights.
What about simply sticking the camera on a tripod and using the self-timer or cable release to make a
long steady exposure? It can work, as in this photo below, of medieval Skansen village in Stockholm
(from the photo.net Sweden guide):
We don't mind the contrast and the fact that we can't see detail in a lot of the furniture or the door. The
photo gives us an idea of what it is like to use a desk hundreds of years ago in Sweden. A commercial
client, however, anxious to sell desks, would demand that a flash or hot light be used to reduce the
contrast and render detail in the shadows.
Where a room has a well-designed artificial lighting system, a commercial architectural photographer
will often use the existing lights and fixtures to balance the natural light. How is this possible when the
sunlight from the windows is so much more powerful than typical incandescent bulbs? The
photographer travels with a huge bag of bulbs and will go through a room replacing every bulb with a
higher output photoflood. In addition to higher output, tungsten photo bulbs have a consistent color
temperature. If a closer match to the color temperature of the window light is desired, the light bulbs
through the house may be replaced with electronic flashes. Adorama sells a $20 slave flash, guide
number 75 at ISO 100, that screws into standard a light bulb socket.
Hollywood goes farther. If it isn't sunny outside and they want warm light from the windows, they park
a bank of powerful HMI lights outside the window pointing into the room.
If you're lazy, you can just set the tripod on the floor and accept whatever color temperature comes your
way:
If your assignment does not call for the warm glow of incandescent light, get hold of a Minolta color
temperature meter and/or Kodak Professional Photoguide and find the right color correction filter. This
becomes much more critical when the room is lit with fluorescent light. Very few people or objects look
good with the sickly green cast of daylight-balanced film exposed under fluorescent light. For a film
camera, the solution is a Tiffen FL-D filter screwed over the lens. One of the luxuries of photography
with digital cameras is that you can simply press the "fluorescent white balance" switch and get very
close to the right color balance instantly. Even with a digital camera's ability to set white balance
arbitrarily, you still need to think carefully when combining different light sources.
The Drama of the Staircase
You won't have to work hard to get a dramatic staircase image. Stand at the top with a moderately wideangle lens and point the camera down. The first image below is from the Vatican museum in Rome. It
was taken with a Yashica T4 point and shoot camera's fixed 35mm lens, the camera steadied by holding
it against the handrail.
(Final photo courtesy Eve Andersson, taken with Canon Pro70 digital camera.)
Don't Forget to Look Up
Especially in Europe, spend a lot of time looking up towards the ceiling for interesting photos:
The straight "record of what was painted on the ceiling" photo can be made with almost any camera,
even where tripods are prohibited. Set the camera to "no flash" and "self-timer" modes. Place the camera
on the floor in the middle of the room, lens pointing up. Press the shutter release and back out of the
way. Ten seconds later you've got your ceiling.
Go Wide
Fact 1: very few commercial clients are going to thank you for making their rooms look small. Fact 2:
very few architects are going to accomodate your desire to knock down a wall so that you can get the
entire room into a photo with a 50mm normal lens. Conclusion: you want some very wide angle lenses
for architectural interiors.
To take in most of a room from a doorway you need a 17mm or wider lens. For example, the first image
below is taken with a 43mm lens on Mamiya 7 6x7 format camera. This is equivalent to a 21mm lens on
a Nikon or Canon SLR. Much of the dining room is cut off. The lens was perfect for detail, such as the
hot tub overlooking the ocean, but not always wide enough for an entire room at one sweep (from Cape
Cod):
By comparison, a 14mm lens on a 35mm camera captures an entire motel room from the doorway (also
from Cape Cod -- this is the room where Mary Jo Kopechne stayed the night before her death (in Ted
Kennedy's car, off the Dike Bridge)):
Go Tight (or at least normal)
Wide, wide, wide all the time makes for dull photography. Sometimes you can highlight details or reveal
patterns better with a normal (50mm) or longer lens.
Go Fast (in public)
In public interiors where the use of tripods is prohibited and flash is either prohibited or won't capture
the mood that you've found, use a fast lens. A lens with an aperture of f/2.0 will work in light that is 1/4
as bright as that required by a cheap zoom lens's f/4.0 maximum aperture. Going to f/1.4 from f/2.0
allows photography in light that is half as bright. Going from f/1.4 to f/1.0 is another doubling in lightgathering capability. Below is a photo from Elvis's Graceland mansion. Both tripods and flash are
prohibited on the tours, making it a natural occasion to drag out the Canon 50/1.0:
Be Industrious
Industrial interiors are some of the most interesting. Don't be shy about asking permission to enter and
take some photos. Oftentimes the people who run a factory will be proud to show you around. Here is an
old hydro plant interior from the photo.net driving tour of Vermont:
Have Fun
Look for humor in and around building interiors. Below are visitors at the Getty Center being
entertained by a huge puppet, the whole scene further distorted by the use of a 17mm lens. At right is a
hopskotch grid that breaks up a monotonous corridor in the Stockholm aiport (from photo.net guide to
Sweden):
Outdoors Indoors
Look at the windows per se and the view just beyond the windows...
Also look at interior gardens and courtyards:
Indoors Outdoors
Eventually the indoors will become outdoors and it is always interesting to see nature reclaiming her
territory:
Get out the big cameras
Building interiors don't move much. Once you've carefully lit the scene and lugged a tripod to the right
spot in the room, you might as well try to achieve the best possible image quality. Most professional
architectural photographers use medium format and large format cameras. The extra bulk and weight is
irrelevant given the complexity surrounding the rest of the project. Furthermore, medium and largeformat cameras make it easy to expose Polaroids that verify light balance and exposure.
The image below was taken with a Rollei 6008 6x6 SLR (from the Sierra Nevada). Click for an
enlargement and examine the detail.
More
●
●
Professional Interior Photography (Michael Harris 1998; Focal Press)
Interior Shots (Pro-Lighting) (Roger Hicks 1996; Amphoto)
●
How to Photograph Buildings and Interiors (Gerry Kopelow 1998; Princeton Architectural
Press)
Photographing interiors can be an equipment-intensive endeavor. If you need to add to your
armamentarium, check out the photo.net recommended retailers.
Text and pictures Copyright 1990-2000 Philip Greenspun.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Living room
Not only a tripod or a flash may help dealing with interior light. Here taking an ISO 400 film instead of
100 leaded to a true representation of the original colours in an interior photo.
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
Interiors by leading & emerging contemporary photographers- Explore interiors photography and
other themes at PicassoMio.com (contributed by Allan Majotra)
Grabshot- Website showcasing the informal 'human environment' images of UK stock
photographer Ian Watts (contributed by Ian W.)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: Satellite TV HQ - Excellent reviews of satellite TV
Photographing Ruins
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
Photographing
Ruins
●
Equipment
●
by
Shaun O'Boyle
Forums
●
●
Gallery
Community
Ruins are one of the richest and most interesting photographic subjects to be found. By ruins I'm not necessarily
referring to old stone circles, columns and coliseums, although they are certainly not to be discounted. Many of the
ruins pictured here are recently abandoned sites, places that tell stories about the recent past of our culture, and
comment on our transition to the present. These sites have the content and material to keep a photographer fully
occupied with the task of making images and building stories from the rubble and fragments left behind. Ruined
buildings and sites are natural storytellers; they have been the containers that we fill with the stuff of living and work.
These ruins still carry on a complex dialogue with their surroundings; discovering and elaborating this dialogue is
part of the task when photographing these places. While there is no one way to photograph any subject, below are
some hints on how you might approach the task of building a story from the bits and pieces of a ruin.
Context
Your ruin needs to be placed in context, the landscape surrounding the site shows how it fits, or doesn't fit
with its environment. Go wide and step back to relate the subject with the landscape. Many of the older ruins
were built well before anything was near them, they were slowly encroached upon by sprawl, development
and the growing urban environment.
http://www.photo.net/architectural/ruins/ (1 of 19)7/3/2005 2:17:50 AM
Photographing Ruins
The wide shots can contrast the surrounding landscape of the area with the surprising and unexpected site of
a deteriorating ruin.
Historical Reference
A good way to introduce a ruin is to show a historical photograph juxtaposed to a current photograph. This
will go a long way in showing how the building has or has not transformed over the years, and will create an
interest in examining the details.
Photographing Ruins
Go Wide
Wide aspect shots broaden the view and give more information about the surrounding landscape and are
perhaps closer to what we see when we look at views such as these with the naked eye. You can achieve
these photographs by cropping a normal frame down, using a wide format panoramic camera or by stitching
together multiple frames using software.
Photographing Ruins
Examine some of the larger details and see what is initially interesting about the place. If the site is a
building you might be looking at the facade or other details that are unique to the building.
Photographing Ruins
If the site is an industrial or institutional ruin you will find that each location is quite unique, depending on
what the place once manufactured, processed, warehoused or healed (or any combination therein). Look for
the structures that start telling the big story about what the place once did, or to give a sense of the mood you
are trying to convey about the subject.
Photographing Ruins
Look at different ways of framing your subject with parts of the architecture or structure. This will give the
subject additional references to its site and may create a more interesting composition than a straight on
shot. Doors and overhead structures are a natural for this type of framing.
Pulling out details from the overall structure can sometime make sense of an otherwise overwhelming and
confusing image. In the case of a steel mill where the function of the structure is pretty much a mystery to
anyone but a steel worker, familiar forms give access and an avenue for understanding what the function
might be, or at least allows us to say "that sort of looks like a house or barn buried in there".
Photographing Ruins
Look for text and words, it creates an immediately accessible link to a place, object or function and gets the
viewer involved in a very direct way with the site.
Stitching shots together to form a panorama is an option for sites that are just to big to fit in even a ultra
wide lens, plus you maintain a normal lens look to the shot. Overlap many frames to be sure the stitching
software will be able to connect the shots together. For this shot below I used a tripod and swiveled the
camera so that the viewfinder was overlapping about 1/2 of the previous frame.
Photographing Ruins
It is a good idea to always use a tripod when shooting buildings, ruins and similar sites. You want to keep
the camera level and rock steady while composing and carefully framing your shot with exactly the
information you are trying to capture, and you are doing all this while thinking about getting your exposure
and depth of field correct; too many things to keep track of and get right while hand holding your camera,
especially if you use a hand held light meter. When you move into the interiors of these ruins the reasons
will become more obvious with exposure times usually in the range of 1 to 30 seconds and longer.
It helps to lead your viewer into the interior of the building just as you would experience when walking into
the building yourself. Show a doorway and an entrance area, a hallway with details beyond to pull the
viewer in.
Photographing Ruins
Most modern ruins were designed and built in the days before electric lights were in use in every room.
These places are often beautifully lit with natural light coming in through windows and skylights. Take
advantage of the available light for your exposure and use the tripod for the long exposures necessary in the
low light. This will show the rooms as the occupants experienced them, and as the architects who designed
them intended the spaces to be experienced. A flash is workable in a pinch when there is no natural light
available, but it is necessary to get the flash off camera and carefully placed, preferably with more than one
flash to paint the room or object with light. Another option is to open your shutter and paint the room with a
hand held flashlight or other light source, but this can be a slow process that requires a lot of time and
experimentation to get correct.
Photographing Ruins
Film choice is important for shooting long exposures in dark interiors. Good results can be achieved using
negative film, especially when the goal is to scan the images. While there are no hard rules, slide film can
get blocked up and become very dense from the many shadow areas making it difficult to get good scans.
With negative film the shadow areas of the photograph are the thin parts of the negative, usually making it
an easier task to pull detail from these areas. Negative film also has a wider exposure latitude allowing
several more stops of information to be recorded on film.
Check the film suggestions on this site for further recommendations regarding the latest information on
films. Pay special attention to the reciprocity characteristics of the film as well as color shifting over long
exposures. B&W film is an attractive option for shooting ruins, it will give a completely different mood to
the photographs than color would. B&W films archival stability is an added attraction.
Photographing Ruins
My initial experience using a digital camera for longer interior exposures is good. Color balance holds well,
better than film in many cases. Look for features such as the ability to set shutter speed and aperture
manually. A histogram for checking your exposure in the camera is very handy, you can then decide if you
need to re-shoot immediately, a huge digital advantage. Digital cameras can take the place of a Polaroid
camera for doing test shots. Noise is an issue with long exposures on digital cameras, and this should be
tested prior to critical use. Lower asa settings seem to help this.
Photographing Ruins
The 5 shots here were taken with a Canon S30 3.2 m-pixel digital pocket camera. The blown out
highlights in two of the shots demonstrate the S30's intolerance for over exposure. Some of the higher
end digital cameras may handle this better. Negative film would likely have held more detail in those
areas. The S30's exposure range seems quite close to slide film in this regard.
Use furniture as a hint of the age of the ruin, and as a way for your viewer to access and relate to the space.
Photographing Ruins
Look out of the building from the windows. This will put you in the place of the former occupants and
perhaps give the viewer a perspective on what it was like to be inside the ruin when it was occupied.
Look for objects that people handle, things that people touch and use; things that can have a personal
meaning to someone. It can make a personal statement and create a powerful contrast to the ruined
industrial or institutional surroundings.
Photographing Ruins
The details can be the most powerful aspect of a ruin, it is where personal items and objects at a human scale
can be examined and allowed to tell the tale of their past.
Photographing Ruins
Move in and examine the subtlety of each object and explore the relationship to the rest of the
structure. Treat the site like an archaeological find, all the details tell a part of the whole story, each shard
can give meaning to the big picture.
Photographing Ruins
In conclusion, you may find that in your part of the world there are unique places that once played an
important role in your local history, they may be worth a peak since this is the heritage we have gained from
the past. That old ruin on the edge of town may have more to offer than a quick glance would suggest. This
is living history, often much more interesting than the cleaned up versions found in a museum.
Ask permission from the owner of the property before you attempt to photograph an abandoned site since
most sites are posted against trespassing. These places can be quite dangerous so use common sense and
caution when moving around these sites. Be aware that there may be air born toxins in these older buildings,
asbestos dust and lead paint among them, so a quality respirator (not a paper dust mask) is an essential piece
of gear to carry.
Top
Text and photographs Copyright 1983-2002 Shaun O'Boyle. The photographs are from The Modern Ruins Essays
viewable at OBoylePhoto.com
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Although the wider perspective puts the building in context, a lot (if not most) ruins are impossible to photograph in
a wide enough perspective to do this.
Quite often it is a good thing not to put the building in context like this, as by it becoming a ruin, people have
forgotten what it was used for, a lot of others don't know it is even there. It's the smaller things, the human factors,
that make the big difference.
Photographing Ruins
Also, nature taking over - trees, bushes, make these views hard to get physically.
Saying all this, I'd love to get some wide angle stuff on a lot of places.
-- Andrew Tierney, May 2, 2002
You left out what could be the most important piece of information about this subject and that is how to find places
like this. So, how do you find these buildings and how do you gain access?
-- Paul Wilson, May 15, 2002
Regarding the question about finding ruins:
The means I use isn't a method per se, but seems to work pretty well.
A lot of urban ruins can be found in transitional suburbs. Areas which used to be a mix of houses and factories, but
which are now in between. The warehouses and manufacturers have packed up and left, but the developers have yet
to move in. Along rivers is a good place to look, and if you are in a port city, just upstream from the ports. Near
railway lines is another good place to look. It usually doesn't matter if the lines are abandoned or still in use (but be
aware of which applies!).
The biggest issue is access. Trespass is not fun, but a little courtesy runs a LONG way. If a security firm operates on
site, contact them and ask how to go about getting in touch with the owners. And more often than not, a lot of great
details can be photographed without ever setting foot on a site. There is an old mill near where I currently live with
some AMAZINGLY (by modern standards) detailed brickwork.
In rural areas, well, ruins are everywhere. Along train lines is still a good one, since so many railway stations have
been shut, pretty much everywhere in the world. Old farm buildings are another standard, but the most interesting
ones (in my opinion) are the ones which are still just good enough to still be used. In the wool growing regions of
Australia there are some amazingly decrepit gates, fences, sheep ramps which are still in use. Get a wide angle lens
on some of those and you can have a lot of fun with perspective and putting things in, or out of, context.
-- Keith Lenghaus, May 16, 2002
First I want to say, "Thank You" for publishing this article. It is a great inspiration to me everytime I visit it. There
needs to be many more articles that illustrate how a COLLECTION of images can be used to tell a story instead of
trying to say everything in one shot.
On a more practical note, I'm wondering what equipment tricks and techniques you have come across in working in
these abandoned landscapes. You mention getting access to these sites. Is there a pre-made liability waiver that you
can present to someone to get access to these sites. You mention the sunlight that is often inherent in these types of
places. Have you ever had cause to use a flash? Some places I have encountered are definite candidates for fill flash.
If you have had to use flash, could you comment on any suggestions to keep in mind; maybe diffusion techniques
you have had success with.
I'd also be interested to see what you experience has taught you about lense selection. I'm particularly curious about
Photographing Ruins
any use of telephoto lenses you may have had. A wide to short tele range goes without saying. I'd like to know if
you've ever had cause to use anything 200 or greater to compress images. Obviously these would come in handy for
isolating details, but I'm curious if you have any examples of landscape shots that you have compressed with a
telephoto.
-- James Clarke, January 11, 2003
First, great work Shaun. Lots of excellent new shots since I last went to your web site!
Since finding ruins is part of the trade, I won't give out to much, but one really basic step that I've learned is - ask the
locals! Most people know their neighborhoods. On a recent trip I was in Youngstown, Ohio photographing a steel
mill (the bankrupt CSC mill for you steel mill fans). When I got off the interstate I saw an industrial surplus store. I
picked the young alternative-looking lady at the counter to ask if there were any cool ruins in the area where I could
take pictures. She easily directed me to some buildings she knew that ended up being decent (a burned out cement
mill and some sort of small foundary). Note that I made some profiling-type assumptions about who and where to
ask- think about it a little and don't be afraid to ask several people- they can't close any doors.
-- Frank Abbato, May 17, 2003
Sunset over the ruins of the Ceusescu regime in Bucharest, Romania (in 2002).
I hope this known, at least to some readers. During the Ceausescu regime in Romania, large parts of the city were
"furnished" with new blocks of flats, corresponding to the view of the dictator on a better housing. In some cases,
place for them was made through demolishment of old and valuable urban substance, about which literature was
written.
Photographing Ruins
Since the residential quality of these multiple housing buildings was low, after the change of regime there was little
interest to finish the numerous buildings started. I photographed once the raw reinforced concrete frames in the stage
these are left till today, as it proved to be a useful documentation for the structural system of buildings from the same
time, for my research.
Here I did not include one of those photographs, but a more atmospheric one: a sunset in Pieptanari, over a not
finished so-called "Circul foamei" (Hunger circus), which was the name given to food supermarkets built during the
Ceausescu regime (as they used to be empty - no food). I guess so that the picture has a message.
-- Maria Bostenaru, April 8, 2005
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
●
Art nude & portrait photography by Ian Scrivener- An extensive photographic collection of art nudes,
portraits and dance by Australian photographer Ian Scrivener. Locations often used include abandoned
buildings, industrial zones & ruins. (contributed by Ian Scrivener)
Modern Ruins and Urban Exploration- A good index with many links to various ruins and other delerict
structures across the globe. (contributed by Alejandro Ruiz)
Fading Ad Campaign- Fading Ad Campaign is a photographic project documenting vintage mural ads on
building brickfaces in New York City spanning nearly a century. It has become a metaphor for survival for me
since, like myself, many of these ads have long outlived their expected life span. Although this project doesn't
deal directly with HIV/AIDS, it is no accident I've chosen to document such a transitory and evanescent
subject. Of the hundreds of ads I've photographed, many have already been covered up, vandalized, or
destroyed. But still many silently cling to the walls of buildings, barely noticed by the rushing passersby.
(contributed by Frank Jump)
Add a link
About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Subscribe! | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | DMCA Agent |
Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of digital cameras
Studio Photography
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Studio Photography
by Philip Greenspun
Why go into the studio?
Studio photography is easy because you can get exactly what you want. Studio
photography is hard because you can get exactly what you want.
Soft light, hard light, hair light, background. Everything is under your control.
If you are a tremendously creative person who knows how to use studio
equipment, you'll get wonderful results. If you are uncreative, you'll have very
flat and boring results. If anything is wrong with the lighting balance or
exposure, you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.
Rent or buy?
Most big cities have good rental studios that come complete with lights, backgrounds, and often
assistants. This is the way to go if you have a big budget and know exactly when you want to shoot.
Having your own studio, especially at home, is great for spontaneous work and also because you can
http://www.photo.net/studio/primer (1 of 17)7/3/2005 2:18:01 AM
Studio Photography
take some of your equipment on location.
Ceiling or floor?
Decide whether you want your studio to be floor-based or ceiling-based. A
floor-based studio means that you have lightstands for the lights and
background supports for the background. All of these supports are very
lightweight because they are designed to be portable. You'll be treading very
carefully and/or you'll be knocking things over.
In a ceiling-based studio, you mount background rollers on the ceiling and a
rail system that allow flexible positioning of lights anywhere within a
rectangular area. A ceiling-based studio costs about $1000 more than a floorbased one but is a much nicer place to work in my opinion (remember that I'm
6' tall, 200 lbs, and move with the grace of... an MIT student). Also, you'll still
need at least some of the floor-based stuff for location work.
I personally bought a Bogen rail system for my house when I had to give up my 3000 sq. ft. studio in
Cambridge. It cost about $1200 and really made studio photography much more enjoyable for me. The
coolest part of any rail system is the pantograph light support. These pull down from the ceiling and are
cleverly counterbalanced so that they just stay wherever you leave them. You just grab a light and move
it up or down an inch and it stays there. Pure mechanical design magic. As far as I know, the Bogen
system (extensive brochure available from them), a FOBA system (imported by SinarBron), and the
Calumet system (1-800-CALUMET) are the only rail systems available in the US.
The Lights
Decide what format camera you'll be using. Bigger cameras require smaller apertures to get adequate
depth of field and hence more light. Decide how big your subjects are going to be. Head-and-shoulders
portraits require much less light than automobiles.
I don't have enough experience with hot lights to tell you how much light you need, but there are many
good books for cinematographers on the subject. With flashes, 500 watt-seconds is sufficient for 35mm
photography of people at full-length or 4x5 photography of tabletop subjects. Most serious studio
photographers start with about 2000 watts-seconds, which is adequate for 4x5 photography of large
subjects, and will rent another pack if they have to light something huge.
Sunlight
If you have any windows in your studio, you might be able to use the sunlight coming in. The color
temperature of sunlight varies from about 2000K at sunrise to 4300K in the early morning to 5800K at
high noon in midsummer. [Note: the sun streaming into a window is different from what you get if you
Studio Photography
take your subject out into the open. "Daylight" is a combination of sunlight (around 5500K) and skylight
(approx 9500K), averaging to around 6500K in the summer. Clouds or shade push the color temperature
much bluer, up towards 9000K, though an overall overcast is usually 6000K.]
Hot Lights
Once you know how much light you need, decide whether to go hot or cold. "Hot lights" are tungsten or
Metal Halide Iodide (HMI) lights that burn continuously. The big advantages of hot lights are
●
●
you can always see what you're going to get, even if you mix with ambient light. You don't need
Polaroid tests, fancy meters, and a good imagination.
you can use hot lights with movie, video, and scanning digital cameras
Not too many still photographers use hot lights, though, because they have the following disadvantages:
●
●
●
heat. Thousands of watts of heat that make the photographer sweat, the models sweat, and the
props melt.
tungsten color balance. Kodak makes some nice tungsten color slide film but if you don't like it,
you'll have to filter your lights and lens like crazy to use your favorite color films.
limited accessories. It is much easier to control a light source that isn't hot enough to light paper
on fire. You can experiment with electronic flash without burning your house down. With hot
lights, you must make sure that your diffusers, soft boxes, umbrellas, etc. can handle the heat.
HMI lights are mercury medium-arc iodide lights that burn at a color temperature of between 5600K and
6000K. They produce about 4X the light of a tungsten bulb with the same wattage because less energy is
wasted as heat. Also, you don't have to waste energy and light filtering to daylight color balance. That
said, if you get yourself a 36,000 watt Ultra Dino, you won't exactly be shivering in the studio. The
smallest HMI lights seem to be about 200 watts.
Cold Lights
Studio Photography
"Cold lights" are electronic flashes, much more
powerful than the ones on your camera but basically
the same idea. Studio strobes come in two flavors:
monolights and powerpack/head systems. The
business end of both is the same, a flash tube
surrounding an incandescent bulb. The incandescent
bulb, usually around 100 watts, is the "modeling
light," used by the photographer to judge lighting
effects and ratios. These aren't very effective if the
ambient light in the studio, e.g., from windows, is
high. Most photographers burn a few Polaroids to
make sure that the lights are properly set.
A monolight has a wall outlet on one end, a flash tube
on the other, and a big block of capacitors in between.
These are nice for location work because you don't
have have a lot of cables running around. Using
several monolights together isn't as much of a problem as you'd think because (1) good monolights have
a 4 or 5 f-stop output adjustment control, and (2) most monolights have a built-in slave so that when one
fires, they will all fire.
In a powerpack/head system, you have one big heavy capacitor-filled power pack and a bunch of
relatively lightweight heads connected by high-voltage cables to the powerpack. You can adjust the
lighting power among the heads and also the overall light output. These are the most flexible and most
commonly used studio flash systems. Flash power is specified in watt-seconds (joules), somewhat
confusingly abbreviated as "w/s".
Choosing a brand of studio strobes is a similar process to choosing an SLR camera system. If you buy
the wrong brand, you may have to scrap your entire investment as your ambitions grow. I don't have
enough experience with monolights to suggest a brand, but Sunpaks are cheap (around $350 each for
400 w/s) and have been around for a long time. I certainly wouldn't buy anything cheaper or more
obscure than those. Calumet sells some 750 w/s monolights (around $500) with a 5-stop output
adjustment and I would think they would be easier to work with, especially because they take all the
light-control accessories made for standard Calumet flash heads.
Studio Photography
In powerpack/head systems, Novatron should be the
cheapest system you consider. Anything cheaper
probably won't work in the long run and won't fit any
of the standard light control accessories. Novatron
sells kits that include cheap umbrellas and light stands
in a big plastic case. You can use these to go on
location as long as you're not worried about some bigtime professional walking by and calling you a girlieman because you don't have Speedotron. The kits
range in price from about $500 (240 w/s, two heads) to
$1000 (500 w/s, three heads). The main problems with
Novatron are that (1) the packs only have adustable
power output over a 2 or 3 f-stop range, and (2) the
heads won't take more than 500 or 1000 w/s of power.
If you feel like spending twice as much money, you will no doubt be very happy with Speedotron Black
Line, Norman, Dyna-Lite, or Calumet systems. These allow you to pump 2000 or 3000 w/s into a single
head, adjust over a 5 or 6 f-stop range, have more powerful modeling lights, and are presumably more
reliable in heavy use. Many of these systems offer interesting zoom heads that allow adustment of the
light cone angle. I share a studio with Elsa Dorfman and use her Broncolor strobes. These are another
factor of two more expensive than other "professional-grade" systems and yet I don't really notice any
difference using them day-to-day versus Novatrons.
Warning: there is a brand of mail-order flash called White Lightning (Paul Buff) that is sold as X wattseconds for N dollars. These supposedly aren't such horrible flashes but the watt-seconds figures are
absurd. The true output is something like X/2 in which case the monolights aren't any cheaper than
other cheap brands.
Note for high speed photography: Studio flash systems generally take between 1/200th and 1/1500th of a
second to dump out their light. This is fast enough to freeze much motion but won't stop a bullet or give
you a perfectly sharp splash. Studio strobes are designed for relatively long illumination times because
color film actually suffers some reciprocity failure at the very short exposure times of on-camera flashes
that aren't working hard. In other words, Kodak and Fuji don't guarantee that you'll get correct color
balance at 1/50,000 of a second because the red, green, and blue layers of the film respond differently to
being illuminated for so short a time. If you want to do high-speed photography, your options are (1) use
an on-camera flash set for 1/32nd power, or (2) get a studio strobe system specifically designed for stopmotion capability.
Note: Call 1-800-CALUMET to get a catalog with a good selection of studio flashes with illustrations.
Kapture Group sells equipment for high-speed photography.
Light Control
Studio Photography
Whatever lighting system you get, make sure that it is reasonably popular. Otherwise, you won't be able
to get any accessories to fit. You need to be able to control whether the light is hard or soft. Hard light is
generated by a small and/or far-away light and results in strong shadows. Examples of hard lights are the
sun (not small but quite far away) and bare bulbs. Soft light is generated by a large diffuse light and
results in shadow-free images because there are many paths from the light source to the object.
Examples of soft light are an overcast sky, a north-facing window close to the subject, a bulb reflected
off an umbrella placed close to the subject.
Another dimension to control is diffuse/specular. A diffuse source contains light on many different
angles whereas specular light is organized in parallel rays. Specular light doesn't bounce around the
studio filling in shadows and lowering contrast, spilling onto the background, etc.
Old-time photographers relied on silver umbrellas to get a somewhat softer light source. With white
translucent umbrellas, you can use them like a silver umbrella and bounce off them (losing about 1/2 the
light, which will go through and away from your subject) or shoot through them, which results in
slightly harder light with the same 1-stop loss. However you use an umbrella, you'll generally get a
diffuse light source.
The modern religion is the softbox, a reflector-lined cavity covered with a white diffusion fabric. The
best of these, e.g., the PhotoFlex MultiDome, allow you to remove the front fabric to get a "sort of hard"
light, to place or remove an interior baffle to get a "slightly less soft" light, and to warm up the color of
the light with a gold reflector. Because softboxes surround the light head, you lose much less light than
you would using white umbrellas. Note: the M&M's image at the top of this page was done with a
softbox.
Some photographers put a big grid over the softbox to create a large specular source. Louvers create the
same effect but only on one axis. An inexpensive honeycomb grid will turn a strobe head into a specular
light source, albeit not a very large one. Photographers who use these tend to use many, "painting a
scene" precisely with pools of light. Strobe head grids are $50-75 each or sold in sets with different light
angles for about $200.
Snoots sit over a light head and turn it into a very small light source. These are usually used for hair
lights. You can stick a small honeycomb grid over the snoot to tighten up the cone of light thrown by the
snoot and also make the light more specular.
Barn Doors are black metal flaps that sit around a strobe head and keep the light from going where you
don't want it to go. This is Hollywood technology from the 1920's. If you really want to control the angle
of the light cone thrown by your head, you should probably get a zoom head or a bunch of grids.
Reflectors are really too general purpose to be called "studio equipment" but they are essential studio
items and, if cleverly used, can eliminate the need for additional strobe heads. A favorite of mine is the
PhotoFlex Litepanel, which is a huge sheet of gold/silver reflector, white diffusion fabric, or black light
Studio Photography
absorber in a plastic frame. You can light through this and turn it into a huge softbox, bounce off of it to
bring the contrast ratio closer to that magic Kodak 3:1, or take it outside and have an assistant hold it to
filter the sun. Another essential item is the disk reflector (e.g., Photoflex Lightdisc) which stores
compactly but springs open to a large round reflector with a steel frame. I usually buy them white on one
side, gold on the other.
The most important word in studio light control is "gobo". Hardly anyone knows what it means, but you
can't beat the mysterious sound. It actually is short for "go between" and refers to anything that you stick
in between the light and the subject to cast a shadow, diffuse the light, or whatever.
More: see the Photoflex Web site for a wide range of standard professional products and/or the Calumet
catalog. If you really want to understand the art of lighting, read books written for film makers and also
look at old black & white movies (before they had color, they used lots of interesting gobos to add
shadow patterns on white walls and other boring surfaces).
Flash Triggering
If you have hot lights, you don't have to worry about this; they're on all the time. If you have strobes, the
camera has to tell the strobes when to fire. This is traditionally done with a sync cord. Sync cords come
in many lengths and are available coiled or uncoiled. The one thing in common that they all share is that
they suck and you will trip over them and probably break something very expensive. It is much better to
use a wireless trigger of some kind. Personally, I use a Wein Infrared SSR kit (about $200), which
consists of a small on-camera hotshoe-connected flash with a filter over the front that only passes IR
light. The other half of the kit plugs into your strobe powerpack and waits for the IR pulse from the oncamera unit, then triggers the flash. There are various radio slaves (e.g., Quantum) that also perform this
function, possibly better in a large studio or outdoors.
I'm so high on a fully wireless studio that I also bought a Wein slave trigger for my flashmeter (see
below).
Flash Metering
Unless you have a very unusual camera (e.g., certain Rolleis and Contaxes), you will not be able to
meter flash exposure with a through-the-lens in-camera meter. Virtually every professional carries a
handheld flashmeter. This is a $500 device that measures ambient light, light ratios, how many pops of a
studio strobe system you'll need to shoot at f/64 with your view camera.
Almost everyone uses a flash meter in incident mode. You stick a white diffusion dome over the meter
and hold the meter in front of the subject's face, with the dome pointing back at the camera. Then you
push a button on the meter and it triggers the flash (assuming you have it connected via a sync cord or
Wein system). The meter then reports the appropriate f-stop to use. This gives you a reading that is
independent of the subject's reflectance. In other words, if the subject is white the meter doesn't get
Studio Photography
fooled into thinking that it is a brighter light and if the subject is black the meter doesn't recommend
opening up two more f-stops until the subject is rendered as though it were 18% gray.
Though nobody was ever able to figure out how to use it, the standard professional meter for many years
was the Minolta Flashmeter IV. I own one. I think I know what half of the buttons and switches do. I
have two owner's manuals for it. Minolta came out with a completely rewritten one because nobody
could understand the first one. The new Minolta Flashmeter V is better/simpler.
The nicest meter I've used is the Gossen Luna-Star F2. It takes one standard 9V battery that you can buy
anywhere. It only has six buttons and their functions are obvious. I was able to use all but one of the
meter's modes within 60 seconds of putting in the battery without reading the manual. 99% of what
you'd need to know from the manual is printed in four sections on the back of the meter. The meter is
great for computing lighting ratios. You press the measurement button once to take a snapshot reading.
You press and hold it while sweeping the meter around a scene and the Luna-Star F2 draws you a graph
at the bottom of the display of the contrast range (e.g., f8-f16). Every time take a flash reading, the meter
also shows you the ambient reading with an unobtrusive little bar on the same graph. Unlike the Minolta
meters, you don't need a "reflected attachment" and an "incident attachment." The naked meter works to
measure reflected light. Add a plastic incident piece and you can measure incident light. Add a little
viewfinder and you've got a 5 degree spot meter. It is a great design and smaller than competing
products. Nit: It only meters down to EV -2.5. That's a couple of stops less light than most pro SLRs but
not as good as some other handheld meters.
The Background
The basic professional background is seamless paper.
This comes in rolls 53", 107", and 140" wide. I find
the 53" size is too confining and leads to stiff poses
and nasty little slipups where a corner of the frame is
not covered by the background. On the other hand, the
140" size is not really necessary most of the time,
which is why it is only available in a handful of colors.
The 107" width is about 9 feet and that's a good size
for most people. A roll costs about $30 and you should
have white, "studio gray", and black for starters. Every
time I try to use colored seamless, I end up with a
Sears portrait studio look so I've stopped trying. Bogen
makes a nice "Auto Pole" system that lets you mount
several rolls of seamless conveniently (a few hundred
dollars; can even be motorized).
For location work, Photek's Background-in-a-Bag
system is kind of nice. These are big sheets of what looks like crushed velvet that you just duct tape up
Studio Photography
against a wall. They cost about $130 and fit into a included gym-bag.
Calumet makes a really slick "Tote-a-Round Muslin" system that leans up against any wall and gives
you that classic studio muslin look. They are around $300 each but I haven't tried them.
Camera Support
This is where most readers would say "duh, use a tripod." First of all, if you're doing 35mm or medium
format work with strobes, you don't need a camera support because the flash freezes motion. But if
you're using hot lights or big cameras or doing something creative, you probably need some kind of
camera support. A tripod is in fact usually the wrong tool for the job.
A tripod is inconvenient. Since using the center column to adjust height is the sure mark of a fool, you
have to adjust all three legs to raise or lower the camera. You can't usually get really low or really high
or really hanging out over your subject with a tripod because the legs get in the way.
Part of the reasons that tripods have such shortcomings is that they are engineered to weigh less than 250
lbs. If you want the most stable support for a fixed weight, a tripod is the right design. Once you accept
the idea that a camera support can weigh more than the photographer, then there is more freedom of
design and you'd probably come up with a Studio Stand. This is basically a very heavy rigid single
column off which you hang crossbar arms off of which you hang tripod heads off of which you hang
cameras. There are wheels on the bottom that you can lock. The columns come between 6 and 12 feet in
height and prices range from $350 to $3500 depending upon features and stability.
Cool Stuff
You went into the studio to have fun. Now it is time to stock up on mylar, strange oils, dead flowers,
interesting vegetables, and play. If you want to spend more money, there are lots of interesting ways to
do it. Rosco makes a huge range of colored filters to stick in front of lights plus fog machines ($350700) to add mystery. A wind machine (around $500) will give human subjects that active look.
Trengrove artificial ice cubes and related products will help you do that Chivas Regal ad.
If you really want to be mod, though, what you need to do is get hosed. The Hosemaster is a $5000
machine that lets you paint with a fiber optic wand of light. Since you are lighting each part of the
subject individually, you can do just about anything you want. Infinite depth of field? Just keep
refocusing the camera. Make one part of the subject diffuse? Put a stocking over the lens while you're
hosing that part. A nice highlight on the pen tip? Leave the hose on the tip for awhile.
I've personally never used a Hosemaster, but it was all the rage when it came out in the early 1990's.
You couldn't open Photo District News without seeing some beautiful Hosemaster work. Personally,
though, I don't like the idea of spending fifteen minutes painting a scene on a Polaroid and then doing it
all over again for the final chrome and then discovering that I screwed up somehow.
Studio Photography
More
●
●
●
●
photo.net guide to body painting
nudes
Creative Lighting Techniques for Studio Photographers
Studio & Commercial Photography
Studio photography is an equipment-intensive endeavor. Check out the photo.net recommended retailers
for the full-line professional camera shops that stock studio gear.
Credits
I'm grateful to John Tice ([email protected]) for educating me about specular/diffuse light.
Text and pictures copyright 1982-1995 Philip Greenspun
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Putting a honeycomb grid over a softbox does not necessarily turn that diffuse light into a specular light,
but it does head it in that direction. It all depends on the size of the holes in the honeycomb and the
thickness of the honeycomb material. I've used largish diameter honeycomb hole material that
maintained a pretty diffuse lighting pattern in terms of the subject, but still gave me a fairly quick cutoff
outside the lit area. The Degree of Specularity depends solely on the angle subtended by the light in
relation to the subject. In other words, if you're standing in the middle of the desert and being lit by the
entire sky (and no sun), your light subtends an angle of almost 180 degrees relative to you, the subject.
That's seriously diffuse light. On the other hand, if you're being lit ONLY by the sun, which is, relative
to you, a very tiny one or two degrees of angle, the sun is rapidly approaching being a point source, and
the shadows are very hard-edged indeed, and that's seriously specular light. The sun could actually be a
very diffuse source if you were only a few miles from its surface. At that point, the sun, which is HUGE
relative to you, would be taking up nearly half of your available vision, as does the sky in the desert, and
it would be diffuse. And, of course, you'd be fried. The interesting point, here, is that for any given size
of light source and any given size of subject smaller than the source, the closer you move the light, the
more diffuse it will be. Most light sources are actually combinations of specular and diffuse light. If you
take a piece of translucent fabric and put it between the light and the subject, you usually get that
combination. The closer you bring the fabric to the light, the less fabric area you're lighting, the
Studio Photography
narrower the angle subtended by the light as seen from the subject, and the harder the shadow edges.
The closer you bring the fabric to your subject, the softer the shadows will appear.
-- anonymous anonymous, June 25, 1997
Photogenic Machine Co. in Youngstown, Ohio also manufactures and sells an overhead rail system for
supporting your lighting in the studio.
-- Scott Rogers, April 6, 1999
One should bear in mind that strobe selection is as religious an issue (at least to some of us) as camera
selection. I own several white lightning strobes and really like them. The market is flooded with
monolights at the moment so I am not pushing a particular brand. But I think that on a limited budget
one will get more value for the money using monolights over powerpacks/light modules.
-- Dick Damian, May 19, 1999
White Lightnings are nice equipment - a good value, reliable and powerful (f16.4 @ 10' w. umbrella). In
some location situations, they can have advantages over powerpack lights (placing an accent light 30 to
50 feet away from the power packs).
Your website is terrific.
-- Mike Matcho, May 31, 1999
I just want to say that I am new to the photography buisness, but I also have a wealth of knowledge
when it comes to theatrical lighting. If you find anyone else who does or learn about theatric lighting, it
will do wonders for your studio. I am a strong beliver in fernels and ellisodal reflectors. Experiment with
gels, play with focus. They do get hot but if you have a high celing studio a portable dimmer pack, you
can have a LOT of fun playing around with diffrent lights and colors. I really recomend rosco colors.
They also have gel finders you can get so you can sample and find which colors you want. The one thing
I really have to say when it comes to photography and all other arts.. DARE TO BE DIFFRENT! People
forget this. The greats are great because they shocked and suprised the world. Just give it some
thought..... Great site love it.
-- Chris Leher, June 20, 1999
Chimera, the softbox people, publish a chart in their catalog comparing the effective output of a wide
variety of studio flash equipment, both power pack/head and monolight systems. Provides useful,
objective information in contrast to manufacturers' hype.
-- Steve Singleton, July 2, 1999
Studio Photography
Watt second / Joule ratings can be very misleading as they relate to the supplied electrical power and not
the actual light output. Guide numbers are often not much better because they depend on conditions and
reflectors defined by each manufacturer. A specific example of this are semi-pro monolights of similar
price from two popular UK manufacturers:
The Courtenay Solapro 300 has a 300 Joule rating and a guide number of 52m @ ISO100
The Prolinca 400 has a 400 Joule rating and a guide number of 51m @ ISO100
On the face of it there's not much to choose between the two and the Prolinca is more popular because of
its (irrelevant) higher Joule rating and the fact that it sits at the bottom of the much larger Elinchrom
professional range. However, further investigation reveals that the Courtenay is even more efficient than
it already appears and has a 1 to 1.5 stop light output advantage when measured under the same
conditions. This is because the Courtenay spec. is based on a 65 degree reflector and the Prolinca on a
special 52 degree reflector that concentrates the light more to improve the paper specification.
I don't know where else these models are available, but I'm sure the moral of this tale applies to
manufacturers around the world. Sadly, reviewers don't often pick up on this fine, but important, detail
and it's up to the individual photographer to test the products under the specific conditions that they will
be used.
-- Sean Sedwards, August 23, 1999
Hi guys.. I seem to always run into this nagging delinquent conversations about brand "X" being better
than brand "Y" and "Z" put together. Forgive the interjection (and the wet blanket statements to follow),
but I've always been under the impression that the photographer will do whatever is necessary to achieve
the effect intended. And, regardless of the tools used, is considered to have succeeded when that given
initial intended effect is achieved.
That being said, I've often challenged students of mine to outshoot me with their expensive cameras
while I use the cheapest cameras of all time... the China made "Seagull". Costing no more than US$60, I
can make the fixed focal length, twin lens beast (el cheapo) perform most of my commands.
Bare basics come to mind:
Composition, exposure, timing, color balance, tonality, subject matter, just to name a few.
While I find it simply tickling when I stroll into a camera store, to hear the ever unceasing Nikon vs.
Canon Wars, or the Mamiya Vs. 'Blad rampages, I cannot but feel sorry that we, have all fallen prey to
the "prestigeous snob elite" bug.
"WOW! look at that BIG 600mm lens" "My Leica M6 has a custom ostrich skin leather replacement"
Studio Photography
catch my drift?
Equipment discussions are more targeted towards the less informed, while techniques are continually
learned.
Let's have a ball discussing techniques instead. Anytime...
Michael Chick
-- Chick Michael, January 7, 2000
Thanks Michael!
Being new to photography, I'm trying to gain ideas and techniques from anywhere I can. I'm excellent
with buying the latest and greatest, I learned this well from other hobbies, however photography is the
first hobby that lets me express a more creative side, it is currently the unused one.
I am really tired of hearing this equipment that equipment and I tend to get caught up in it. I am just now
starting to learn that I can change light with simple and inexpensive props in the studio. One would be
surprised as how well a flash with a pocket bouncer bounced into some white poster board (hanging
from a ceiling fan) will do. I was amazed! I would really like to hear more stories like this!
While I know practice is what really helps I know we could discuss some more basic techniques. As a
beginning photographer do you know how hard it was for me to find someone to explain how strobes
worked, setting the ratios, etc. I would think this would be at the beginning of the book!
J.R. Farrar
-- J.R. Farrar, February 7, 2000
There is an old story of a famous English photographer called David Bailey, of the likes of Vogue, wide
angle pix of the Beatles etc., who was at a camera club and asked what light he prefered using. He said
"Available light". You mean daylight the class responded. "No, available light" Said Bailey. Slightly
confused the class asked if he meant tungsten, or flash. "No, available light!". They were still confused.
"Available light," Said Bailey "Any bloody light that's available, I'll use it!!" Get the point everyone!
Don't obssess about equipment because, The camera doesn't take the photo, the photographer takes the
photo!! You can take great photos in the studio with a 40w lamp bulb if you know what you're doing,
even one candle!! Keep snapping.
-- John-Christian Jacques, February 8, 2000
Studio Photography
When using studio flash don't forget about THE HOME DEPOT school of lighting. Hardware stores
have lights, clamps, black plastic, to cover windows,etc. Corragated dryer vents cut into 10 inch lengths
makes great snots for lights, its even adjustable. To tighten the pattern pull on the vent and it lengthens
and makes the light pattern smaller. Also if you mix tungsten light with flash the tungsten is yellow and
can be described as warm. It looks good on the background. Go to your nearest hardware store and
think. Thom Wolf, [email protected]
-- Thom Wolf, September 28, 2000
So nice to see somebody finally admitted tripods are not needed at all times and to admit that hot lights
have some advantages. I have been a "serious amateur" for years and am finally in the process of setting
up my studio. I intend to specialize in infants and children but it has been an uphill battle convincing my
husband that I don't have to use a tripod to run a studio.
With kids, they do not hold still for more than a fraction of a second at a time. If I use a tripod, or
anything else that keeps me from moving the camera, then I WILL miss the best shots.
Also, with hot lights (provided you have enough room to bounce them) you don't miss shots due to the
flash cycle time. Some of the best faces happen just after you take the first shot. You need to be able to
snap again immediately.
Thanks for the info.
LizM
-- Liz Masoner, March 11, 2001
A few notes:
-Colored acetate/polyester/mylar/whatever in front of lights are not filters. They're gels. Filters go in
front of the lens and are optical grade, while gels are made only for lights. Don't mix them up.
-A softbox with a grid does not change the quality of the light. It only restricts the light from spreading.
-Low end strobes have a wide variance in color temperature. If you plan on shooting chrome in the
studio with a cheap system, and want predictable results, you had better get a color meter and know how
to use it properly. It would save much trouble to just purchase the high quality strobe system. If you're a
professional, you can't afford not to.
-- Ad T, June 21, 2001
this issue of what lights or any other equipment to buy is kind of silly. What you use is linked to how
Studio Photography
you shoot and you develop your style and knowlege of equipment through experience. In the meantime
you use what you have available. Granted, its fun to use studio lights and if you've got the money and
the desire, well then why not. personally id buy what the rental houses carry so i can get accessories
when i need them. But its not the only way. I shoot for a living and i frequently use desklamps, florecent
lights fixtures, cieling lights, or whatever. when i was starting, i was sure i needed strobes. I finally got
some and as soon as i had them came to the realization that my best work happened when i used more
inventive light sources. My absolute favorite light (i shoot people) is day light through a window or
reflected off a wall. Sometimes I walk around until i see the light i want reflecting off a building. the
point is that photography requires adaptability, inventiveness, and imagination. Not brand x or tool y. If
someone needs a colour meter its because their client needs accurate color and by the time anyone is in a
position to have to worry about it they will know this stuff. Saying you need piece of equipment x is like
saying you need an f1 race car to drive for a living. If you want to race in the f1 circuit then yah, if you
want to deliver milk then maybe not.
very happy to see this dialogue happening. The photoworld needs forums badly.
-- dvd wmth, September 30, 2001
I'd like to challenge the author's comments re: White Lightning flashes. I have used one of their model
10000 units for a number of years. I find that the performance is exactly as claimed for output. Did you
conduct your own tests to determine that their WS ratings were inflated by a factor of 2?
Generally, I found your site to be very helpful and informative. Your comment about Paul Buff,
however, seems to qualify as a "cheap shot." I find no test data to back it up.
-- William Croninger, February 28, 2002
I would just like to give a small bit of advise to those of you who want to get the best out of your flash
meters: when you have a flashmeter that has variable shutter speeds and you want to find out how much
the flash is blasing out, (this is especially evident with outdoor portraits) set your meter shutter speed to
at LEAST 1/500th of a second. This will cancel out most (if not all) of the ambient light that will alter
your readings. I specialize in outdoor portraiture, and was amazed at the difference in meter readings
when I learned this. For me, it was a good two to three stop difference. You may try and get other
results, but this is what I have found to be more effective. Jeremy Hall
-- Jeremy Hall, April 17, 2002
I'm a first year photo major, and I've been shooting for no more then two years. With that background in
mind, I found the Minolta Flashmeter-IV to be totally self explanitory (contrary to the opinion of the
author, who found it to be muddled and confusing). It doesn't have too many buttons, and even without
the user's manual I was able utilize most of its functions.
-- Tom Eldred, October 17, 2002
Studio Photography
my favorite is the one with the really bad lighting... oops, that doesn't narrow it down. The one with the
guy on his toes. You just do not see enough photos with the background stand in the actual frame. LOL.
As if the shadow of the man on the un-lighted backgound isn't original enough for a studio shot! lol
-- robert barzilla, February 15, 2003
That's a bit of a stick to White Lightning, and an unfair one. While some of their claims may seem a bit
ridiculous, I've compared my WL 600 (300 ws) to my Balcar Monohead (300 ws) and I do get about a
solid stop and a half more output from the White Lightning. Also, the White Lightning is far more
reliable.
As far as pack vs mono... there are advantage and disadvantage to each. I say take advantage of both,
and mix up what you have. I own Balcar mount monoblocks/ heads, then I also use Speedotron
Brownline as well. I have the advantage of the rock solid base of Speedotron and the finesse of the
monos, along with being able to use accesories that are unique to each.
Favorite for the Speedotron: their version of the Mola reflector (22" Grid Reflector; super beauty light).
Add the grid attachment with the Light Sock diffuser and you have an amazing beauty light. It's always a
good idea to diffuse behind a grid for the main light. It softens the specular aspects of the effect and
makes everyone look pretty amazing under it. Great for reproducing the "Hollywood Galmour" look.
Don't forget your fill lights though!
-- Jeremy du Brul, January 1, 2004
Hi,
I am a beginner and I like it that way. I enjoy reading and learning form Photo.net. I have a good
workshop which I also use for photography. I take photos of violins, the ones I make. I use four lights
each with 60w bulbs. I use a backdrop and dental floss to hang the violins on. I use a tripod with my
camera and Tech-Pan. The results are predictable end good for my purposes.
I think it all depends on what you want to shoot and why.
Cheers.
-- ben conover, May 31, 2005
Add a comment
Related Links
Studio Photography
●
●
Reflectors, Scrims, Gobos, Light,- CALIFORNIA SUNBOUNCE: the most sturdy collapsible
reflector system is still verry lightweight (contributed by Geller Wolfgang Peter)
MSE (Matthew's Studio Equipment)- For light control equipment used by all the best "grips" in
Hollywood. Primarily film making gear, but just as useful for still photographers. Includes
Stands, Scrims, Gobos, etc. Built to last years of rough handling by tough guys with nicknames.
Many items are less expensive (and better made) than their "photo" equivalents. (contributed by
Matthew Kees)
●
Mole-Richardson- Hollywood lighting, includes HMI and Quartz lamps, stands,etc. Used by
George Hurrell in many of his famous "glamour" portraits. Wide variety of lamps and prices -"baby" size perfect for still photography. Used equipment available. (contributed by Matthew
Kees)
●
●
George Hurrell- George Hurrell's vintage and contemporary portraiture and glamour photography
of Hollywood stars. Hundreds of images by a master studio photographer. Other master
photographers' work also featured. (contributed by Eric David)
Luca Patrone advertise Studio photography- Here you can find some example of creative studio
shooting, expecially some shots with strong body-painting use, big banks for extreme-beauty, and
trash - fashion. (contributed by luca patrone)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: Camcorder HQ - Excellent reviews of camcorders
Underwater Photography Primer
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
by Philip Greenspun
Underwater photography combines the challenges of (1) trying to make an aesthetic statement that hasn't
been made by thousands of photographers who've dedicated decades of their life to the craft, with (2)
trying to stay alive.
The easiest way
Get into submarine. Get out camera. Point. Shoot. Here are some examples from my 800' dive in the
Cayman Islands.
The second easiest way
http://www.photo.net/underwater/primer (1 of 23)7/3/2005 2:18:13 AM
Snorkeling is much simpler than SCUBA diving. The key to
snorkeling is to remember that the human body will always float. It
just doesn't float high enough that you can breathe easily.
However, if you add a few inches of extension to your mouth, your
natural floating position will be more than sufficient for breathing.
You can thus stay in the water for 8 hours without exerting any
energy and wait for interesting subjects to drift or swim
underneath.
If you're staying near the surface, you don't need a camera that can
handle the pressure of deep water. There are some point-and-shoot
cameras that have been augmented for snorkeling. My favorite is
the Nikon Action Touch. It has a very high quality 35/2.8 lens and
autofocus above water. Underwater, you set the subject distance
with a convenient dial. There is a nice big switch that turns the
built-in flash on or off.
The Action Touch sold for about $150 in the late 1980s. Nikon
took it off the market and since then there haven't been any cameras like it. Basically the Japanese have
decided that nobody is intelligent enough to manually focus a camera. So all the cheap underwater
cameras are fixed focus underwater and I don't think any have nearly as high quality a lens or metering
system as the Nikon. I exposed quite a bit of Fuji Velvia (ISO 50 slide film) in the Action Touch.
Oh yes, if you're going to do this these days, you should probably look for a used Action Touch at one of
the photo.net recommended retailers and pick up some ISO 100 slide film for sunny days and ISO 400
print film for cloudy days. Note that most underwater photographers use slide film despite its attendant
narrow exposure tolerance. I think that is because prints can never convey the drama and brilliant colors
of the underwater world.
Here are some snapshots from my Action Touch:
Note that the Action Touch ends up being a great camera for rafting, kayaking, heavy rain, or any other
time when you need a high quality waterproof camera but don't need high pressure resistance.
The bad thing about snorkeling is that nearly all of your photos will end up having a "looking down"
perspective. Here are a couple from Hawaii (taken with the Nikonos V, described below):
Some of the newer digital cameras are being marketed with accessory underwater housings. See the
Canon S100 review and also look at the Sony DSC-P1.
The hard way
Strap some tanks on your back and dive. In theory, if you take your pathetic Action Touch with you it
will be crushed by the water pressure. In practice, people say that Nikon overengineered the product so
that it can withstand quite a bit more than its rated 10 feet of pressure. I wouldn't take it beyond 30 feet.
The cheapest way to take pictures while SCUBA diving is by putting your standard camera into a plastic
bag. A plastic bag?!? Not just any plastic bag. A thick German plastic bag made by ewa-marine with a
metal screw-down zip-loc top. These ewa guys make plastic bags for cameras ranging from regular P&S
to SLRs with various combinations of lenses and flashes.
I have some ewa-marine bags. To my amazement, they do not leak.
However, I've never been able to use them successfully. The last
time I tried the ewa bag was on a liveaboard trip to the Great
Barrier Reef. I stuffed a Nikon 8008, SB-24 flash, and 60 macro
lens into the bag. As soon as I got to about 30 feet underwater, the
bag was pressing up against the camera to the point that the
controls were inoperable. The AF drive wasn't strong enough to
rack the lens out against the pressure of the bag. I got a few
snapshots but they were mostly pathetic in quality. Oh yes, with
my 20mm lens there was pronounced vignetting from the housing (example at right).
Now that we're deep
Oh yes, now that we're deep underwater, let's talk about
fundamentals rather than gear for a moment. One fundamental fact
is that water magnifies. Thus you end up needing a wider angle
lens than you thought. A 20mm lens is not especially wide for
underwater use.
If you have a longer lens, why not just back up? The problem with
backing up underwater is that water tends to absorb red and yellow
light. The more water between your subject and your lens, the
bluer your subject will be. If your light source is on your camera (i.e., if you are using a flash), every
extra foot of water between you and your subject addings two feet worth of bluing (one as the light goes
from the flash to the subject and one on the way back to the lens).
Underwater photographers are thus very fond of very wide lenses and very powerful flashes.
Back to the Gear
If we don't like the plastic bag idea, what about sticking a rigid plastic housing
around a standard camera? This works and is in fact what most professional
underwater photographers use. The oldest and most popular brand of
underwater housing is Ikelite. The big New York shops on my list of camera
retailers will carry them (also the ewa bags).
I haven't personally played with housed SLRs so I'll move on to something
that I have tried: real cameras that are inherently waterproof and pressure
resistant.
The most popular example of this idea is the Nikonos V. This is a rugged little
rubber-coated body that takes interchangeable lenses in 15, 20, 28, 35
(standard lens; works above water too), and 80mm lengths. The camera gives
you aperture-priority or manual exposure control with center-weighted TTL metering. Optics and image
quality are excellent. It is a real camera that you can take into the shower.
I hate the Nikonos V.
Why? To focus, you flip the camera over and stare at the front. Then you turn a dial until the correct
distance is indicated. Then you flip the camera back over and take your picture.
Nikon fixed all of this with their Nikonos RS SLR, introduced with great fanfare in 1992. From the
feature list, it looked basically like a water- and pressure-proof Nikon land SLR. Everything was
automatic if you wanted it to be, the viewfinder offered super high eye relief (since the user was
presumed to be wearing a SCUBA mask). There was an amazing 20-35 zoom lens and a tempting macro
lens.
Warts? The Nikonos RS was staggeringly priced (almost $10,000 for a system). The camera would flood
and require expensive repairs, which Nikon invariably blamed on user carelessness (though these same
people had been using the Nikonos V for many years with no problems). I talked to a guy who sold his
and what he hated was the lack of neutral buoyancy: "I would hand the camera to my wife and then have
to adjust my BC; I don't want a camera that becomes part of my weight system."
Nikon discontinued the RS system in 1996.
Nikonos V Gallery
Here are some snapshots that I took above and below the water in Hawaii with a Nikonos V and the
standard 35mm lens.
Is it all worth it?
One of the best moments of my life was snorkeling in Kealakekua
Bay on the Big Island of Hawaii (this is where Captain Cook was
worshipped as a God and then subsequently stabbed to death by
Hawaiians (1779)). I was about 1/2-mile out in the bay, drifting
and look down at three reef sharks (about six feet long). They
swam off suddenly and I looked up to see that a school of dolphins,
perhaps 60 in number, had entered the bay. They were 200 yards
from me and I started swimming toward them. By the time I'd
moved 10 yards, the school was all the way down at the other end
of the bay (1/2 mile in the distance).
I gave up.
To my immense joy, the dolphins started coming back in my direction. They were heading straight
toward me, occasionally one would leap but mostly I just saw 20 dorsal fins out of the water at a time
(the other dolphins swimming underneath). My joy eventually turned to fear when I thought that perhaps
a direct encounter with 60 bottle-nosed animals traveling at 30 miles-per-hour would not be pleasant. At
the last minute, when the dolphins were no more than 15 feet from me, they dove about 10 feet
underwater and swam directly underneath me. Some of them rolled on their sides to get a better look up
at me. I snapped their picture with a Nikonos V.
When I got the images back, I found that the dolphins were only faintly visible on film. My eyes had
adjusted to the blue light but the film did not. The contrast between dolphin and water, dramatic to my
eye, was very subtle.
(Thanks to Kathy Bauer and her crew at Advanced Digital Imaging for pulling out the image on these
PhotoCD scans.)
My decision
Actually I've decided that it isn't worth it, at least most of the time. I have enough trouble taking decent
photos on land and enough trouble getting back to the boat or beach alive (I'm a novice SCUBA diver).
The work of photographers like Christopher Newbert (Within a Rainbowed Sea) is so good that I know
I'll never approach it (leaving aside issues of natural talent, I know that I'm not going to go into the water
every day for ten years as he did). So I enjoy the underwater scene while I'm privileged to be on vacation
and underwater. Not every activity has to be productive.
More
●
●
●
●
●
●
fun with decompression illness
Q&A forum threads on this subject
Camera Tech, a San Francisco shop specializing in underwater photography
ewa-marine, German plastic bags
Ikelite, makers of SLR housings
Subal USA, importers of Austrian SLR housings
Underwater photography is an equipment-intensive endeavor. If you need to add to your
armamentarium, check out the photo.net recommended retailers.
Text and images copyright 1991-1998 Philip Greenspun.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
At last! A page on u/w photography! It is interesting to see a 99 and 44/100 percent land photographer's
view on this subject.
The fact of the matter remains that the lens is the most important part of u/w photography. The Nikonos
V is a good camera, but with the standard 35mm lens it is useless. A good lens (at around $1600) is the
15mm wide angle.
If you are serious about getting good photos u/w, you will need a housed system. Yes, a Nikon F90s/
N90x with an Ikelite/Subal/Nexus/or one of the many other housing manufacturers. This is a clear cut
situation where yes, Nikon wins over Canon, although in Japan there are many housings for the Rebel G
(New Kiss) body.
Whereas all the serious land photographers are arguing about ballheads for their tripods, u/w
photographers are debating the merits of synch cords for their strobes and dome ports for the housings.
Come over to the uw-photo mailing list to see for yourself.
For the casual photographer, the best solution seems to be the Ikelite Aquashot 3e housing which accepts
the Fuji Endeavor APS camera. Dave Read has an excellent resource page at http://www.ph.utexas.edu/
~read/aquashot/aquashot.html and Ike of Ikelite frequently posts on uw-photo. His customer service is
equalled by none.
Most of us have enough problems with land photos as it is. My advice to would-be u/w photographers is
this: Before you start trying to take photos underwater, make sure your buoyancy skills are near perfect.
I have seen many divers crashing into the reef, destroying corals and trying to take photos while flailing
around. Please become a good diver first before you start to compound the difficulty of your dives with
carrying a camera around and trying to take pictures while hovering motionless over a reef.
A good place to start would be by taking an introductory course such as the U/W photographer specialty
or even a full week course on a liveaboard with a pro like Jim Church.
See you all underwater.
-- Matthew Endo, July 22, 1998
As a novice diver I didn't find that staying alive (or even close to neutrally buoyant) was a big problem.
However, I found that getting more than a few acceptable pictures per roll was one. In my case, I think it
is because I was mostly trying to do wide-angle pics with a 15 lens on the Nikonos, and this is basically
manual (the ttl didn't seem to expose properly a non-centered background) fill-in with part of the backlit
(pictures taken looking down are usually less sucessful) subject at close-up distance. I am not sure this
would be that easy even on the surface. Besides you have to estimate distances modified by water, orient
the flash, and you can't pop out a flashmeter ! I am wondering if with a modern housed camera, af, and
auto fill-in it is not much easier.
-- Quang-Tuan Luong, September 7, 1998
Let me suggest that UW Photography requires such anal attention to equipment that a good idea is to
buy from someone who actually knows the equipment: ABSea Photo [email protected] Next to
LAX. This is not like getting an N90 w/ a 180mm and SB24.B&H will not help you here. I'm not an
owner nor related to him.
-- Douglas Cummings, November 9, 1998
I recently purchased a Minolta Vectis Zoom for kayaking. Sure it's a lot heavier than the disposables I've
been using - it doesn't float so I can't just toss it to a friend - but I took it for granted that some genuine
optics and a true zoom would improve my snapshots and maybe turn some into true photos. So far, I
think the disposables actually have a slight edge in picture quality!
-- Alon Coppens, November 20, 1998
A quick hint for setting up a Nikonos....mount the lens upside down....then rather than having to flip the
camera completely over to read the scale and set the distance you can just look down onto the top of the
lens and set it.....saves a couple of seconds and is alot less distracting to the u/w life than waving you
system around in front of them...tom
-- Tom Skiba, February 26, 1999
Underwater photography is completely different from land photography. There are no tripods (at least
not usually), objects underwater are not where they appear to be or the size they appear to be, you work
within limits of a tank of air and one roll of film per dive. To become proficient at underwater
photography requires hundreds of underwater hours, good scuba skills, and usually a large investment in
scuba trips, scuba gear, and photo gear. Avid underwater photographers usually start with a disposable
camera or an inexpensive point and shoot of almost any variety - then they move up to either a Sea &
Sea Motormarine or Nikonos V. The Nikonos V has for many years been the standard of the industry.
Housed cameras are popular amoung serious photographers primarily because their close up and macro
capabilities surpass the Nikonos V. I can't believe you could pooh pooh the Nikonos V simply because it
has 'inconvenient controls'. With practice you learn to use them by feel, not by `flipping the camera
over'. That camera is probably the standard of the indurstry and can do amazing things in the underwater
environment. I am sure with time something higher tech will come along, but in the mean time, give the
note to this camera that it deserves. I have seen many talented land photographers become talented
underwater photographers in just a short period of time - once they master some basic scuba skills. The
first choice of these individuals when they stop renting and start buying is almost always the Nikonos V.
-- Elaine Jobin, June 5, 1999
I've been a SCUBA instructor for just over 5 years now, diving for 9 years, while having an interest in
photography all my life and I can tell you something about underwater photography -- it's not as easy as
it looks. There are so many factors from natural light absorption, diffraction from particulate, lack of
stability from current and not being able to rest on something without harming it (and possibly you!),
restricted constraints from air to film on a given dive, and many more that a successful underwater
photographer must overcome for just a few successful shots.
One thing that I feel is crucial is the photographer's diving skills. He/she/they must be comfortable in the
water under a variety of conditions and positions before they can distract themselves by taking pictures.
It still amazes me how my air consumption skyrockets as I try to line up shots. The most important skill
for any diver is buoyancy control -- the ability to comfortably hold his depth in the water at a given
depth (while rising and sinking a few inches as breathing occurs).
I've done most of my southern diving in areas of current, including Cozumel, where you very often you
don't get a second shot of something as you drift. One trick I found useful while coasting across the
bottom at about 3 or more knots is to preset your focusing distance before hand. As you drift, you may
be lucky to come around a coral head to find a barracuda or something else worth taking a snap in the
range you just set. Very often, one shot is all you ever get. If you do get the chance to stop or slow down
for a few shots, by all means, take three but if the current is pulling you along so stopping will tire you
or harm the coral, try pre-setting your camera.
As for housing an AF for underwater photos, I don't believe that is possible due to light absorption
properties of water. As reds and soon the yellows are absorbed in the first 5 to 10 feet of water, the
camera's autofocus system will have difficulty focusing on anything. Even in macro ranges, there may
not be enough light getting to the sensors to properly activate the AF system. Then, if the water is turbid,
the AF gets even worse. Maybe someday
Please remember -- don't touch the coral, they are macroscopic organisms -- even "lightly" with your
finger is like you being "lightly touched" with by with the weight of a small house.
-- Michael Donis, June 30, 1999
I started serious photography under water, then moved topside. It's no easier dry.
The Nikonos V ended up as my main tool, with a 20mm UW Nikkor as I couldn't afford the 15mm,
together with Ikelite 150 on TTL. I also used an OM2 in Ikelite housing, though less successfully and it
was bulkier. The Ikelite housings are less costly than the fancy ones and work well.
Aquatica seems to make nice housings for Nikon / Canon -- if I were doing it over again, this plus a
Nikon F3 with the big screen sportsfinder and 20mm lens would be a top choice. Forget AF as it is all
wide angle or macro anyway, plus there are complex lighting problems as noted above.
All this stuff will leak if you are not super careful about O-rings, maintenance, washing in fresh H20,
etc. It is expensive or impossible to fix once flooded. Count on losing stuff to occasional disaster.
Being a good diver with bouyancy control is very helpful. (Consider wearing wetsuit pants so your legs
don't sink.) Gently lowering the whole camera rig off the side tethered to a line and picking it up after
you enter the water is also handy, reverse the same procedure exiting the water. Just remember to haul it
in after the dive ;-).
-- Charles Mackay, September 11, 1999
Underwater photography isn't for everyone. However, lots of people really enjoy it as a hobby, artform
or profession. Other's couldn't be bothered with all the equipment hassles and would rather spend their
time looking at cool stuff. Nothing wrong with that, but eventually somebody asks, after a dive trip,
"what did you see?" and then there is no substitute for photography. A Nik5 and 35mm lens? Many
outstanding images have been created with less than that. Of course, a wide lens has lots of advantages
underwater. The depth of field is really useful with a manual focus camera and getting close to the
subject often results in better color rendition since water absorbs red light so much more quickly than the
rest of the spectrum. How about a disposable camera in a housing? Nothing wrong with that. The Fuji
Endeavor in an Ikelite housing is a great tool for U/W, without taking a second mortgage out on the ol'
homested. A housed SLR? Nice, flexible system. Autofocus. A parallax-free viewfinder. All kinds of
lenses at a fraction of what the few available Nikonos lenses cost. Complex and bulky, but attractive
nonetheless.
-- Dan Carey, September 14, 1999
There are basically only two types of underwater phtography worth investing time and money for.
Firstly the amphibious camera of which only the Nikonos V and the sea and sea motor marine II
approach giving acceptable results. The advantage or disadvantage is that both cameras are basically
what you would call manual. You have to set the focus distance yourself, the aperture and onthe MMII
the exposure. This is fine for those land based photographers who learned from the basics but not for
those who jumped into the F5 arena and used P mode all the time (sad yuppies). Having said that the
Nikonos V is the industry standard amphibious camera and NOTHING can beat its 15mm wide angle
lens.(not even housed 15mm)However, macro shots with the Nik V are a bit of a pain as you can not tell
if the subject is in focus or not. The next step is to use a housed SLR. Nikon dominates this arena 100 to
1 at least! There are a number of manufacturers who do do housings for canon (INON, Sea and Sea) but
these generally are for the cheap machines such as the Kiss (rebel i believe in the US) which doesn;t
even have auto-focus tracking. Try photographing a darting clown fish without this feature! The best
housings on the market are Nexus, Subal, Aquatica, Inon and Sea and Sea. Don't even think about using
an Ikelite housing. Yes, they are very cheap but they are rubbish. I don't know anyone who is happy with
them. Most people end up with rubber bands strategically placed because the shutter is so hard to
control! My solution to the myriad of housings is to have a F90X with 105mm macro or 60mmmacro
housed in a Sea and Sea housing with a Nik V screwed on top with a 15mm lens. Thus i can take macro
and wide angle on the same dive. It works a treat! Hope this is of interest.
-- Howie Wong, September 30, 1999
Before considering what equipment to use, I would suggest getting an u/w photography course. My
girlfriend finally followed my suggestion and took the Padi u/w course; the quality of her pictures has
improved dramatically; she now understand better the limitations of her gear and might refrain from
taking a pic if she knows it won't turn out OK. The 100$ cost of the course is a small investment,
considering the cost of all the pics one has to throw out ... For myself, although being an avid topside
wildlife amateur, I prefer to enjoy the dives without having to worry about handling the gear. Maybe one
day ...
-- Herman Hiel, October 14, 1999
At a request of a photo.netter, here is the information for the underwater photo mailing list, uw-photo.
Basically, to subscribe, you send an e-mail message to [email protected] with "subscribe uwphoto" (no quotes) in the body of the message.
Here is part of the welcome message from Ken Hancock, list administrator. I have snipped out the rest
for brevity.
UW-PHOTO is a mailing list devoted to discussing all aspects of underwater photography. Topics in
UW-PHOTO can include equipment, video, schools, techniques, and even showing off. UW-PHOTO
will become an archive for items related to underwater photography which will be accessible through
UW-PHOTO, anonymous FTP, and the World-Wide-Web.
Ken Hancock [email protected]
-- Matthew Endo, November 8, 1999
The Kodak one time use waterproof camera worked great on my scuba trip. We took the camera all the
way down to 100 feet and it did not leak. However, it will not work below about 13 feet of water. It did
not work when we were diving deep, but once after we went up about 13 feet it worked again. The
camera is under twenty dollars. It's a very worthy investment on diving trips.
-- Han Liu, April 16, 2000
I just recently went on my first ocean dive (my forth open water dive ever) with an underwater camera,
and I must first of all agree with the other comments that if you are new to diving you should wait until
your buoyancy skills are under control before you take out a camera. I didn't do too badly, but the worst
problem was a huge increase in air consumption that meant I was surfacing ten minutes before everyone
else had to. The next few trips I take I'll stick to topside photos.
However, I took an option that I have not seen mentioned here - I rented an underwater camera (in my
case the Nikonos V). That's a wonderful choice if you just want to try underwater photography to see if
you like it before you spend a LOT of money on equipment. In my case I didn't have many good pictures
but I had a handful (out of seven rolls of film) that convinced me I will make the attempt again someday.
You can rent cameras from just about any SCUBA shop, in my case it was about $100 for a ten day
rental.
I have to agree with Philip in disliking the Nikonos V for having to adjust the aperture on the front of the
camera so the shot would be properly focused. I think that slight errors in this department ended up
making a few shots that would have been really wonderful turn out slightly fuzzy and thus
disappointing. If you do rent a camera, try and rent one with some sort of autofocusing!
Also, be very attentive to the seals on the camera. I had no trouble with camera flooding over the course
of four days diving, as I made sure to very carefully inspect and relubricate the o-rings on the camera
every time I opened it up. It takes a lot of care to keep a camera healthy in deep water, so that might be
something to think about before you buy or rent a camera - are you willing to put the kind of time you
need to for proper equipment maintenance?
-- Kendall Gelner, April 26, 2000
Unfortunately, there is no perfect system for underwater photography. All have their positives and
negatives. For more underwater images and trip reports involving underwater photography visit my
website at http://www.underwaterphotos.com
-- Steve Norvich, July 21, 2000
HELLO UNDERWATER PHOTOGRAPHERS,
I am quite sure that there are many ways to approach U/W photography and mine is but one. I have
about 25 years experience with this and have recently made it my No. 1 professional pursuit. My work
has been feted by Dr. Sylvia Earle and I have recently been awarded one of the Juror's awards in the
prestigious Ellipse Gallery Photo Show in Arlington, VA. I believe that my success is based on several
factors as listed below:
1) Take lots of photos. Dive all day. dive into the night. Fight off that urge to quaff a beer when the sun
sets and wait for the most spectacular creatures to emerge from their dens. Lighting is also easier after
pesky surface light is gone.
2) Dont give up. It takes a while to figure out what your doing.
3) Always take a spare everything. U/W stuff breaks, leaks and corrodes. You will always need a backup
especially if you are a long way from civilization.
4) Go to the really great dive locations. Although this is an aspect of how much money you have, it
really is worth it. Nothing is more boring than a picture of a rock.
Happy hunting
Billy Reese
email:[email protected]
703/535-7878
Image:IMG0015.gif
-- william Reese, October 4, 2000
I read this page about two years ago for the first time, having forver been excited by the possibility of
taking photographs underwater. If there is anything I could offer to supplement this, I'd say that
everyone has their preferences and their pocketbooks. I settled for an Ikelite underwater camera housing
w/100a substrobe. I took it underwater for the first time in Tulamben, Bali, Indonesia. The visibility was
poor, and there was a rough surge on the black stone beach. I loaded two rolls of E100VS, one roll of
Ektapress, one roll of Ilford Delta 400, and one roll of EBX100 on our four dives and one snorkelling
excursion. I maxed out at around 100 feet off of the wall, did the wreck in the day and at night, and
thoroughly enjoyed the entire experience. The manual control I had and versitality of the lenses and
filters of a full-range SLR system, made the N70 and ikelite housing the perfect choice. I used a sigma
zoom 28-80mm with +4 filter and sigma 80mm 1:2 macro with +7 filter. After I got the hang of the
system, positioning of the strobe, and boyouncy control (the housing is already nearly neutral so not
much problem there), I let loose. The only real problems I encountered were with exiting the water on
the night dive onto the beach over the stone beach, in the surge. The housing and strobe are large enough
that they throw you off balance out of water. I managed to thoroughly slice up my legs and arms, and get
a nasty gash accorss my stobe. Luckily the thing is built like a tank and it still works perfectly. I got my
slides and prints developed the next week. I was very happy with the results. Follow URL to photo from
first dive. I got some more successful ones later, and am ever improving with time, but I figure this is a
pretty good score for a first camera/dive.
URL:http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=82739
It's a bad scan, the actual image is sharper than it appears here.
Anyway, thanks Phil, and always take size and weight out of water into consideration. The nikonos sure
wins over there, though I'd still stick with a housing aby day.
-- Karsten Moran, November 5, 2000
I've been into photography for 22 years, diving for around 18 years and into underwater photography for
the last 4 years. I was happy with F stops and shutter speeds and totally at ease underwater. Underwater
photography was going to be a breeze. Image my surprise when my bouyancy control went to pieces and
my air consumption doubled. After a couple of dives I started to relax and now I feel uncomfortable
diving without a camera.
I started with a Nik V and it is a great camera but it does require extension tubes , a close up kit or a
wide angle lens to get the best out of it. With macro kit focus is fixed and set before you get in the water,
you can pre aim the strobe as well. This is definitely the best way to get some good shots in the bag
when you are first starting out. The disadvantage is that you use a framer, a set of goal posts that your
subject has to sit in. Most fish are just not happy with this set up. With a wide angle lens lighting is
much more difficult but the depth of field is huge so again accurate focussing isn't a huge problem.
I've now moved on to a Nikon F60 in an Ikelite housing. I've seen it suggested in this forum that AF will
not work underwater. Sorry but it works a treat on most subjects. It does struggle with low contrast
subjects in murky waters but even here in the UK it's rare that I can't get it to focus. I've also read a post
that states that the Ike housing is no good. I have to disagree. I'm sure it's not the slickest housing to use
but it does the job. The shutter release is spot on and the ports are as good as any others I've seen. I'm
quite pleased to have saved money on the housing to spend on extra ports and lenses.
How does the housed camera compare to the trusty Nik V. For macro work it's superb. I am not stuck
with one magnification, selected before getting in the water and I've no framer to scare the fish. For wide
angle it's closer to call but through the lens viewing wins the day in my book. You also have the
capability to use zoom lenses with the housed camera.
-- Ken Byrne, November 22, 2000
I just wanted to give my 2 cents worth about a previous equipment comment (you all have covered the
bigger issues very well!). A previous comment about autofocus systems within a housing just isn't true.
Autofocus works extremely well underwater. Color absorption has nothing to do with the autofocus
system, it focuses based on contrast. I've been doing u/w photography for about 8 years and have had a
housing for my N90s for 3+years. The only time I've had problems with the autofocus was when it was
just too dark (can and does happen on dry land) AND I did not have my spotting light mounted on my
housing. The spotting light is a flashlight which allows you to see your subject in less than ideal lighting
conditions and also provides enough light for autofocus to work. At night I use it as my dive light.
During daylight hours I estimate that I've had to use the spotting light maybe 5% of the time.
Just wanted to clear this up.
-- Ken Aaron, January 14, 2001
A few points that haven't yet been covered, or could use some clarification:
Housed Cameras: Focusing a housed camera is completely different depending on whether you are using
a dome port or a flat port. A flat port reduces the included angle of the lens, but focuses just like a
regular lens. A 35mm lens is more or less equivalent to a 50, etc. Most u/w photographers use a flat port
ONLY for macro work. A dome port, on the other hand, does not affect the included angle of the lens, i.
e. a 20mm lens under a dome port covers the same 94 degrees or whatever that it does on land.
HOWEVER, the lens focuses not on the subject, but on a "virtual image" projected on the dome port.
The virtual image is much closer than the real image, so you are using the close focusing capabilities of
the lens even if the subject is a hundred feet away (not that you are likely to get a picture at that distance
anyway). So, to use a dome port you need a lens with excellent close focusing capabilities, or a screw-in
closeup lens, or an extension tube. Many underwater photographers like the 24mm Nikkor because of its
excellent sharpness at extremely close focus. BTW, depth of field is very high with a dome port, you
hardly ever have to refocus the virtual image. I used to use a 24mm on a Nikon FE inside an old
compact Tussey housing and was quite pleased with the handling and the results.
Strobes and backscatter: Perhaps the biggest problem in using a strobe underwater is backscatter, the
reflection of light off tiny particles suspended in the water. This problem is at its worst if the axis of the
strobe is close to the lens, just like redeye above water. The solution is to move the strobe at least two
feet from the axis of the lens and at a fairly sharp angle, e.g. aiming down and from the side at the
subject. This is why advanced u/w photographers are seen with rigs that look like a spider crab. Some
photographers don't even bother attaching the strobe to the camera (except for the synch cable). They
just handhold the strobe on a long arm.
This is getting long, I think I will cover a couple of other issues in another post.
A few points on the Nikonos:
You don't need a housing to get professional results. Lots of pros use the Nikonos for most of their
underwater shooting. The 20mm lens will get you lots of good wideangle shots. The 15 is better, but if
you can't afford it, don't sweat it. The 28 is useful for longer shots of medium-sized fish. Forget the
35mm lens except with the closeup kit or macro tubes. It is, however, handy for rafting, kayaking,
skiing, etc. There is also an above-water-only 28mm that is no longer made. The Nikonos shines for
macro and closeup work where you can set up a fixed focus, aperture, and strobe power.
Models of the Nikonos:
Nikonos V: This is the current model. Having been around since the 1980's, it is the only Nikonos many
newer divers and photographers have ever seen. It is not, however, the only option.
Advantages: Auto exposure. TTL flash. Bigger viewfinder than older models. Better sealing than the
Nikonos IV (but not as good as the Nikonos III). Slightly faster flash synch speed than Nikonos III.
Conventional loading and handling, i.e. you don't have to take it apart to load it.
Disadvantages: If it leaks, you have a very expensive paperweight - and every underwater photographer
floods a camera sooner or later. Most flooded Nikonos V's blow out the electronics beyond repair. I got
a couple of milliliters of water in one once and it was gone. Nikonos guru Bob Warkentin makes desk
pen sets out of flooded Nikonos V's - and he makes a lot of them. Another minor disadvantage is that
you can't mount the old version of the 15mm on a Nikonos V - the rear element interferes with the TTL
exposure sensor. This really isn't much of an issue anymore - if you're enough of a dinosaur to use an
old-style 15, you've probably got several Nikonos III bodies to put it on!
Nikonos IV: A transitional model, with flip-open back, autoexposure, no manual shutter speeds, and no
TTL flash. I cannot imagine why anyone would use this POS except for snorkeling. The sealing is
terrible - in an effort to make it easier to load than the early versions, Nikon used a gasket on the back
rather than a true compression-type O-ring seal. It is flood-prone, and of course a flood will fry the
electronics just like a V. The SB-101 autoflash, an underpowered unit with an external sensor, is if
anything even more useless than the camera. This is the Nikkorex of underwater cameras.
Nikonos III: I own six of them, vs. one Nikonos V, so that tells you my opinion. This ancient mariner is
all mechanical, all manual and built like a tank. It demands operator skill, not least to load it since you
have to take it apart in three pieces. If it is properly maintained and inspected it is the least likely of ALL
underwater cameras to flood, and even more important, you can recover from a flood in the field! I once
flooded a Nikonos III on an exploratory expedition aboard the old Pacific Nomad in an obscure part of
Fiji. I took it apart, cleaned off the back of the lens, and put the rest of the camera in a bucket of clean
fresh water. Then I went diving with my other camera. When I got back from the next dive, I took it out
of the water, blew it out with an air hose, and put it in the engine room overnight so the heat would dry it
out. The next morning I loaded it with film and went diving. It stayed dry and functional for the rest of
the trip. I sent it in for overhaul after the trip; I still have the camera and it still works. Try that with your
auto-everything wonder!
The Nikonos III has a few disadvantages: It's really old, so service can be an issue. The combined film
advance/shutter release takes some getting used to. The tiny viewfinder is useless underwater; you need
an accessory finder. You need to get an accessory external meter (expensive) if you want to take pictures
with available light. And, of course, being all-manual it is slow to change settings if you suddenly get a
photo opportunity that you aren't set up for. The Nikonos III works best with a tray and strobe arm that
is set up for the camera and its ancillary meter, add-on trigger, etc. and these old setups can be hard to
find in decent condition. Nonetheless, it remains my go-everywhere and do-everything camera.
Nikonos II: There aren't all that many of these left in service. It is similar to the III, but the wind
mechanism isn't as strong and there are a couple of other disadvantages. I wouldn't bother; they aren't
any cheaper than a III and offer no advantage.
One last point on the Nikonos: there is really only one place to get it serviced. Bob Warkentin in Texas
is the master. Nikon USA has a rotten reputation among u/w photographers for slow service and high
prices. There is also a lot of buzz that the warranty on a Nikonos doesn't mean much. I personally would
never send a Nikonos to Nikon for any reason except a recall (that reminds me, the SB-103 strobes are
subject to a safety-related recall). I have ALWAYS gotten my Nikonos work done by Warkentin and it
was always first rate, on time, and reasonably priced.
Not everyone floats so you may want to check on this before you do something stupid.
-- Aaron Taylor, January 23, 2002
There's a 3rd option: Freediving. I moved from scuba to freediving several years ago and have not
regretted it. I have an underwater web page off of each of my Bonaire and Anguilla web sites: www.jonz.
net/Bonaire/ , and www.jonz.net/Anguilla/ . Both sites are a little "long in the tooth" and require updates
from numerous visits to these islands since the web sites were first thrown up. 'Til now I've been using
an Ikelite AuquaShot housing that uses Fuji (and Kodak) disposable flash cameras. Results are decent -certainly `ok` for web publishing. I am now moving up to a Nikon Coolpix 2000 with (again) an Ikelite
housing. We'll see how that turns out.
-- Marvin Jones, May 29, 2003
Rolleimarin with camera
The Nikon Action Touch is mentioned in the discussion. I have one but have never heard it mentioned
by anyone else. I do use it for wet and snow conditions, and as my standard Point and Shoot camers. It's
also great for swimmming pool pictures.
I have been a scuba diver since 1947 and have used several camera housings, the first of which I built
myself, rated at 300' housing an Argus C4.
My current housing, probably not known to most above-water photographers, is the cadillac of housings,
the Rolliemarin IV, which is used with my Rolleiflex 3.5F. This housing has all the camera controls
available to the diver and includes the ability to swing close-up lenses and filters into position
underwater.
Don Williams La Jolla, CA
-- Don Williams, June 16, 2003
My wife teaches marine science and needs a simple point-and-shoot camera suitable for wet
environments. We have gone through about 8 different cameras: three minolta weathermatics (110 film),
two minolta 35mm, two canon sure-shots, and a canon elf (aps). The minolta 35mm died way to soon
from a leak as did one canon sure-shot. After two years of wrangling canon sent me a replacement. The
Elf was good except I don't like aps film (expensive to process) and my wife got her finger in the image
on half of the shots. It worked OK for me, however. It was pretty rugged; it survied having me dump an
entire bushel of scallops on it as I emptied my catch bag into the wrong box, getting kicked around the
floor of a boat, and other such modest abuse. Any such camera requires great care to be sure the seal is
clean. You need to carry q-tips in your bag and use them between every film change. Avoid running
them under the sink because the pressure is greater than that at 15 feet; just immerse them in a dishpan
of clean water to rinse off salt water.
If anyone knows of a good UW camera of this ilk, please advise!
-- Robert Hall, July 4, 2003
After years of SCUBA diving I concluded that u/w photography can produce interesting views of fish,
coral and other unusual underwater creatures. However, the wonder of the underwater experience can
seldom be captures on a still frame. Even the best u/w photographers rarely capture the experience. I
think this is due to the limitations of the gear in the u/w environment. On the other hand, I found the u/w
video is truly capable of conveying what the underwater world is about. For example, I have a 30 second
video of an eagle ray dancing right in front of my video camera lens, I put it to music..... no way you can
convey this with a still frame. I think that in the underwater medium, it is movement of the subjects that
creates the image.
-- Joseph Liftik, November 15, 2003
Don't go out and buy U/W gear, rent it on location. I always rent and have no bother finding outlets
where I can do this. In Hurghada there are 5 outlets, Sharm has 7 that I know of. Decent PADI 5* dive
centres will most probably have kit to hire, if not at they will point you in the right direction.
If after several dive trips (IMO it will take this many to become accustomed) you feel a need to mve
forward in this area, then consider buying gear. I have shot images on over 50 dives now and I'm still
ages from even considering buying my own kit.
-- Paul Alford, February 11, 2004
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
Utah Diving Pages Photo Clinic- One of the best tutorials I've found for underwater photography,
from beginner to advanced. Highly recommended! (contributed by Ignacio Feito)
Jim Church Liveaboard Underwater Photo Courses- Jim teaches underwater photography while
on a liveaboard, where you can focus all your efforts on getting great photos. It doesn't hurt that
the liveaboards are all in world class dive spots, so you'll have an abundance of photographic
subjects. (contributed by Matthew Endo)
●
Light-Under\Water: B&W u/w photography by Marcelo Mammana- Bilingual website on black
and white underwater photography by photographer and designer Marcelo Mammana. It
currently features two galleries: "Wrecks" and "Scenes & Portraits". An online magazine with
articles on u/w photography and dive travel started in December 2000, and is updated on a
monthly basis. Free photos to be used as wallpaper are also available. (contributed by Marcelo
Mammana)
●
●
Underwater Photography by David Glennie- Australian photographer David Glennie takes us
through his journeys to Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea and The Great Barrier Reef with words
and pictures. (contributed by Morgen Brown)
UW Photo in Palau with Nikon Coolpix 990- Approx. 300 photos taken in Palau with a Nikon
Coolpix 990 and an Ikelite housing. Also includes a journal, usage tips, etc... (contributed by Eric
Cheng)
●
●
●
●
Underwater Photography by James Lee - Deepscape Photography- Underwater photographs of
shipwrecks, marine life, coral and artificial reefs from around the world. Red Sea, New England
Shipwrecks, Truk Lagoon, Little Cayman and Bikini Atoll. (contributed by Jan Allinder)
Zena Holloway - Underwater Photography- Site showcasing works by one of the UK's leading
underwater photographers. (contributed by Ian W.)
Underwater Fetish Fotography- Making Of of the Underwater BD Shots of Sir X in the red sea in
Egypt. (contributed by Oliver Jörns)
In Depth Photography by John Chandler- A "world apart!" John Chandler's on line gallery
documenting his Underwater Photography and diving expeditions world-wide. (contributed by
John Chandler)
●
●
Marine Photos, Articles, and trip reports- Includes many under water images from various exotic
locations around the world along with trip reports from the viewpoint of an underwater
photographer. Provides articles with useful tips on macro and wide angle photography as well as
interesting marine life behaviors. (contributed by Steve Norvich)
Wetpixel.com- News, Reviews, and Forums for Underwater Digital Photography (contributed by
Eric Cheng)
●
Eric Cheng's Underwater Photography- Underwater images taken with a Canon D60 Digital
SLR (contributed by Eric Cheng)
●
●
●
MVPix.com: Underwater and travel photographs- scuba divers, corals, fish, sponges, other sea
creatures, cityscapes, landscapes, animals, people from the travel destinations we have visited,
and photographs from the Montreal area. (contributed by Jean-Sebastien Morisset)
www.UnderwaterPhotography.com- A very popular site devoted to underwater photography. It
has a photo contest, forums, library, photo course - in fact everything you need to know about the
subject. I like the digital zone best. (contributed by Austin Netherwood)
Sergey Parinov Underwater Photo Gallery- Collection of macro and wide-angle pictures made
with Nikon film SLR and Nikonos V. (contributed by Sergey Parinov)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Software
Sports Photography -- Capturing the Fleeting Moment
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Sports Photography
by Rob Miracle for photo.net.
(punctuated by some photos by Philip
Greenspun)
We have all at one time or another been captivated by sports images. It may
be Kirk Gibson’s World Series Homerun, and the image of him running the
bases, overcoming the pain he was in or an image of high flying Michael
Jordan slam dunking a basketball with his tongue out. We have all been
captured in the moment of human drama. We all like a good action photo
and, in particular, if your kids play sports, you want to remember them in
their toils.
Quality sports shots are somewhat difficult to come by. Most people have limited access to events to
photograph them. The further away you are from the event, the harder it becomes to capture the event in
a pleasing manner. Sports are an event where crowd control is important, not only for the crowd's safety,
but for the players also. There is nothing more frightening than to be on the sidelines of a football game,
focused on a play in the field, when out of the blue a 250 pound line backer drives a player into your
legs or a foul ball comes crashing at your $8,000 lens!
Location, Location, Location!
http://www.photo.net/sports/overview (1 of 21)7/3/2005 2:18:22 AM
You can only photograph things you can see. The closer you are to someone,
the better you can see them. Sports are no different. You have to get as close
to what you are shooting as you can. Typically, for a photographer with a
press pass, you can get to the sidelines or other similar locations. You
generally will not be permitted on the playing field. Depending on the sport,
you most likely will be limited to designated locations. For instance, at most
Division I football games, the media cannot shoot between the two 35 yard
markers. For most people, the situation is even worse. You probably don’t
have press access and are stuck in the stands for your shots. Get as close a
possible. Even if you make it to the sidelines, you will be jostling for space
with many other photographers, both still and video who have worked hard to
get there and have the same job to do that you have.
You also have to be familiar with the sport to be able to capture the moment. This means knowing where
to position yourself for the best action. This is critical because of angular momentum that will be
discussed in the section on freezing action. Not only does it matter with the subject, but the background.
Look at what is going to be behind your subject. While we will try to minimize the impact that a
background has, it will still be unavoidable. So you need to position your self where the background is
the most pleasing.
The Decisive Moment
Sports and Action photography is all about timing. Its about reacting. Its about
being in the right place at the right time and its about execute. These are all
qualities of the athlete and those of the photographer as well. Each sport has
predictable and unpredictable moments. Under "Knowing your Sport", you
will learn about these moments for individual sports. For instance, in
basketball, you will have opportunities to photograph layups, jump shots, free
throws, etc. Understanding the timing of these predictable actions allows you
to capture the peak moment, when the action is most dramatic.
By knowing these moments you can anticipate the action. This helps in two
ways, one it helps you with focus which will be discussed in a later segment,
and secondly it helps you snap the shutter at the right time. The saying goes
"If you see the action you missed it." This basically means if you wait for the
soccer player to head the ball then press the shutter release, the ball most likely will be sailing out of the
frame. You have to push the button before the action so that the mirror has time to flip out of the way
and the shutter open and close. There is a delay between the image hitting your optical nerve and the
shutter closing. You have to, through experience, learn what that time is and adjust for it.
Required Equipment
Most sports are shot on 35mm cameras because of their portability. While
some photographers have captured great sports moments with other format
cameras, we will concentrate our efforts on the 35mm arena which is the most
commonly used gear.
"Its not the equipment but the photographer who makes the picture" is
generally a true statement. However with sports and action photography,
having the wrong equipment means not getting the shots you want or need.
This relates back to the section on location. The further away, the longer the
lens is needed to capture the same image in the frame. Different sports require
different lens lengths. For instance, basketball is generally shot from the
baseline or sideline near the baseline. You generally can get good results with
an 85mm lens in this situation. However, by the time the players are at mid
court, you need a 135mm to capture them. If they are playing under the far goal, a 200-300mm lens is
needed to fill the frame well, yet for shooting a soccer game, a 300-400mm lens is needed for just about
anything useful.
Generally, for a 35mm camera, each 100mm in lens focal length gets you about 10 yards (9 meters) in
coverage. This coverage means that on a vertical format photo, a normal human will fill the frame fairly
well. Thus, if you are shooting American Football from the 30 yard line with a 300mm lens, you will be
able to get tight shots in an arc from the goal line to mid-field to the other 40 yard marker. As players get
closer, your lens may be too long. Many photographers will carry two bodies with two different length
lenses for this reason.
Lens speed is also a critical factor. The faster the lens, the faster the shutter speed you can use, which as
the lens grows longer, this becomes even more important. This will be covered in the freezing action
section in more depth. If you look at the sidelines of any Division 1 college football game or an NFL
football game, you will see people with really big lenses. These range from 300mm to 600mm or longer
and even then, they may have a 1.4X converter or 2X converter on. You need fast shutter speeds to
freeze action with long lenses. Every F Stop you give up requires a faster film or less freezing potential.
Most consumer grade long lenses and zooms have variable apertures, but most are F5.6 at the long end
of the lens. F5.6 is good for outdoor day time shots, but becomes very inhibiting for night games and
indoor action. Most people use lenses that are F2.8 or faster. These lenses are very expensive. A 400mm
F2.8 sells for over $8000 US. They are also very heavy and bulky. Using a monopod is a life saver with
these big lenses.
Besides these long lenses, you need a camera that can drive them.
Today, most new cameras are auto focus. Auto focus makes this
easier on us, but the AF systems are not fool proof. Luckily, many
sports lend them selves well to manual focus, so sometimes you
can get a bargain on a manual version of a lens to use on a manual
camera and still get good photos. However AF comes in handy for
a few sports. Hockey and Soccer involve many subject to camera
distance changes. Motion is less predictable and these sports are
some what harder to manual focus. Football, Basketball, and Baseball are quite easy to manual focus.
You may also need a flash with a high output. I personally do not recommend a flash at any sporting
event. I find the results unpleasing. However the new modern flash systems produce great results. Some
sporting events like gymnastics and others are no-flash events. It is best to talk to an event official
(referee, coach, etc.) before using your flash. Flashes will be covered more in the section on lighting.
Other equipment which can come in handy are remote triggers. These allow you to mount a camera
where you cannot be during the game and remotely triggering it, recovering it after the event. Basketball
and Horse Racing are two good examples of sports where great photos come from someone who never
sees the viewfinder while they are shooting. Pictures of NBA stars slam dunking the basketball taken
above the rim or the winner of the horse race thundering by are done remotely.
[Editor's note: Among digital cameras available in April 2001, the most suitable cheap camera is the
Olympus E-10. A working sports photographer would use a Nikon D1, Canon D30, or one of the Kodak/
Nikon or Kodak/Canon professional bodies. Where to buy all of this exotic stuff? Your neighborhood
camera shop won't have it. Check out the photo.net recommended retailers.]
Depth of Field -- Isolating the subject.
Most all dramatic sports photos are shot with the lens wide open or one stop from wide open. This is
done for two reasons. First you need all the shutter speed you can get, which means shooting wide open,
but just as important, it has to do with isolating the subject. As the aperture on a lens opens up, less and
less of the photo is in focus. The longer the lens, the more dramatic the change. The larger the distance
between the subject and the background the more out of focus the background will come. If you use a
long lens and a fast aperture, then your subject will stand out and the background elements will have less
impact on your photo.
Reducing background noise is an important goal in many photographs, sports action or not. In studio or
landscape settings, you have time to control the elements that make up the picture. Action photography
is a "grab it now" type of shooting and you live with the background that is there. If you open up the lens
to its maximum, you will find your subjects standing out and becoming memorable.
When you are shooting sports, in particular football and soccer, keep in mind that plays shot on the far
side of the field are closer to the background than shots on the near side of the field. Thus if you are
shooting a soccer player moving the ball down field and the player passes in front of the bench when
you snap the shot, you will have a very distracting background. It may be hard to separate the player and
ball from the background noise. Fences, signs, poles, bleachers, stands, and people on the far sideline
can really mess up a good shot. Even though you might be shooting wide open, the background will be
too prominent in these shots. Should they be avoided? If you have better shots, don’t use it. However, it
may be your best shot. Shoot it, just be aware that distracting backgrounds are more problematic on
shots on the far side of the field.
Focus
An out of focus shot is pretty useless. There isn’t much you can do with them other than throw them
away. So achieving crisp focus should be a goal of every one. Today’s AF cameras do a very good job
of focusing, and focusing quickly. AF has really made a lot of photographers lazy. I used to manual
focus everything, but now that I have an AF system with AF lenses, I let it do my work for me.
However, many times, manual focus works better. To understand this, you need to know how auto focus
works. The camera takes a series of measurements across its AF sensors. It looks for contrasting lines. It
moves the lens until these lines achieve the maximum sharpness. These sensors are located in the
viewfinder of the camera. Different camera models have different sensor configurations and different
capabilities. These sensors either are a simple spot meter in the center of the view finder. A line of three
sensors that run across the viewfinder. Or a cross which run side to side and top to bottom. Generally,
these sensors do not cover the full range of the view finder and your view finder will have markings
showing where the AF sensors are.
If you are following a football player as he runs down the side lines, or a horse as it heads over a water
jump, you start by pointing the camera at the subject. If you have a spot AF sensor, you have to be dead
on the subject or you will find a focused background and a blurry subject. Wide horizontal sensors will
allow you to lead your subject a little bit or allow you to compose shots that are off center. However,
when you turn the camera to shoot a vertically framed shot, your sensors now run up and down. There
are two things to be aware of here. First the AF is now vertical, thus your subject now has to be in the
middle of the frame again, just like the spot sensor. Depending on the AF sensors in your camera, they
may not focus on horizontal lines as well as vertical and you may find the AF less than responsive.
However, you are shooting vertical sports, like volleyball, shooting vertically works pretty well.
Depending on your composition, many sports photos are shot vertically. Humans are vertical people and
if you are trying to get a good shot of your favorite baseball player cranking a home run, you want to
turn the camera to a vertical format. Luckily, baseball lends itself well to a small AF sensor for pitchers
pitching and batters batting.
Some of the high end cameras have a cross pattern of AF sensors and they are generally selectable. By
using a sensor array in this format, you have good vertical and horizontal sensor patterns regardless of
which way you hold the camera.
For those times where AF isn’t working well, or if you have a manual focus camera, you need to
understand how to focus. There are two primary means of focusing a camera: Follow focus and Zone
Focus. Follow focus is where you keep your camera on your subject, rotating the focus collar attempting
to keep the subject in focus. This works very well on side to side movement, where the camera to subject
distance is not changing rapidly. You might use this method for football, auto racing, or other events
where you turn side to side following the action. This requires practice to get down. A good way to
practice is to go out to the street and follow focus cars as they drive past.
The second method is called zone focus. Here you expect the action to take place at a particular place, at
the goal mouth on a hockey rink, or at the jump point on a long jump event at a track meet. You can
focus on the area you want to be sharp and when the subject moves into the zone, you then take the
photo. This is timing related. You need to practice the timing on this as well, Both of these methods
allowed photographers to capture fantastic photos before the invention of auto focus and will continue to
into the future. Even if you have an AF system, you should learn to follow focus and zone focus because
there may be times where your AF isn’t available (low light, low contrast situations for instance) and
you need to be able to come back with the shot.
Composition
Faces
"Give me faces" or "I want to see faces" is a common cry from the
photo editor because that is the cry he gets from his bosses. The
face is the primary source of emotion in a shot and that emotion is
what makes or breaks a shot. Shots of the subjects backside just
don’t cut it. Don’t waste the film on a back shot unless you can see
part of their face. When shooting a sport you need to be aware of
the players locations. For instance, in basketball, if shooting from a
side line, you only shoot people taking jump shots from the top of
the key around the backside away from you. Any one taking a
jump shot on your side of the court will be a shot of their back side. If you can’t see their face, leave it
on the cutting room floor.
Some sports, faces are hard to deal with. Football, Hockey, and Baseball tend to be difficult to catch
faces depending on the level of play. Youth hockey for instance involves face cages on the helmets.
Football at all levels of play involve face cages. Baseball caps create harsh shadows across faces. The
easy solution is to use a fill flash to try to get past these barriers, however, flashes are generally not
friendly for sports due to limited range and the possible distraction. Still its best to get the cage in the
shot because the face will show through better than the back of the helmet.
Vertical/Horizontal
There are two ways to hold a 35mm camera that effects the composition. This was discussed somewhat
in the focus section regarding the AF sensors. You can hold the camera in the traditional way where the
long side of the film is horizontal to the ground. This is a horizontal or landscape format. If you turn the
camera so that the long side of the film is perpendicular to the ground, you are now shooting vertical or
portrait format.
Many modern cameras have an additional release that allows you to hold a camera in a traditional
manner (left hand under the lens, right hand along the right side of the body) as opposed to the old way
of shooting vertically (left hand under the lens, right hand on top of the camera since the camera was
rotated 90 degrees left). These vertical releases have been a wonder for sports photography since it
allows the camera to be held in a more stable fashion.
Why would you want to do this? Think about the shape of humans. They are taller than they are wide.
To fill the frame with a person playing a sport, they fit the frame better while holding the camera
vertically. Even in a tight head shot, it fits better vertically. A lot of sports shots, in particular if it is of
an individual is shot vertically. Horizontal shots are used more showing conflict.
Individual vs. Conflict.
The vertical vs. horizontal decision needs to be made based on
your desired goal in capturing the scene. If you are highlighting an
individual, you should shoot vertical. A majority of photo
opportunities in basketball and baseball come from individual
efforts.
However, there are times where you want to show the conflict in
the scene, for instance two hockey players fighting for a puck
along the dasher boards, or a soccer player being pursued by the
defense. To capture these multiple people, you typically will have to shoot horizontal. You should make
a conscious decision before you fire the frame as to your goals in capturing the shot.
Rule of Thirds
There is a common photograph rule called "The Rule of Thirds", which says that if you divide the frame
into a thirds vertically and horizontally and place the subject where the lines intersect, the resulting
photo is more interesting. Camera manufacturers don’t believe in this because their AF sensors are
centered in the camera.
For Sports photography, following the Rule of Thirds in principle is a good idea. That is lead your
subject into the frame. If you are shooting a football player running left to right, leave more room on the
right side than the left to imply that he is going somewhere. Shooting the player leaving the frame is
poor composition. If you are shooting a tight "portrait" style shot, have the subjects head on a "Rule of
Thirds" line. If you fill the frame, you should be in pretty good shape, just leave some space on the
frame in the direction the player is facing.
Framing
Depending on how you get your photo output, you should be aware that many cameras do not show the
full frame. Because of this many labs "enlarge" standard prints to approximate what you see in your
viewfinder. If your camera shows the full frame, like many high end cameras do, and you fill the frame
with a person, the 4X6 coming from the lab will in all probably crop part of the frame in a way you do
not like. I cannot count the number of times a soccer ball has been cropped out due to this enlarging
factor.
If you scan from the negative for your publication, you have more control in capturing the whole frame.
Get to know your output methods, lab habits, etc. If you find you are loosing parts of your frame, don’t
fill the frame as tight.
Know your Sport, Know your Players
Each sport is different in the techniques used to capture the moment. Each sport has a limited number of
unique shots. You can only shoot so many basketball games before you start feeling like, "been there,
done that". Each sport also has opportunities to get "safeties" . A safety is a shot that is easy to get and
will give you something to publish if you fail to get good action. For instance, I was shooting a baseball
game. In the visitors at bat in the second inning, the skies opened up and it started raining. I had time to
shoot the home team in the field and at bat once. Realizing the pending weather, I concentrated on
getting some simple usable shots instead of waiting on some excitement at a base, like a steal. Safeties
include things like batters batting, pitchers pitching, basketball players shooting free throws, the
quarterback under center. Take times when the action is slow to get some good tight shots to use in case
no good action materializes. Shoot your safeties first, concentrate on action later. You always want to
come back with something.
Its also important to spend some time at an event and not rush the assignment. Many photographers are
under intense deadlines and cannot devote enough time to their sporting events and it shows in their
work. I expect one usable shot every 20 frames. I like to shoot at least 72 (2 -36’s) per event and I can
come out with several usable shots and some fantastic ones. If you go to a soccer game and shoot a 12
exposure roll, don’t expect much.
Its very important to know the sport you are covering. You have to know the coach and their coaching
style. You have to understand some basic fundementals of the game or you will become very frustrated.
For instance, in football, if its 3rd down and 1 yard to go, don't expect a pass, but point the camera at the
full back. In most likelyhood, he will be getting the ball, unless its late in the game and they have to
pass. Or don't wait on a steal at 2nd base with 2 outs. Coaches hate making the last out of the inning on
the base paths.
You also need to know players and their habits. Some players are full of emotion and tend to display
their pattened moves. For instance at a local high school girls soccer match, I got a dramatic sequence of
a player doing a cartwheel throw in. I knew it was coming and I was prepared for her move when she
got the ball.
Knowing your sport goes beyond the rules and players. Know your coaches and what tends to make
them emotional. Get fan shots or cheerleader shots with their emotion. A co-worker once told me "even
a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while". Any photographer will eventually get the "action" shot, but
sometimes you need that crying cheerleader after a loss, or fans in costumes going nuts to completely
tell the story. The game goes beyond the boundries of the field and the rule book.
Baseball
Baseball is one of the hardest sports to shoot. The action is unpredictable. You wait and wait and then
when you are half asleep, something happens. Much of the field is out of range of normal zoom and
telephoto lenses. Depending on the level of your sport, you will need long lenses. For most regulation
fields (90 feet between bases, 350+ feet to the wall), you need 400mm or longer if you are shooting from
the dugouts. It lets you shoot all the infield positions reasonably tight from the dugout/press area. The
near base can be gotten with a 200-300mm lens. If you are shooting little league, you can get away with
a 200-300mm lens because of the smaller fields unless you are trying to catch the outfield. Night
baseball is too poorly lit and you need professional long telephotos to capture good images here.
Your safeties in baseball consist of the pitcher, throwing the ball, the batters batting, the catcher catching
or getting a sign from the dugout. After these shots, the game becomes a little less predictable. When a
batter hits the ball to an infielder, you have to find the play, aim the camera, focus, and fire. Generally its
too late. What you have to do is kinda keep the camera pointed at the short stop or the second baseman.
Keep the camera near your face, but you need to watch the play. In particular, if you are standing where
you can see the batter's stomach, you are in risk of getting hit by a foul ball. If you see the batters back,
you will rarely see a foul ball. Once you have an idea of where the play is going, you can adjust, focus
and fire. If you are shooting from the first base dugout, 3rd and Short Stop should be about the same
distance away, so you can zone focus here. Likewise, from the third base dugout, 2nd and 1st are about
the same distance.
Once runners get on base, spend a few batters focused on an open base in front of the runner. Thus if a
runner is on first and no one is on second or third, there is a good chance for a play at second base. It
could be a steal or a double play. If no one is on, concentrate on first base. If multiple people are on,
concentrate on either the fielders or on home plate. You have to wait and be patient. Baseball games are
long and you will opportunities. Make sure to get your safeties. If you get into a pitching dual, your
safeties may only be shots of the pitchers.
Basketball
Unlike baseball, basketball is the easiest sport to shoot. Action is contained in a 100 foot x 50 foot area.
There are two objects (the nets) where the action always heads. Basketball is a game of limited shots
though. You can shoot jump shots, lay ups, free throws, blocks, dribbling, and defense. Zone focus
works well in basketball. You know lay ups are going to happen close to the net, so focus on the net and
wait on the action to come to you. Your focusing techniques will vary somewhat if you are on the side
line or base line. If you are on the baseline, zone focus is the best method. If you are along the side, you
can follow focus. Your safeties are free throws and players dribbling or looking to pass. At these times
action is minimal and you can get some good tight shots of players.
Basketball (and other gym sports) is probably the worst lighting situation you will get into, however,
you can get away with much slower shutter speeds. When a player drives for a lay up or takes a jump
shot, they almost pause at the top of their jump. This is the peak of the action and the shot should be
taken then. Since they have stopped moving for a millisecond, that is the best time to freeze them. Once
you have these shots under your belt, you can then start working on emotion shots, blocks, and other
action which may not come along as often.
Generally you can get away with anywhere between a 50mm and 135mm lens with 85-105 being
optimal. This lets you cover out to about mid court. If you want to shoot shots under the far basket, you
will need a longer lens. However a fast lens, like an 85mm F1.4 is an excellent choice for most of your
basketball action shots.
Football
Football is also an easy sport to shoot but may be one of the most equipment intense sports. Most of the
time, you will be shooting at night and fast glass is required. Motion is predictable and a student of the
game can almost predict the plays to allow you to get ready. Knowing your sports allows you to know if
its a passing situation or running situation so you know where to focus your attention. For instance, in a
football game, if it is 3rd down with 1 yard to go, you can be pretty comfortable that a running play is
coming. So get your lens pointed at the backfield and get ready.
Football affords the fewest safeties. You can get the QB getting ready to pass or the coach on the side
lines. However, the action shots are plenty. You will get opportunities to photograph the quarterback
throwing the ball and running backs running the ball. Make sure you get these shots. Then you can go
hunting pass plays to the receivers.
If you have freedom of movement, you want to set up 5-10 yards down field from the play. That way
you get the QB and running backs coming at you. If you are stuck in photo zones between the goal line
and the 35 yard marker, you will be limited to shooting plays that occur in that area. Big glass is
important to football. If you have freedom of movement, a 300mm F2.8 is the ideal lens. However if you
are restricted, you either need a 2x on the 300mm or a 600mm to reach plays on the far end of the field.
If you are patient or shooting youth league, you can get away with an 80-200 zoom. You will have to
wait on more plays to come your way. You wont get much in the middle or far side of the field.
Since football movement is up and down the field and most photographers shoot from a side line,
football is a follow focus sport. It is a pretty easy sport to follow focus because the subject to camera
distance changes constantly, so once you start focusing, you should be able to time your turning the
focus ring with their movement.
Soccer and Hockey
Auto focus was invented with soccer and hockey in mind. These two sports
involve rapid changes in direction. The subject to camera distance changes
so fast, its hard to follow focus because in an instant, the play is heading
another direction. Zone focusing is a bit more applicable, except there is no
guarantee the play will enter your focus zone. AF solves this problem
because it tracks the play better than you. These two sports alone are the
reason I moved from manual cameras to auto focus.
Soccer is a game where you need long lenses. Generally, you have good
access to the side lines. At the major league and college level, there may be
some limits, but they probably are not as tight as football because the number of players on the sidelines
is much less. You will typically shoot from the touch (or side) lines, though you can get some real good
shots from behind the net or along the goal line. The lens of choice for Soccer is a 400mm F2.8 or
longer. Many pro soccer photographers will have two cameras. One with the long lens mounted and a
second with an 80-200mm zoom. This gives me some flexibility in composition while giving me the
length needed to capture this large field game. If play gets close, they can switch bodies and go to the
shorter lens.
Soccer is a good game to get some dynamic and exciting photos. Your safeties include players dribbling
the ball and throw ins. Get these shots and then work on catching headers, traps, corner kicks, and goalie
saves. Soccer headers require the most accurate guessing on timing. The ball will be out of the frame
quickly. It takes a lot of practice to capture these.
Hockey, while similar to soccer in its unpredictable movement, has an advantage of being played in a
smaller contained area. An 80-200mm lens is good for shooting hockey regardless of where the play is.
To get shots on the far end of the rink, up to 300mm may be needed. Hockey however has some quirks
that you need to be aware of. Frequently you are limited to shooting through the glass which limits the
angles you can shoot or through chain link fence for outdoor roller hockey. Some arenas you are limited
to one location and have a small hole to shoot though and you most likely will be competing with other
photographers for this real estate.
The ice or deck wrecks havoc with your camera’s meter. You will need to overexpose by at least one
stop in ice rinks to get white ice. This takes away from your available shutter speed. Your safeties
includes faceoffs, and players skating with the puck/ball. Good shots can be had of the goalies, though
many of your shots will be of players on the rink.
Volleyball
Volleyball is a rarely covered event, with beach volleyball getting more press than the traditional gym
based variety. Volleyball can yield some rich, colorful and dramatic shots given the need and desire to
take them. Your access in volleyball venues will vary drastically. For instance, during a high school
game, you may be permitted to shoot along the sidelines, or not far behind the end lines. As the level of
competition goes up, you will be moved further and further back. In beach volley ball, you probably will
not be permitted in the sand pit at all. So pack a long lens and some sun block (for the beach game).
Volleyball shots are tricky to use auto focus on. If you are shooting from behind the lines towards the
net, the AF could trigger on the net, the back of the opposing players, the back wall, or just about any
point in between. It is best to use a vertical sensor for this sport since people are going up and down and
there is little side to side movement. For manual focus, you want to zone focus. From behind the end
line, most all action at the net will be at the same distance from you, so focus on an area just a little
behind the net and leave it there.
For shots along the side lines, it is best to shoot at an angle to capture the faces. These are the best times
to capture digs and diving players as you should have a fairly un-obscured view of all the players.
Traditionally, volleyball follows the "Bump Set Spike" ritual. Learn who the diggers, setter, and hitters
are. Then take your time working on a shot of the individual skill you want to capture. Your setter will
be easy to track and get shots of. Digging is a bit tricky since it can come from any were on a given half
of the court, be a low or high dig, involve a dive or other less than predictable motion. Hitters/blockers
are fairly easy to capture since that area of play is somewhat limited.
Your safeties are the player serving and the setters since they are fairly easy to capture. Next work on
your hitters/blockers followed by digs.
Golf
Golf is a fairly easy game to shoot as far as action goes, but it is one of the toughest because of the
nature of the game. That is you can get good action shots if you can get there at all. Consider the
following. Golf is a long distance, one direction game. It is played over a course of thousands of yards in
a some what straight path and it is played from hole to hole. Secondly, it is a quiet game where the
slightest distraction is not allowed. Finally, for your safety, your access to swing areas is limited.
The first problem is addressed by one of two methods. First, you can camp at one location, such as a tee
box or a green on one hole and shoot multiple people as they pass you. Or alternatively, you can with the
permission of the course, use a cart and follow individual golfers. Cart paths are narrow and heading
against the grain is difficult. Ideally, you will learn the course and find a spot where you can shoot both
green play and a tee box with minimal movement.
Even at 400mm, you may not get close enough for good tight shots. Longer lenses are almost a must for
capturing competitive golf. If you are shooting recreational golf, say your beer buddies, you can get
closer and a lens in the 200mm range will suffice. Any focus method will work since the players are
basically standing still. Golf, in particular at the pro level is very sound sensitive. Turn off the AF (you
don't need it any way) and go to a slient manual focus. If you have silent AF lenses, such as the Canon
USM or the Nikon AF-S lenses, then you can AF. Some events may require you to use a sound blimp
around the camera if your shutter/motor are distracting to the golfers.
There are a few main golf shots, in most all cases, they are individual shots. The primary action golf
shots include a shot during the back-swing, a shot near impact of the ball, a shot after the follow-through
with the golfer looking for the ball or any time during a putt (but be quiet). However, there are a lot of
opportunities for safeties in golf. Any shot of a golfer studying the course, be it looking at the scorecard,
messing with the golf bag, talking to the caddie, or lining up a putt are easy shots to get. These are times
where the firing of the shutter will be more tolerated. Also, shots after the follow-through are considered
safe shots. The action is paused and you know its going to happen so getting them is somewhat easier.
Don’t forget that a lot of good golf shots, and other sports for that matter do not involve play at all. One
of my personal favorite golf shots was of a greens keeper changing the pins.
Track and Field
Track and Field meets are a lot of fun to shoot. You get a lot of variety of shots, multiple opportunities
to shoot most participants and events and there generally is a lot of emotion displayed during a track
meet. The most difficult things about track meets are logistical.
Access can be restricted depending on the level of play that is being photographed. At a high school
meet, there is little in the way of restrictions. Just stay out of the participants way, or out of the way of
projectiles like shot puts and discus and you are okay. As you climb the ladder, access gets tighter and
tighter. Even at NCAA Division I level meets, the access is still pretty good. Pro level, Olympic, or
Major Events will be more tightly controlled due to the size of the event and the amount of media
present. Access will be restricted to particular shooting areas.
Logistically, track meets are hard to cover because multiple events are going on at once. If media
movement is controlled, you may only get to shoot one or two events. But at a more relaxed meet, you
will have more freedom to scoot from event to event. Because of time, multiple heats/attempts and so
on, the track will generally be filled with races while the inside of the track contains the field events.
There are no specific safety shots in a track meet, but the individual events are fairly easy since almost
all movement is predictable. Track events all move one direction. Shooting the finish, or turns provides
the most dramatic events. For the hurdles, it is pretty easy to time the players as they peak over the
hurdles. Relays, with the baton passing is probably the hardest part to capture because the runner taking
the baton may obscure the runner handing it off. Use follow focus to catch runners and they move past,
or zone focus if you are working on the finish line.
Field events, like wise are very predictable. Events like the high jump, long jump, and pole vault involve
participants running towards an object, and then jumping over it. This is a zone focus heaven. Use a little
depth of field (F5.6 or so) and focus on the bar for the high jump and pole vault and fire as they start up
and over. You should catch them at the peak as they hurdle over the event. If you didn’t get that run,
don’t worry, each player generally takes two or three shots and there are multiple players.
The Long jump, and its cousin, the triple-jump are pretty easy. They are also zone focus events. If you
are at the end of the pit, focus just a few feet into the pit and fire when they hit the board and begin their
jump. After a few jumps, you should have a feel for when they peak at their jump and will nail a few
really good jumps. If you have to shoot from the side, you still zone focus over the middle of the pit,
track the runner as they head down the track and fire when they go airborne.
The throwing and hurling events are likewise easy to shoot. The players have to stay within a confined
space, so zone focus and you will do well. Try to catch them when their face is towards you and when
their emotion is at its best or just after the throw.
If you have good access, you can get some great shots with an 80-200mm lens. If you are restricted you
may need a 400mm or longer, but in most cases you can get away with smaller lenses.
Gymnastics and Figure Skating
Gymnastics, as a rule, is a no flash event. While a flash may be tolerated at a basketball game, or a night
football or baseball game, its generally a no-no for gymnastics. The participants are easily distracted and
the slightest hesitation can cause serious injury. The bad thing is most gymnastics happen is poorly lit
situations. Lighting will be covered later.
Like Track and Field, gymnastics is a series of events with individuals performing. The events go on
simultaneous to each other and depending on the level of the meet, your access may be limited to
minimize distractions. With the exception of the floor program, most of the gymnastics events are kept
in a small area which makes focusing easy and the movements are predictable. Even with the vault, your
object is to catch the vault itself or the landing. So you will probably want to zone focus most of the
events. The floor exercise will require follow focus or auto focus. Your lens choice will vary too much
by access, but like other indoor sports you want the fastest glass available.
Events like the balance beam, rings, parallel bars, and the uneven bars provide several opportunities to
capture the athletes in artistic, athletic, and emotional poses where capturing the moment is somewhat
easier. The vault and floor exercises require more timing to get good shots. However, for the floor
exercises, its about emotion anyway, so catching the cute smiles and ballet style poses is critical to
telling the story more than catching someone in a tumbling pass.
Figure Skating combines the problems of gymnastics with the problems of hockey. You are limited by
your access to off ice and you have to compensate for the white surface. Lighting isn't as good as a
hockey game. Frequently, the lighting is spot lights, so knowing stage lighting is important. The
programs can be predictable and are generally published before the event so you know when the triple
jumps are coming. Lens length is determined by proximity to the surface but again, you want the fastest
glass possible. Autofocus is a good idea for Figure Skating, though some success with follow and zone
focusing can be achieved.
Motorsports and Racing Events
These sports are generally fairly easy to photograph. They generally occur during the daytime and you
can get away with longer slower lenses. AF isn't quite as important because the action occurs in a very
precticable fashion. You can follow or zone focus easy enough. Safety shots are the partcipants racing
past you. The challenge for racing sports is to show motion which will be covered shortly. You don't
want your Forumla 1 car looking like it is sitting still. Also much more importantly, there is a lot to the
game other than the cars or horses running around the track. The pits/paddock afford some of the best
shots. Be ready for an accident. They can happen at any time.
The biggest problem with racing sports is the distance from the track. You only have the partcipants for
a brief time on each lap and in the case of the ponies, you only get them for one lap (per race). You will
need big lenses in almost all circumstances for the race itself. Your shorter lenses work well for crowd
and off track shots.
Freezing Action Shots
So far, we have discussed each event and they types of shots to be taken. Safeties generally are taken at
times where the action is minimal, and we don’t have to concentrate as much on freezing the action. But
what sells, and what the viewers want to see are people suspended in mid-air. They want to see the crisp
ball laying just off the receivers finger tips. To do that, we must freeze the action.
Freezing the action requires fast shutter speeds. Most modern, high end 35mm SLRs have a top shutter
speed of 1/8000th of a second. Except for a speeding bullet, this is about fast enough to catch anything
you or I are likely to shoot, even an Indy car blasting around the track at 230mph.
But it isn’t that simple. Lets first discuss a standard photographic rule of thumb, which is the minimal
speed for hand-holding a lens. The minimal shutter speed for hand holding a lens is 1 divided by the
focal length of the lens. Thus a 50mm lens should not be hand held any slower than 1/50th of a second.
A 300mm lens should not be hand held at less than 1/300th of a second. If your camera does not have
shutter speeds between say 1/250 and 1/500, then you round up. So for a 300mm lens, your minimal
hand hold speed may be 1/500th of a second. The more proficient you get, the more likely you are to be
able to cheat by one shutter speed. A monopod is the preferred way for action photographers to gain
additional steadiness. It can generally buy you one to two shutter speeds of hand holding.
Not only has it become more difficult to hand hold these lenses, it becomes harder to freeze the action as
well. The lenses get heavier and harder to hold. Your breathing and heart beating and muscle strain are
enough to cause still objects hard to capture. Longer lenses not only magnify the scene, they magnify the
apparent movement. If a runner passes through the viewfinder with a 50mm lens attached in one second,
then at 500mm, the same person moving at the same speed will pass in 1/10th of a second.
Generally, to freeze action, you need at least two full shutter speeds if not more faster than the hand hold
speed. So for our 300mm lens, you will need at least 1/1200 to 1/2400 to freeze action with this lens
(rounding up, that’s 1/2000-1/4000th of a second). Even at these speeds, you may have to follow side to
side movement, called panning to have the movement crisp when you expose the film Lets say you are
shooting a car racing event. Even at high shutter speeds, if you hold the camera still and wait on the car,
you will capture a blur. By matching the movement of the subject with the movement of the lens, you
minimize the relative motion between the two.
For subjects coming to you or heading away, their apparent movement isn’t as great. Many people make
up some of the action freezing by getting things coming toward them.
Film is critical in freezing action. Each increase in film speed gets you one more shutter speed. So if you
shoot an event with ISO 100 film and the best you can get is 1/500th of a second, switching to an ISO
400 film gets you to 1/2000th which may be enough to freeze the action. Going to ISO 1600, will take
you to 1/8000th of a second.
Adding high shutter speeds, fast films, monopods, panning, or shooting objects as they come toward
you, and capturing action at its peak will let you freeze fantastic shots.
Giving the illusion of movement.
Many new action photographers worry about freezing action, trying to get the crispest shots possible.
Even veteran photographers will try for crisp shots, but they are not afraid to allow some blurring.
Stop and think about it for a minute. A baseball pitcher throws the ball, the batter swings the bat. Your
eyes don’t freeze the action precisely, so why should your pictures. A blurring bat, or an elongated ball
leaving a blurry arm imply movement. As long as most of the body and the face is crisp a little motion in
the hands, feet, and projectiles is acceptable and in many cases desired. This is another little cheat in not
having that fast of a shutter speed.
Some times, we slow the shutter speed down intentionally to amplify the movement. We have all seen
shots of runners where the background is a blur their arms and legs are a blur, but their body and head
are fairly well focused. Combining panning, slower shutter speeds, and predictable movement and you
can capture some very dramatic pictures showing all kinds of movement.
These types of shots require patients, work, and a lot of experimenting. Don’t hesitate, when at an event
to experiment with different techniques . . . after you get your safeties and your primary shots.
Lighting and Film
Lighting conditions are the single worse bane to sports photographers. There simply are no good lighting
conditions. During the day, under bright sun, there are harsh shadows and it creates shots that have too
much contrast. Morning and late afternoon shots are somewhat better if you can get the light behind you,
but you still end up with some rough shadow conditions. Overcast skies drops the light level too low for
using really long lenses or the shots don’t have popping color.
As the sun sets, or if you move indoors, the lighting is generally enough to let the players see the ball
coming at them. No two facilities are lit the same. You will find situations where little league fields are
better lit that college fields. You will find that different arenas and stadiums have different color balance
lights. Some facilities will even have bulbs of different color balance which makes some shots
unprintable.
Most modern pro arenas have fairly decent lighting and the color balance is pretty good. Professional
teams need lots of media coverage and after years of complaining, they have created decent lighting for
the media to use.
Critical to the sports and action photographer is the choice of film. By now, you should understand the
relationship of film speed to aperture to shutter speed. As light goes down, shutters slow down, apertures
open up, and film speed increases.
Most indoor sports events either require the resources of Sports Illustrated to mount strobes in the
ceiling, which are not distracting to players as a strobe blasting in their face, or require using high speed
film. Most indoor sports are shot at ISO 1600 with fast (F2.8 or faster) lenses .
Under these conditions, you can get away with 200mm or less in lens. That means you need to get a
shutter speed of around 1/400th to be able reasonably freeze the body while allowing limited motion in
the extremities. However a lot of time, the available shutter speed will be less than that. You do the best
you can. You can increase film speed, which will increase grain and contrast to compensate. You can
buy faster lenses, like a 200mm F2.0 or an 85mm F1.4. You can switch to a shorter lens to lessen the
impact of motion. Remember, you can freeze action well at 1/250 with an 85mm lens but can barely
hand hold a 200mm lens at the same speed.
Color slide film is limited in film speed. Most high speed color slide film has the grain of an ISO 3200
print film. Depending on your use, grain may not be too bad. Most newspapers use low line count
screens for their half tones, and a lot of grain will be hidden in the half tones. Most high speed films are
not very sharp and lack color saturation.
Lets take a couple of common films that are used by sports photographers: Fuji 800 and Fuji 1600. If
you shoot Fuji 800 at 1600 and push process it (over develop it to make up for underexposing it). You
will increase grain and loose some shadow detail. However Fuji 800 under these conditions still
provides more pleasing shots than Fuji 1600 rated and developed normally. Even pushed to 3200, Fuji
800 provides good results.
Not all films are designed for push processing. Most color C-41 based films develop their layers at
different rates and the normal 3 minute, 15 second development time is the amount of developing where
all layers come out right. Overdeveloping can cause uncorrectable color shifts. Some films are produced
with push processing in mind, like the Kodak Extapress line of films. Fuji doesn’t say one way or
another about Fuji SuperG 800, however many press photographers use this film and push it all the time.
Pushing film is a common process. Most places that develop slide film (process E-6) or Black and White
will push film upon request. However color print film (process C-41) is a different story. Most locations
will have a lab that will do it, but most mini-labs will not. Either the operators are not trained on
changing the time, the management does not want them to forget and then ruin future films when they
forget to reset the machine, or the machine just isn’t capable of using different times. You may have to
search to find a lab to push C-41.
Of course, you could soup your own. Processing film is a seminar in itself, but if you are scanning the
negatives for production, you rarely need prints anyway, so the equipment necessary to develop film is
minimal.
Emotion
Shots that lack emotion are ho-hum. They lack energy. They lack story
telling ability. If there is no emotion, then there is little desire to view it.
Most tight action shots of players will be emotional. Regardless of level,
these players, when they are exerting themselves, exhibit emotion. From the
little tee-ball player messing with her hair and her helmet, to the strain of a
pole vaulter working to get over the cross bar, there is plenty of emotion to
be found in sports. You will, from experience be able to edit out the shots
that lack emotion and do not tell the story. But it requires shooting and
shooting.
You should also look for emotion from other sources. As years of ABC’s Wide World of Sports told
us . . . The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Make sure to save film to shoot the players after
their events. Or during their events, don’t always focus on the ball, but on the emotion after the big 360
degree slam dunk. Don’t forget to look for emotion in the coaches and the fans. A lot of the best shots
come from the crowd.
Where to Start
This seminar contains a lot of hints and it talks about a lot of high level gear and access. It’s important to
understand that not every photographer will be able to take this information and expect to step onto the
hard wood at Chicago Stadium, sit in the press gallery and expect to capture Grade A shots of Dennis
Rodman in his antics. To get to that level, you have to have a proven sports portfolio and work for an
agency who can get you access.
Before you get to that level, you have to shoot a lot of minor sporting events. The best place to start is
your local youth leagues. Early in my career, I got broken in on high school sports, but through my
experience there, I got to shoot for my college papers and year books. That allowed me access to shoot
NCAA Division I sports early on. But I would not have had that opportunity without having developed a
portfolio from my early days of shooting.
Local youth leagues provide you great access and opportunities to use smaller lenses to capture shots. As
your portfolio develops, you can approach shooting at higher levels. You can get a lot of practice and
experience here which is valuable when going to "The Show".
Today, I am back shooting for a small town paper and the highest level of sports that I have reasonable
access to is high school. Even though I have been to "The Show", I still enjoy getting pictures of 5 year
olds when they catch their first ball or score their first goal.
You may however get opportunities to shoot pro games from a fan’s perspective. Depending on your
location in the arena, you can get some reasonably good shots. Take your long lens and some high speed
film and make the most of it. In these situations, freezing action isn’t as important as being able to hand
hold the lens. The players will be at such a distance that their movement will be like a person closer to
you with a normal lens on. As long as you have enough shutter speed to get a steady shot you should be
able to get memorable shots.
Summary
One final note. Don’t rush your action assignments. Spend some time, and expect to burn some film.
Only through practice and looking at the results and going back to it will you get the timing and skills
needed to one day capture world class shots.
More
●
●
●
●
●
100th Boston Marathon, photographed by Philip Greenspun
Head of the Charles 1998
MIT soccer photos by Philip Greenspun
"Where to buy a camera" -- retailers that actually stock the big long lenses
Canon 600/4 IS lens review
Text Copyright © 1998 Rob Miracle; Photos copyright 1994-1998 Philip Greenspun.
Sports Photos give us a sense of being there.
Add/View Comments
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Maria
Predeal, Romania, 1985
Sports can be not only for preformance, but also for the family leisure.
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Luca Patrone Advertise photography- In the gallery "various" some creative shots made with
extreme fish eye optics. I like this lenses for sport and action (contributed by luca patrone)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Concert Photography, A Tutorial for photo.net by Steve Mirarchi
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Concert, Stage, and LowLight Photography
A Tutorial by Steve Mirarchi
Part I: Introduction. Getting credentials, ethical considerations, who buys this kind of photography,
why we'll never make a living at it, the stress of six ISO 1600 rolls in ten minutes with no flash.
Part II: Equipment and Basics. Beginner's gear, what you don't need, exposing for stage lights, shutter
speeds, aperture settings, how to put it all together.
Part III: Film. Which films do what, negs versus chromes, push processing.
Appendix I: Flash. Creative shots when you're allowed to use flash.
Further Reading. Jon Sievert's Concert Photography is a superbly organized, exhaustively detailed,
and wonderfully accessible book that any aspiring entertainment photographer should read and that even
veterans will find helpful. Including over 100 superb photographs from Sievert's extensive archives, the
book provides lessons, tips, and examples in both written and visual forms. The sheer enormity of
Sievert's place in the industry bowls you over as you turn page after page of the appendices, which list
thousands of contact names, numbers, magazines, and trade publications. If you foresee music
photography as continual in your future efforts, this should be one of the first books you buy.
About the author of this tutorial: Steve Mirarchi is a commercial photographer who specializes in
http://www.photo.net/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i (1 of 2)7/3/2005 2:18:30 AM
Concert Photography, A Tutorial for photo.net by Steve Mirarchi
portraiture and the music industry. His images regularly appear in magazines like People, Rolling Stone,
Entertainment Weekly, Vibe, Playboy, and numerous others. His work is syndicated by Retna, the
preeminent entertainment photo agency in the world. When not photographing clients in his studio or
fulfilling his duties as Photographer-At-Large for the Boston Phoenix, he is either teaching at Brandeis
University or writing yet another draft of his Ph.D. dissertation.
Special thanks: Philip Greenspun, who financed the scanning of many of the images contained herein.
Ed Hamrick and his excellent program Vuescan, which allowed the scanning of many other images
contained herein.
Don Baccus, Bob Atkins, Sean Yamamoto, Glen E. Johnson, Thom Hogan, Darron Spohn, Dan Brown,
Mark Windom, Steve Bingham, Mark Ciccarello, Scott Eaton, and Bobby Downes for their extensive
comments and suggestions.
God, for everything.
Above: Pat Metheny, as featured on the cover of the 1998 Ibanez guitar catalog.
All Text and Images Copyright 1996-2000 Steve Mirarchi. All rights reserved.
Steve Mirarchi
Return to photo.net.
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: Camcorder HQ - Excellent reviews of Sony camcorders
http://www.photo.net/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i (2 of 2)7/3/2005 2:18:30 AM
Street Photography
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Street Photography
a tutorial and exhibit from Philip
Greenspun
"Stare. It is the way to educate your eye, and more. Stare, pry, listen eavesdrop. Die
knowing something. You are not here long."
Walker Evans (in a draft text to accompany the hidden camera subway photographs)
My favorite thing about street photography
What I like best about street photography is that it is possible to look in more than one place at once.
In this photo inside Greenwich Village's French Roast, I was
trying to get a picture of the tuned-out New Media exec with the
women conversing in the background. I guess I got the photo that
I wanted, but there is also a dog fight going on outside. I'm pretty
sure that I didn't see that in the viewfinder or in real life.
[Note the careful use of on-camera flash and ambient exposure so
that the lighting is evenly balanced on subjects both inside and
outside the restaurant.]
http://www.photo.net/photo/street-photography (1 of 31)7/3/2005 2:18:44 AM
Street Photography
note the black dog in the corner
note the photographer in the upper right corner
I'm not even sure what to say about this, but I can guarantee you
that the scene (Venice Beach, from my California series) didn't
seem quite this varied in real life.
Volume, Volume, Volume
Garry Winogrand is famous for having exposed three rolls of Tri-X on the streets of New York City
every day for his entire adult life. That's 100 pictures a day, 36,500 a year, a million every 30 years.
Winogrand died in 1984 leaving more than 2500 rolls of film exposed but undeveloped, 6500 rolls
developed but not proofed, and 3000 rolls proofed but not examined (a total of a third of a million
unedited exposures).
This is the kind of dedication that you need to bring to a street photography project if you hope to
achieve greatness.
Technique
The classic technique for street photography consists of fitting a wide (20mm) or moderately wide-angle
(35mm) lens to a camera, loading high-speed film (ISO 400), and pre-focusing the lens. Pre-focusing?
How do you know how far away your subject will be. It turns out that it doesn't really matter. Wide
Street Photography
angle lenses have good depth of field. If your subject is 10 feet away and the lens is set for 12 feet, you'd
probably need to enlarge to 20x30" before noticing the error (assuming a typical aperture). This is why
the high-speed film is important. Given a fixed shutter speed, the faster the film the smaller the aperture.
The smaller the aperture, the less critical it is to focus precisely. The extreme case of this is a pinhole
camera, for which there is no need to focus at all.
Street photographers traditionally will set the lens at its hyperfocal distance. This distance depends on
the lens focal length and the aperture but the basic idea is that it is the closest distance setting for which
subjects at infinity are still acceptably sharp. With fast film and a sunny day, you will probably be able
to expose at f/16. With a 35mm lens focussed to, say, 9 feet, subjects between 4.5 feet and infinity will
be acceptably sharp (where "acceptable" means "if the person viewing the final photograph doesn't stick
his eyes right up against it").
A modern alternative is to use a camera with a very high-performance autofocus system and a zoom
lens. The Canon EOS bodies coupled with the instant-focusing ring ultrasonic motor Canon lenses
(about half of the EOS lenses use these motors) are an example of what can work. Paradoxically I find
that I was able to work as quickly and get as high a yield of good images (these are from Guatemala)
with the Mamiya 7 rangefinder camera:
Street Photography
Whether you go modern or traditional, many of your pictures will be ruined due to poor focus, subject
motion, hasty composition, etc. So don't feel bad if you only get one great picture out of 1000. If you're
using a digital camera, you won't even have to lose sleep over how much film and processing you're
wasting.
Gallery
Miami, 1995, part of my Costa Rica story
Canon EOS-5, 35-350 lens, program autoexposure, Fuji Super G + ISO 400
neg film
This photo illustrates the advantages of the Canon 35-350L lens (a $2000
photojournalist's toy). I took it from the passenger seat of a car stopped at a red
light. The rain lead to highly saturated colors. Canon EOS AF
Street Photography
a few from Sweden...
and Germany...
and Ireland..
Street Photography
and Israel (Ireland's neighbor in the UN, separating Israel from Iraq)..
China is one of the world's best places for street photography because (a) there are so many people, (b)
so much happens out in the open. Here are a few images from the photo.net guide to China:
Street Photography
Japan is a good place to see extremes, either people practicing ancient ways or people overwhelmed by
modernity. Here are some images from the photo.net guide to Japan:
More
●
Street photography in New York City
Text and images copyright Philip Greenspun.
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Street Photography
It would have been nice if some black and white street pictures had been included as well. B&W has
been the aesthetic (and practical) choice of many street (as opposed to reportage) photographers, because
especially in a street setting with random colors everywhere, B&W clarifies the intent of the image. This
is not to say powerful color street photography is not possible. There are many who practice it-but the
novice reading these pages might do well to give B&W a try as well.
-- Mani Sitaraman, November 23, 2000
"careful use of on-camera flash"? Excuse me, but the flash is extremely visible in the photogrpah.
-- Jan Mattsson, November 24, 2000
The flash light is reflected in two of the windows - the upper window of the door in the left, and the one
above the [right hand side] girl's head. It is also reflected in the man's spectacle frames, in his watch's
strap and bracelet, and on his shoe. The man in the foreground is significantly more exposed than the
two women, and is rather flat due to the shadow less nature of on-camera flash. There is considerable
glare on both the doorframe and the post supporting the rear window. I don't think flash was appropriate
here; it was certainly not used carefully.
When I saw "Street Photography" I jumped for the link immediately. I was rather disappointed, like
others, that there are no black and white photographs. B&W, to me, epitomizes street photography. I
could only spot one photograph (the first one, girl on steps) in which the subject was actually the person
for that person’s own intrinsic worth - a street portrait, if you know what I mean. Preferably candid. The
one of the girl on the steps is good, although the sunglasses detract from it. Eyes always hold expression.
Of course, asking the girl to take the glasses off may not have went down well. Posed street photographs
can be good, but I have yet to see one that doesn’t appear obviously posed. Pics of many different
people, in different countries, all chatting on phones, are interesting for documentation, but to list them
as teaching examples on "street photography"? The Venice Beach photo is interesting, in a different
way. There is nothing candid about it - six people are staring directly at the camera lens. Nevertheless, it
has got tremendous detail, and showcases a wide variety of human beings, young and old, male and
female, black and white, fit and fat, introspective and out-going, and even a good ole dog (looking rather
bored with it all). Colour was appropriate here. Well done with this one!
-- Samuel Dilworth, November 25, 2000
If flash had not been used in that photo, the interior of the coffee shop would probably have been
underexposed. Maybe a bounce flash should have been used.
-- Andrew Grant, November 26, 2000
Actually, myself I like the way the flash is visible in that photograph: the flash reflection makes you
Street Photography
aware of the photographer's existence there (then you have the media exec, two women, the dogfight and
the photographer taking the picture). IMHO it makes the photograph a little more interesting.
-- George Bielinski, November 26, 2000
Hey, if you want B&W, can't you just use the "Desaturate" command in Photoshop? It's a digital image
at this point....
-- Michael Yacavone, November 28, 2000
My dear friend Michael, those photographs were *taken* in colour. The photographer knew this, and
composed accordingly. You cannot simply desaturate a colour image in Photoshop and get a decent
B&W image. The *style* of your photography, at camera level, must change in B&W. Try using
"Desaturate" in Photoshop, with the images on this page, to see what I mean. A good colour image will
nearly always be poor in B&W (and vice-versa, if you go to the bother of colouring it).
-- Samuel Dilworth, November 28, 2000
Sorry but I do not feel this page demonstrates street photography. The images mostly look as if taken
with telephoto lenses. (Shyness or cowardice?)
Where are the stories? All the best 'street' photographs I can think of tell some sort of story. This was
'tourist photography'. Not bad pictures but not exactly crammed with expression of the human condition.
For an object lesson in Street Photography try Bill Brandts images from the East end of London. All
taken with Normal lenses so the photographer had to interact with his fellow humans rather than 'grab'
sneak shots out of car windows. Making pictures rather than Taking pictures. Gaining a bit of empathy
before 'shooting' your victims. Some of these pictures are hit and run. Also when photographing poverty
try and preserve the subjects dignity because otherwise it is an unequal relationship. After all, you (and
others) are getting good mileage out of the 'quaint' depravation you picture with your 2000 dollar
'photojournalists' 35 - 300mm lens so try and give something back to them.
Maybe this is why Bill Brandt is a legend and Phil isnt.
-- Trevor Hare, November 29, 2000
If you're ten feet away from your "victim" while carrying an 80-200 2.8 lens, would you characterize
that as "shyness" or "cowardice?" One can make a lot of successful arguments against PhilG's
photography, but he's certainly not timid. Telephoto lenses serve very well to isolate subjects, and to
preserve candidness - which many people feel (differently from you) is the essence of "street
photography." I use all focal lengths in its pursuit.
For what it's worth, I also agree that traditional street photography is done with B&W film, and that
Street Photography
"desaturating" a color shot doesn't really substitute. All of the really good ultra-high speed films best
suited for stealthy shooting are B&W anyhow.
Image:RockCenter03b.jpg
-- Colin James, November 29, 2000
The 'shyness or cowardice' was prompted by Phils own comment about taking a shot whilst in a car with
a telephoto.
The essence of street photography is not to isolate the subject from the surroundings. We are not dealing
with biological 'samples' here but People operating within their environment within their lives.
Ask yourself how you and your family would like to be treated by a street photographer? Shot from a
distance anonymously, detached from any context, your images used to entertain a rich American.
Or would you prefer the photographer to have the courage to attempt some sort of rapport and some
understanding and enter into your space with you rather than put you under his lens like some bug for
inspection? In other words to treat you with some respect as another human rather than just image
fodder.
Greater photographers than us have tussled with this subject. Try getting hold of 'Perspectives' by Don
Mccullin. It contains an excellent essay on the morality of photographing poverty , squalor, misery and
war and even just ordinary folk going about their normal lives.
Phil has elected himself to be a tutor on the subject of street photography but doesnt deal with any
questions beyond the technical ones. I feel strongly about people being having their images, unwittingly,
'mugged' from them.
-- Trevor Hare, November 30, 2000
Street photography? I am certainly not a specialist in classifying photography but I can hardly imagine
that most of the above pictures would fall into this category. Whether they are taken with a 24, 35, 50 or
85 mm lens on a colour or B+W film with or without flash is irrelevant, as long as they express
something about the subject. And street photography tells a lot about the photographer and his
interaction with the subjects.
What I can see in most of these pictures is a mocking attitude of a selfish photographer who was very
very remote from his victims (not only physically) and sometimes felt uneasy. The Tsukiji Market
Street Photography
picture could have been taken by a vegetarian who hates fish. The fruit lady in Costa Rica would
possibly not like her picture taken like this from behind. And the young lady on the steps has no more
expression than the plurality of dogs in most of the pictures. Strangely enough, sometimes I felt these
photos demonstrate "Dogs in Street Photography" instead of individuals in daily life.
BUT: I do like three of the pictures, actually Phil at his best. The nuns and monks along with that
American (?) tourist with a funny hat behind the lady with a cell phone in Jerusalem, the twin
newspapers in Tokyo subway and, best of all, the man reading newspaper in Dublin. If this one were in
black and white, we would have missed the colour of his tie!
-- George D. Gianni, November 30, 2000
I'd like to add that I too take a lot of random photos on a daily basis. I started with Canon EOS cameras
then switched to the Canon Digital Powershot 20 and now also use the Canon G1 with telephoto lens.
Digital makes it so much cheaper and incites me to more experimentation. I mount the G1 on my car
window mount from Bogen and use the remote to shoot while I'm driving. The car in essence is the
viewfinder and I find myself circling the block or making uturns for better light or shooting angles. (No
accidents or near misses yet!) The remote allows me to zoom and shift shooting modes and the G1
accepts the EOS external flashes! Give it a try! It also works in a daypack or briefcase.
-- t. bomba, December 2, 2000
This is turning into an interesting discussion. I can see both sides. I remember before I got into
photography a young lady "mugged" me with her camera. I was fishing for musky, and looked the part.
She was trying to be a street photographer, trying to take a candid shot, and I caught her. I scolded her,
too, and when she defended herself with, "well, you're in a public place", I really scolded her. But now
that I have picked up an interest in photography, and have looked at images, I like seeing candid shots of
people. And I like it when the people don't seem to notice the camera (hence the word candid, I guess).
Not that a candid shot requires anonymity, but many of the best street shots I have seen appeared to be
taken candidly and anonymously. Just my opinion, which has changed over the years. Getting to know
your subject first sometimes helps, but sometimes random shots of strangers yeilds good results, too.
-- Mike Morgan, December 3, 2000
For another perspective on street photography (actually subway photog.) see http://www.davebeckerman.
com/ and click on the article "Photography on the subway." I like his writing and love his photos.
In addition, Jeff Spirer, a regular of this phot.net community, has some excellent stuff at www.spirer.
com.
No offense to Phil, but the work of those guys is what I think of when I think of street photography. As
mentioned by others, I favor the B&W aesthetic for this type of photography.
Street Photography
-- Efrain Sain, December 4, 2000
This is not a perfect fix for color pictures...but if you change it to grayscale or desaturate it then go to
brightness and contrast you can make the shadows and what not more prominet so it looks more like a
B&W.
-- joe bob, December 29, 2000
There is a great deal more to 'street photography' than merely photographing in the street. These images
miss the mark for me I am afraid.
-- Gerry Walden, December 31, 2000
While I respect Trevor Hare's opinion, I could not disagree more with him. Cartier-Bresson was known
to have covered up his Leica when on the street to hide his intentions from his subjects. Andres Kertesz,
whom Cartier-Bresson said that we all indebted to for pioneering street photography, sought to capture
life at its most candid on the streets and cafes of Paris. Garry Winnograd also had the ability to take
someone's picture without them noticing though he was more or less right on top of them. Read the intro
to his book if you don't believe me.
I would have loved to have befriended and talked to all the people that I have taken pictures of or
wanted to take picutres of. But all of my photos would have turned into snapshots: people conscious of
the camera and probably smiling into the lens.
The potential for street photography to be rude and exploitative is monstrous and this is something that I
struggle with everytime I step outside. This is where I agree with Trevor. But every situation is different
and there are times where I have refused to expose any film because it did not feel right and I have
subsequently missed incredible opportunities. There cannot be any edict dictating what is right or wrong.
These decisions are up to each photographer to make according to their own system of values.
And I am thankful that Phil has created this page for us though in the end, it is very disappointing. Are
there no street photographers on staff at photo.net?
-- doug kim, February 19, 2001
Ah, the essence of Street Photography:
"This photo illustrates the advantages of the Canon 35-350L lens (a $2000 photojournalist's toy). I took
it from the passenger seat of a car stopped at a red light."
Using only the equipment you can find on the street... ; )
Street Photography
-- Jeff Warner, March 8, 2001
Trevor Hare talks about "gaining a bit of empathy before shooting your victims", and accuses Phil of
"hit-and-run" photography. I wonder if he would consider Cartier-Bresson a hit-and-run photographer.
HCB never tried to interact with his subjects or "get to know them". He didn't bother considering
whether they would "like" the way he chose to photograph them. Based on the historical record, I'd say
he pretty much INVENTED Street Photography. HCB devoted most of his effort to blending in, like a
"fly on the wall", so he could get pictures of people WITHOUT DISTURBING THEM. I think being
inconspicuous and unobtrusive is the most important thing in street photography. You must travel fast
and light: no photo vest, no camera bag, one small camera and a small prime lens or two, no flash. If you
really want to emulate the greats (Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Winogrand, Evans), use a meterless
camera and learn to evaluate the light yourself.
-- Ian Cruikshank, April 5, 2001
I moderate a STREET PHOTOGRAPHY dicussion group where we share photos and ideas with each
other...
http://www.geocities.com/photomoderator
Take a look if interested
-- Dave Ramirez, April 13, 2001
After having HCB recommended to me so many times (I have 2 books of his work alongside books of
numerous others so I am familiar with him) i found this article interesting to read. Yes HCB, himself,
does NOT like having his picture published and is taking legal action against it happening!! What was
good for his 'subjects' is unacceptable to him....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4135295,00.html
I am not going to take too rigid a stance on this but it does point back to my comments, above, about
putting yourself in your 'subjects' shoes and how would you react in their place.
-- Trevor Hare, April 28, 2001
Why exactly street photography must be black-and-white, taken with wide-angle lens close to the
subject? What a religious approach. This page contains great pictures and I specifically like that they are
in color and are DIFFERENT from what I've seen. I am glad that it is not yet another traditional BW
street photo gallery.
Street Photography
-- Mikhail Arkhipov, April 30, 2001
FWIW, the reason Henri Cartier-Bresson doesn't want his image widely published is because he wants
to be able to photograph people anonymously. If everyone knew what he looked like it would give new
meaning to the phrase "celebrity photographer." You may think he's being overly sensitive, but imagine
if Henri's face was as familiar as Ansel Adams'. He'd be constantly distracted by people wanting to shoot
the breeze or asking for autographs. Henri just wants to shoot a few frames and continue on his way -the same opportunity he affords his subjects.
-- Gordon Lewis, May 8, 2001
>>This photo illustrates the advantages of the Canon 35-350L lens (a $2000 photojournalist's toy). I
took it from the passenger seat of a car stopped at a red light. The rain lead to highly saturated colors.
Canon EOS AF
I had to buy my 35-350 lens. Some people get all the luck. What did the driver think?
Very well done article, but I too would have liked B&W.
-- Leslie Koller, May 28, 2001
I live in New York City, and do street photography. I have nothing against colour but it can distract the
viewer from the "decisive moment" that the photographer wanted to capture. Besides for me B&W is an
advantage since I do my own printing and can make disturbing objects in the backgound less obstrusive.
The choice of lens does not signify anything except for the fact that it is only an instrument to capture
the moment, if using a tele lens has better chance of capturing the moment isolated from the background
and if it improves the chance of being unnoticed then so be it...I use a 70-300 and a 17-35 and shoot
from a distance or from close range...but it is true that a street photographer cannot afford to be shy or be
afraid to confront or pacify his subject in situations. In one situation a man in New York city in a fit of
rage asked me for the roll of film...I told him to get lost and so he did while making threats of calling the
police.
I like to capture fleeting moments, candid portraits and this does not give me an option to introduce
myself to my subjects with my visiting card before I take the shot...I believe that empathy for the subject
- if important to the photographer - should show in his/her work...morality is a subjective issue, not an
absolute one...I am not the one who can figure out whats on a person's mind if and as he knows that he is
being photographed...did he like being photographed? Did he dislike but was too polite or shy to tell me
that he didn't want to be photographed? Well...as long as I do not know, I assume implicit permission
from my subject. If I wanted to find out explicitly I would be talking and not capturing the moments that
I wanted to capture. I wonder what would Elliot Erwit do if he was required to obtain permission before
he took the wonderful pictures showing the moods and moments of dogs.[this is not no imply that dogs
Street Photography
are same or differnt from human beings as photographic subjects ;-) ]. As Elli Wallach said in the movie
'The Good Bad and the Ugly' - "When you shoot, you shoot, dont talk"...it was shooting of a different
kind though but its principle applies to street photography as well.
But it is also true that the photographer can introduce himself to his subjects and win their trust and take
pictures over weeks and months...this improves the chances of better framing, lighting and yet capturing
the candid mood and the moment since the photographer is not viewed as an alien any more and can
work at close range without worried about being spotted.Often I visit a place where I am familiar face
now, at least to quite a few, and returning with gift prints helps to build a friendship. I can take pictures
with the candid mood working at close range...sometimes point blank with a wide lens But that is
fundamentally different from the pictures you take as you walk down the street while trying to keep
yourself inconspicous.
Many beginner photographers think that people dont like to be photographed and this may be true in
many places but from my experience in taking people shots in streets of Tokyo, New York and Calcutta,
I can say that it is not generally true...many do like to be photographed, many dont even know if they are
being photographed and most apparently dont care even if they know. There are a few who are paranoid
about being photographed and certainly I am not going to let the moment pass by making such an
assumption. If someone finds out - as sometime someone always does since not everybody can blend in
like a fly on the wall - and expresses dissent, I shall respect that. Although, in some situations I have also
asked permission before shooting.
The street is a public place and the photographer has as much right as the artist with a sketch book
making sketches of people. The problem is that the barrel of the lens pointing at someone could have a
different psychological effect than the brief glances of the sketch artist.
Street photography is not about photographing poverty, squalor or misery, it is not about photographing
homeless people on the streets, it can show humorous, funny, sad, joyful etc moments.
If the street photographer is a "mugger" as is suggested in one of the previous comments then HCB is
the greatest "mugger" known so far and I would dream about being a "mugger" like him and of course
never be able to achieve that dream. A true street photographer's natural instinct is to shoot first and to
worry later.
-- Ananda Chaudhuri, June 27, 2001
> FWIW, the reason Henri Cartier-Bresson doesn't want his image widely
> published is because he wants to be able to photograph people
> anonymously. If everyone knew what he looked like it would give new
> meaning to the phrase "celebrity photographer."
Cartier Bresson is 92 years old. AFAIK, he hasn't been taking pictures for quite a few years, dedicated
Street Photography
instead to painting.
As for street photography, I'm no expert, but none of the images in this page do much for me. An image
doesn't just work because it is a candid picture of a stranger in the street. It needs interesting expressions,
or action, or striking composition. Here is how I feel about this issue, with some examples of pictures
that didn't make it into my galleries.
I'm a beginner at this, and suffer horribly when trying to get close to people and photograph them. But
that's part of what makes it interesting. A long telephoto would take the fun out of it.
-- Juan Buhler, July 25, 2001
This is my first visit to photo.net and so far I like it. Everyone will see a picture or body of work
differently, and have various interpretations of said work, and it is good that we can express our
comments openly. However, I believe comments of Amanda Chadheri were to the point and exactly on
target. I agree 100%. All this about getting to know the subject, etc., cannot apply at all times, as many
great photographs would be missed. If you fully believe that you have to get to know the person, try
street photography in the arab world, where they still believe the lens on a camera is the evil eye and will
capture/steal their soul. I broke into street photography in Morocco, and it wasn't easy. Also, why is it
called street photography? Why not just people photography, or moment photography, because that is
what it truly is.
Richard Dean Williams August 4 2001
-- Richard Dean Williams, August 4, 2001
I doubt that HCB had to worry about getting a model release for his photos. I like the shot of the lady on
the stairs. It makes me wonder what she's waiting for. Who is she going to share that quart with? Did
you have to approach her for a release? All of these questions make it an interesting photo to me. I've
taken quite a few similar shots but never approached the subject so are they doomed to the albums I keep
them in?
-- Joe Photo, August 12, 2001
I don't know if you would consider this the same as 'street photography', but there's some excellent [what
I would call] 'urban' photography at http://www.urban75.org/photos/, ranging from New York to
Birmingham, England. They're mostly devoid of people but are still very evocative - almost as if the
absent commuters, pedestrians, workers and residents leave a mark on the street even when they're not
there.
Street Photography
-- James Gleeson, August 20, 2001
An interesting discussion. Its all subjective - either you like the work or you don't. I've photographed
both candid and interactive shots of people from Brazil to India to China. Sometimes candid is
appropriate, sometimes its not. But if you don't shoot, you won't have a photo. It looks like what
everyone is discussing is the definition of street photography - my question is, is there one and does it
matter?
The links that other comments recommended are great!
-- Eric Riutort, December 2, 2001
A comment on Trevor Hare's November 29, 2000 entry: He says: "Sorry but I do not feel this page
demonstrates street photography. The images mostly look as if taken with telephoto lenses. (Shyness or
cowardice?)..." He prefers to use "a Normal lenses so the photographer had to interact with his fellow
humans..."
On the contrary, interacting with the subject can often disrupt the candidness of the shot. Real life
changes abruptly when the subject is acutely aware that he is being photographed.
Trevor adds: "Also when photographing poverty try and preserve the subjects dignity...". I agree totally,
and to do just that, a distant shot often seems more appropriate to me. How can a down and out person's
dignity be preserved when a photographer is in his face saying, in effect, "let me take your picture
because you are so deprived."? Cowardice to take a shot from a distance? I think it can be a sign of true
respect. ---B
-- Brian Sharkey, January 11, 2002
Some of the best street/candid photography shots can be seen from "Life" magazine.. Here, I like the
shot "Canal Street Manhattan 1995".
-- Belinda Tan, January 16, 2002
I find it very interesting that more hasn't been said about people and their right not to be photographed. I
consider myself a very serious amateur. I enjoy photographing just about everything and have had a
considerable amount of formal art training at the University of South Florida as well as technical
photography training at the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale. The moral and legal issues of
photographing people against their wishes intrigues me.
It is my personal opinion that everyone (excluding people who knowing place themselves in the public
eye) has the right to determine how and when their image is used. The justification that an image is art
or that the image could not have been captured in any other way should not be the justification for a
Street Photography
photographer to use another person’s image. It is a matter of integrity and I feel that anyone who violates
this rule affects the integrity of every photographer.
-- Ray Cerx, April 11, 2002
Hmm. I have come to the conclusion that street photography is my favorite outlet for my lust for
photography. When I first came to photo.nt this was the first post I read as the "street photography" title
caught my eye. I believe that the idea of street photography is simple in that you are out to capture
fleeting moments that describe an environment or people interacting and the medium in which you do
this I think matters not. I first started my street photography using a 28-135mm IS lense on a CanonA2
(eos5) body. This was fine as I was free and clear to frame almost anything that I wanted to at almost
any distance(that 135mm would alow). I also had my hassleblad camera out on sunny days shooting
street stuff and that was actually twice as much fun though I would sometimes become the subject rather
that what was infront of my lense (hehe) I then picked up a nikon f3 and a 24 mm lense. Ahhhhhh. I
found myself getting much closer(sometimes 3 feet) to my subjects but the outcome is amazing. I like
both colour and blacknwhite film but I do feel that B&W film alows more focus on composition as to
not have the colours govern the images. I have colour and black and white images in my folders here on
photo.net if anyone is interested. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=170873 http://www.
photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=171338 feel free to contact me or tell me of more street photography
sites too , I would love to see more !
Image:BabatundeMartins.jpg
-- Babatunde Martins, May 18, 2002
This article and the one on Winogrand prompts me to put down a question that has been at the back of
mind which I find relavant. Perhaps others have a view to contribute.
At the most basic level the question is "So I love taking pictures. Walking around I often find I see
things as a sequence of pictures. If you capture all these images, what do you do with them?"
I feel Winogrand must have had similar feelings. Hence, a million pictures later and a third of them
unedited. There must be something pyschological about capturing the image. But what do you do with
them afterwards?
Does anyone have the same feelings or have some other insight into this matter?
-- Simon Shapiro, July 23, 2002
For Brian Sharkey.
A Bill Brandt picture (photojournalistic for Picture Post magazine) of a socially and economically
deprived person living amongst the squallor of a post war , East London slum , taken with a Normal lens
Street Photography
at close quarters , with the subjects full knowledge and (I would judge) the subjects dignity is totally
preserved!.....
http://www.orst.edu/dept/humanities/newsletter/2000-spring/images/lambeth-walk.jpg
-- Trevor Hare, August 1, 2002
As to what I do with all my street photos. I just have lots of negatives archived in folders. I dont print
everything. Much of what I have on photo.net is scanned negatives. I sometimes will see someone I have
taken a photo of in passing and give them a card to contact me, I give them a print as my own payment
back to them (thats nothing for I have taken there image and If I show anyone and its anygood, thats
promotion leading to more money for me so why not?) I have heard street photography described as "the
stolen art" This is why I tend not to take pictures of the deprived for I see little point in exploiting. And
when I have, I give them money, a lunch or a dinner for the guy laying in the street drooling/ starving /
drunk, that someone photographs then posts here for self agrandisement gets none of that glory if hes
half smiling or not.
-- Babatunde Martins, August 2, 2002
It seems a more apropos name for this subsection would be "guerilla photography" since the nature of
the subject matter is almost a mystery until it's encountered. Furthermore, I understand the other readers
who note that the flash is present in the picture. My concern is based on this. How can you truly catch
people unawares using a flash in public? Don't they notice things like that? And do you have to get
releases from them if you decide to exhibit or sell their likenesses?
-- thomas scott, November 24, 2002
In the end using flash or not will only make an impact on your standing once you have taken the photo.
Using the flash will obviously draw attention altering the living aspect of any images past the first click.
Not using flash may give you more chances at capturing the slice of life without the blast intrusion of
flash. It all depends on how you wish to be in your environment. Do you want to document or become a
part of it? It will show in the images. Personally I think that street photography turns quickly into
outdoor studio candid portrature when flash is introduced.
-- Babatunde Martins, April 15, 2003
> Maybe this is why Bill Brandt is a legend and Phil isnt
This sounded like a very cynical comment itself. Legend or not, from what I know is, despite your
disagreement with Phil, I won't be into photography today, if it wasn't for Phil. So, please give him a
credit. I believe his contibution in making photography knowledge available online/public for free is
undeniable.
Street Photography
THANK YOU PHIL :)
-- F D, May 7, 2003
I do not support quantitative approach to photography. One of the Marxist axioms was that “quantity
will convert itself into quality”. After 50 years of social experimentation the communism fell miserably.
Although I admire work of Gary Winograd, and his lifestyle (of taking thousands of pictures) I believe
in those few pictures selected for publishing. I advocate restrain in manufacture of garbage!
-- Wieslaw Zdaniewski, May 13, 2003
for all you who say the photographer must interact with their " victims" to be a real street photographer,
what's the point? are we talking candid photography or social work here? and just because they happen
to be poor or disheveled or one race or the other or drunk or hungry or whatever else you can think of,
they are still a part of our culture, like it or not. and i think that making a record of that is what is
interesting. fifty years from now people may actually enjoy seeing "us" as we were. some of the most
interesting photographs i can remember looking at were of people. in their natural surrounding. acting
natural. it allows one to see what it was like living at that particular time in history. to interact with
people and then take their photo is more like a snapshot. posed expressions and fake settings. as for
shooting from a vehicle, so what? was the photo interesting? was it well done? isn't that all that matters?
"street" photography is about what you find on the "street". period. i have taken candids using a point
and shoot walking down the street. i have also asked permission first. i have also used a telephoto from a
vehicle, because if i had been seen taking the picture, i would have probably gotten into a fight or worse.
some people just don't trust a photographer. they either think they are 5-O, or they will do their best to
recover the picture. and then you have a problem. for those who stick to photographing "safe" people,
( and for those knuckelheads who wonder what i mean by "safe", i mean your typically white middle
class surburbanite) i guess you can try to ask permission first or become chummy and then ask if you
can "log their photo for posterity". but then it isn't candid. is it? and nothing can ruin a candid shot more
than a posed facial expression. i photograph the seamier side of our culture in a different way than i
photograph the "safe" people. you have to, where i live. they respond totally different. as for invasion of
someone's privacy, too bad. if they are out in public i will take their picture if i damn well please. i don't
post them anywhere nor do i sell them. i think they are an interesting segment of our society and maybe
someone else, someday will think so too, and enjoy them just for what they are. there are any number of
techniques you can use. and they are all "street" photography. and so, to those of you who won't take a
candid picture of a homeless person because they don't want to injure their dignity, try asking them
sometime. and while you're at it, ask them when they allowed their dignity to take it's leave in the first
place. just make sure you have an escape route planed in advance.
-- perry atristain, January 30, 2004
QUOTE My dear friend Michael, those photographs were *taken* in colour. The photographer knew
this, and composed accordingly. You cannot simply desaturate a colour image in Photoshop and get a
decent B&W image. The *style* of your photography, at camera level, must change in B&W. Try using
Street Photography
"Desaturate" in Photoshop, with the images on this page, to see what I mean. A good colour image will
nearly always be poor in B&W (and vice-versa, if you go to the bother of colouring it). UNQUOTE
In my world, a good image should work in both Colour & B&W, i.e. desaturate and it's still a good
image. Now, a mediocre colour image might not work as a B&W....
-- Paul Alford, April 16, 2004
"i have also used a telephoto from a vehicle, because if i had been seen taking the picture, i would have
probably gotten into a fight or worse." This was written by Perry on Jan. 30th. This is an example of
what future street photographers should not do. Perry's pathetic tactics illustrate what is wrong with
street photography. I am a social worker who serves the homeless mentally ill in Detroit. I also do street
photography with this population. I approach them respectfully and I intend to use their images for their
benefit in the form of advocacy. Peep show voyeurs like Perry do not respect people. I'm not surprised
that some one might be offended when he is shooting from a car window like a nature photographer
taking a picture of a bison. Photography can be used to acheive wonderful objectives and also can serve
to make some morally crippled individual feel good about himself/herself. The way Perry and many
others approach photography makes the camera a barrier between people rather than a bridge. People do
have a right not to be photographed. It doesn't matter if they are in a public place or not. If they do not
consent to the photograph, your are shamefully violating their privacy. Some people might be surprised
to find out that when you approach a person like a human being they usually consent to being
photographed. Perry likes the seemier side of life. Perry likes the dirty underworld. The lower socioeconomic classes are so heavily photographed because the upper classes have denied them the basic
human tenets of individualism, privacy and autonomy. They are, to Perrys of the world, helpless fish in
the barrell waiting to be 'shot'. It should be noted that the more priviledged classes have never been
photographed in the way that the poor have because they have the financial and social means to remain
hidden. Access to their world is exclusive. Access to the poor is viewed as a right to Perry, not a
priviledge to be granted by the subject. Perry should know that these poor people are fathers, cousins,
uncles, friends, co-workers and neighbors to some one. People in their lives care about them. People
who know them care about them. If you want to photograph some one get to know them, even if for 10
minutes. Ask them their name, what they like to do, and so one. You know what is really sad? Many of
the people I have met as a social worker and as a street photographer are more ethical and respectful that
the disgusting Perrys of the world. They are often victims of circumstance, crime, systemic prejudices,
unemployment, mental illness, substance abuse, and a crumbling social welfare system. They try hard to
keep their head up and keep trying despite the odds. They hope, pray and beg for a better future. They
try, fail, and then try again. And when they are on their back at their lowest moment a car pulls up, a
lens comes out and...
-- John Gallagher, May 3, 2004
"People do have a right not to be photographed." You're an idiot. The supreme court has already ruled
Street Photography
that anyone in a public setting does not have the right to privacy. Any one can take a picture of them if
they wish.
-- Joe Smith, May 16, 2004
People do have a right not to be photographed
A lot depends of course of the country you are in. Here in Australia...
"A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed."
(Dowd J, NSW Supreme court, R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204)
-- Andrew Nemeth, May 17, 2004
>> A lot depends of course of the country you are in.
In France, Article 9 of the Civil Code expressely forbids taking pictures of persons in public places,
without his or her prior written consent.
Worse, you're not allowed to take pictures of many buildings, either, the most famous case being the
Eiffel tower. Not much risk in taking a snapshot, but forget contests or pro work, without filling out the
necessary paperwork...
K
-- Christian Harberts, May 17, 2004
Joe: Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you for two reasons in particular. The first is that you would turn to
immature name calling to express your frustration towards people you disagree with. This demonstrates
that you are not capable of engaging other adults in a mature manner. I will, despite my reservations,
attempt to approach you in such a manner. The second reason I am embarrassed for you is that you did
not understand the basic concept I clearly raised in my previous comment. In no part of my comment did
I mention legal barriers for photographing people. I wrote explicity and solely on the ethics of
photographing people. Kindly read my comment again so you can better understand where I am coming
from. There is no constitutional ammendment requiring we say "God Bless You" when someone sneezes
but we do it anyway, don't we? Likewise, there are no laws preventing someone from calling a nonaggressive stranger an "idiot" but we don't do it. Or maybe I can excuse you from the latter statement?
-- John Gallagher, May 28, 2004
Really poor article to credit as being a tutorial. I agree about the 'careful use of flash' comments as it is
Street Photography
clearly NOT careful, but clumsey and very full on. Perfect balance of interior exterior levels reduces the
sense of divide, it looks unnatural.
'Street photography' is not my thing, I agree completely with the sentiments expressed that it can be very
intrusive and unwelcome without obtaining permission from the subjects. Law is not the issue here, its
just basic manners.
-- Tony Brown, June 21, 2004
Speaking of equipment. I am a bit surprised nobody mentioned Digicams with swivel LCD viewfinders Canon Gs and the likes. They make nearly perfect weapons for street shooting. You just keep your
camera at the waist level and frame your shot without even looking in your subjects direction. In most
cases you can stay next to your "victim" without drawing attention to what you are doing. Here is a few
candids I shot this way to kill lunch time http://www.pbase.com/tratov/strangers
-- Alex Tratov, October 8, 2004
The most enjoyable lens I own is my 12mm-24mm Aspherical. This is a non distorting fish-eye that
allows me to get in close---up close and personal - for real! - If I shoot even three feet away from the
subject, the punch is gone. Standing about 12 inches from this London lady added to the personal
contact feeling for both of us. She enjoyed the attention and conversation as much as me. I did ask first
if may shoot. I usually do. Her sincerity and comfort was easy to capture this way. But, would have
never been possible with a long lens. I suggest a short lens and a large smile to shoot with on the street
whenever possible. I would also recommend aiming for cohesive messages if only simple ones to
illustrate emotions or a state of being like; joy, despair, courage, love, humor, etc. See: blind leading the
blind, for example. I find that a smile and a clear heart goes a long way to get invitations into other
peoples lives. Even if only for a few moments in the continuing 'special world' of travel.
- Cheers and good luck on the street - Lee McLaughlin
Image:blind leading.jpg
-- Lee McLaughlin, October 29, 2004
Here is a sample of the close-up London Lady. Taken with 12mm lens in London August 2004. - Lee
Mclaughlin
Image:london grin.jpg
-- Lee McLaughlin, October 29, 2004
I have read all the comments re - street photography. Some were quite harsh, while others were
Street Photography
encouraging. I guess all though, like my own, are just each individual's opinion whether right or wrong.
People have a right to their opinion, and in the same respect people have a right to privacy. While some
may consider street photography voyeuristic or intrusive, others just enjoy capturing everyday life and
that may include people on the street. I can see why some people feel uncomfortable taking a stranger's
photo without permission, in case the stranger actually does mind. But sometimes talking to people
beforehand, removes the natural behaviour of the person. When someone knows that you are taking their
picture, they tend to play up to the camera or at least not act naturally. It can change the whole
expression of someone and the way they behave and in doing so, changes the whole mood of the photo.
Talking to the person and asking permission, may also stop them doing whatever it was you wanted to
capture in the first place. I've always thought of photography as capturing that one moment in time, that
will never be repeated exactly the same way. To capture every emotion and essence of the scene as
naturally and as realistically as possible. In some cases you don't have an opportunity to approach
people, they may be on the move or doing something that doesn't exactly need your input. (For example
the dog fight outside the shop door in the photo above, they may not have been in the mood to discuss
your photography options!) Rightly or wrongly, that's my opinion. If you are doing something in public,
then you reasonably suspect that you are in full view of everyone around you, and that may mean having
your photo taken. (Granted you may not want it caught on film forever for all and sundry.) Anyway, I
guess I agree with both sides, it's a difficult argument between capturing a moment in time exactly as it
naturally progresses and the ethical dilemma associated with doing something without a person's
expressed consent. A photo taken in the moment allows others to see us as we really are and if we
stopped to ask for permission, then maybe such emotive photo's as 'Arnaud Blanchard's' in the link
below, would be lost and we would never have an opportunity to see the variety of life.
-- karen brookes, December 1, 2004
To preface, I'm no expert, nor do I do this for a living. I'm just a hobbiest. :)
I would have to say that I have shot both candids as well as post-introduction photos of people going
about their lives. I'm usually fairly close, and I'd say the subject usually notices me after a couple of
shots about 50% of the time. Greater than 95% of the time when I drop the camera and give them a big
smile, they smile back. I shoot everything from folks begging on the street, to well-to do commuters. My
intent is not to exploit them, but rather to capture a slice of life as I see it. I neither seek out poor areas or
rich ones to shoot - I shoot my surroundings. Under no circumstances do I continue shooting if I get a
negative response (the subject holds a hand up or gives an unfriendly gesture or acts defensive) however this rarely happens. Most often it is simple curiosity as to what I might be interested in
shooting.
It is darn near impossible to get a proper "slice of life" candid shot with a subject who knows you're
there. They might stiffen up, stop, smile and/or look at the camera. Their entire demeanor can change.
While sometimes this works for the shot, sometimes it does not.
Introducing politics into this argument is unnecessary. Whether rich or poor - they are in public. Does
this mean you should act like a papperazzi (sp) and get in their face no matter their reaction? Certainly
Street Photography
not. It does mean that if you see that someone isn't enjoying the attention, you apologize and move on. It
is fallacy to suggest that one must sit and ponder for days on the lives of those around them. I'm not
concerned about whether they are "struggling against a crumbling socio-economic system" or whatever.
That isn't what photography is about (unless you're a political photo-journalist ;) ). To me photography is
about creating images that remind me of where I have been, where the world is/has been, and - decades
down the road - what life was like at that time. What you might encounter in a day to day existance.
The ethics, I think, lie in your intent (are you Jerry Springer or someone who is interested in capturing
images of the times and places in which you live and play - I wish I had such images from when my
great-grandmothers and fathers were living), and in your actions post-shot if they notice you. Naturally
I'm not going to offer to pull the film out of the camera and trash it, but neither will I continue shooting
near someone who is uncomfortable with it. To walk down the street introducing myself to everyone that
might fall under the lens is a waste of everyone's time - mine and theirs. Naturally, if I see a shot that I
think might warrant more than a quick composition and shot, I might stop and ask the subjects if they
would mind if I shot a few images. To those that abhor a candid shot in a public place - tell me you
haven't ever taken a photograph that had people in it that you hadn't talked to first to make sure it is ok not even at a local attraction or monument.
The answer - it lies in the middle. I don't believe you should stand on a city street for an hour trying to
get a shot that doesn't have anyone in it that you might think was traumatized in the past or dumped on
by an evil rich society - nor do I think you should continue to shoot if someone expresses a dislike. Just
be polite and keep a friendly smile on your face and you'll do fine. :)
-- Garry Morris, December 30, 2004
Street Photography
Street from Prague
Goldmakers street (hope translation is correct), Prague, 1984
Golden times of black and white photography, at least in Romania, where the film was developed.
I'm a new member who was excited to run across this site entirely by accident, and immediately
subscribed. Several of the comments above concerned the particular role of B&W street photography,
and although I may be getting more than I bargained for, I would appreciate feedback on the B&W street
photographs I have posted on my website at www.abramsBW.com
Dick Abrams
-- Richard Abrams, April 17, 2005
Street Photography
Having read through this article, and after looking at some of the recent work in the street gallery, I have
realised that I have long been a great fan of this genre, without knowing that it existed in its own right. I
agree and disagree with many points raised here, particularly the fact that street photography is to me at
least a 'shady' passtime. Shady as in keeping out of the way of my subjects. I am merely recording a
Street Photography
moment of public life as I see it.
I have always had a manual SLR, but have recently been using an Olympus C8080 for my everyday
shooting. It has to be said that candid photography is a whole different game when you have a swivel
screen, 28-140 fixed lens, and the capacity for hundreds of pictures in one 'sitting'. I am however, not
forgetting my film roots, as I have just purchased an OM2-S to accompany my tired OM1, and my new
digital tool.
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
●
●
folio's photo page- Dedicated to street photography in and around Tokyo, Japan, especially in
Shinjuku, Harajuku, Daikanyama and Odaiba. (contributed by Akira Sudoh)
World wide street photography- Street Photography by an ex-university professor turned
commercial photographer. Street Photography between assignments around the world. Very
people oriented. (contributed by kirk tuck)
STREET PHOTOGRAPHY Discussion Group- Share ideas and images about street
photography. (contributed by Dave Ramirez)
Full Frame Images- Unique black & white (street) - decisive moment/documentary photographs
of life in Worcester, Massachusetts. (1969-1981) Hometown of Robert Goddard, Abbie Hoffman
and Denis Leary. Included are classic images from various locations throughout the United
States... Also showing a small sample of color street images... By Robert M Johnson (contributed
by Robert M Johnson @ www.fullframeimages.com)
●
●
●
Black & White Street Photography in Tokyo, Japan- Tokyo scenes taken--mostly in Black &
White--by Billy Woolfolk. (contributed by Billy Woolfolk)
Black And White Street Photography Of Peter Thoshinsky- Black and white street photography
from the perspective of a street cop. (contributed by Peter T)
Enrico Gallingani Photography- Street Photography and Urban Abstraction (contributed by
Enrico Gallingani)
Street Photography
●
●
●
●
Striking Images from 5 different Continents- Images that capture the moment in 40 different
countries. (contributed by Todd Brown)
Digitalstockart.com- Come check out the raw photographic ability of professional kodak digital
cameras. COmbined with high tech digital editing. (contributed by Michael Maddaloni)
Side-ways- This site may not fall under the regular definition of street photography, but it
defenitely is literally street photography that is shown. (contributed by Beer Clement)
Sydney Unposed- In-close, colour people photographs taken in and around Sydney (Australia)
from 1998 onwards. Street shots; beach scenes; photos taken at sporting venues and indoors in
supermarkets, stores or malls. All images were taken from the front (Say No To Butt
Photography!) and at 2-3m using 50mm or 35mm lenses. (contributed by Andrew Nemeth)
●
no rules. street photography- can you live without the rules? (contributed by fiveam T)
●
Interpretive Street Photography- A different approach to 'street' photography. (contributed by
Tom Watson)
●
●
Contact Photos- Contactphotos.com is the website of photographies showcasing the work of
photographer Arnaud Blanchard. (contributed by Arnaud Dine)
Sladephotography- Some nice photos from Europe and Asia. Mainly B&W. (contributed by jordi
vollom)
●
●
●
●
amsterdam based photography- a personal site of me displaying some amsterdam based and
travel related photos, also some portraits and other work, love some comments, its still not very
well selected and organized. (contributed by Jasper Uhlenbusch)
Pink Headed Bug- John Brownlow's site showcasing his own street photography. He also runs a
street photography mailing list on Topica. (contributed by Peter Norby)
Street Snapshots- Professional works in B&W and Color.intresting snapshot in street
photography (contributed by Kamran Khoshi)
Grabshot- Website showcasing the informal 'human environment' images of UK stock
photographer Ian Watts. (contributed by Ian W.)
Street Photography
●
●
●
●
●
●
kijkgat - streetphotography mostly 50mm- streetphotography by dutch photographer Nils
Vermaning, all pictures in black&white and mostly 50mm (contributed by nils vermaning)
Street Photography Forum- An add free, pop up free forum to discuss street photography and post
images. (contributed by David Russell)
Streetwise Photography by Lee McLaughlin- A collection of moving images shot on the street
around the world. Some heart-wrenching, some funny - people caught on the strteet going about
their lives. After three decades of street photography it is time to publish a book. Here are a few
images from this collection. (contributed by Lee McLaughlin)
Street Photography by Lee McLaughlin - Lessons for Street Shooting- I love the street. I love
people. I truly thrive on the experience of capturing those fleeting moments of irreverance and
humor. I almost allways carry a camera at the ready. Usually 2. Currently I am using Canon
10D's... one with a 12-24mm lens for my close up work and the other body with a 100-400 for the
stuff that I can't get close to. Although I can shoot from 'a safe distance', I prefer to be in close
proxcimity to my subjects. To talk with them and exchange energy in some way that is not
invasive. I do this with a smile and an honest heart. I have been all over the world and I have very
little trouble in my photographic pursuits. I recommend frequent smiles and digital gear as the
best tools for street shooting anywhere. Happy hunting. (contributed by Lee McLaughlin)
OBLEKTIFIMDEN -Photo- Meyve photos (contributed by pepino pepino)
Freelance Photographer- Street photography from my daily walking and moving around.
Professional quality images, but with a touch of quirky built right in! (contributed by Roy
Caratozzolo)
●
Richard Abrams B&W Photography- B&W street photographs from around the world,
concentrating on musicians, street performers, laborers, and just plain folks. (contributed by
Richard Abrams)
●
Photos of Countries- A collection of more than 1500 photos of daily life scenes from more than
30 countries by photographer Hans Rossel (contributed by hans rossel)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Street Photography
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of computers
photo.net nature forum
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
The photo.net Nature Photography Pages
...nature has ceased to be what it always had been - what people needed protection from
Now nature - tamed, endangered, mortal - needs to be protected from people.
When we are afraid, we shoot. But when we are nostalgic, we take pictures
Susan Sontag - On Photography (Commenting on Photo Safaris)
By Bob Atkins for photo.net.
You may also wish to visit the Bob Atkins Photography pages
"The FoundView checkmark guarantees that a given photograph depicts only the forms
and shapes that were seen at the scene when the picture was taken."
This site supports the efforts of the FoundView organization
If you would like to contribute an article to these pages, please take a look the article contribution page]
http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/ (1 of 4)7/3/2005 2:18:51 AM
I would like to thank all those who have sent in contributions to these pages and, of course, Philip
Greenspun without whom these pages would not be possible.
Discussion Forum
●
Nature Photography Q&A Forum - Database backed and searchable. Always something
here.
❍ Here are a few selected threads from the discussion forum:
❍ Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods
❍ Good, cheap, Older Equipemnt for nature photography
❍ Why do you do nature photography?
❍ Where and when to photograph birds in Florida
❍ Image manipulation and ethics in nature photography
Guides and Reference Articles
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The Nature Photography Guide - A good place to start
Composition:Getting beyond the Snapshot by Gloria Hopkins
Composition II: Composition in Nature Photography and the Elements of a Photograph by Gloria
Hopkins Starting out in Nature Photography A beginner's guide to chosing equipment.
Carry-on Luggage Restrictions Will it fit on an aircraft?
Telephoto Zooms and Teleconverters by Bob Atkins
Photography of the Sun, Moon and Stars - by Bob Atkins
Hand Picked Links - Just what it says, links to nature photography sites! Check for what's
Butterfly Photography by Jakub Jasinski
Mirror Lock Up by Bob Atkins. What it is and why it's needed
Magic Light by Larry Sizemore - Some thoughts on the qualities of light
Macro Photography by Philp Greenspun on photo.net.
Shooting Nature with the Yashica Mat 124G by Darron Spohn
General Bird Photography FAQ by Arthur Morris
Macro photography with the Canon EOS system - from the EOS FAQ. Extension tubes and
dipoters
Reciprocity Correction data - How to modify/filter long exposures on slide film (Kodak and Fuji)
Field Ethics
●
●
Effects of Flash Photography on Nocturnal Birds
Ethical Nest Photography - A guide by Grover Larkins.
Equipment Reviews from photo.net
●
●
●
●
Canon
Nikon
Pentax
Tripods and heads
Photo.net nature reviews (not currently in the photo.net review section)
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Kinesis "SafariSack" beanbag
Canon EF500/4.5L USM
Canon EF75-300 and EF100-300 lenses
Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods - Models 1227 and 1325
Bogen Ball Heads - Models 3038, 3055 and 3262
Bogen Tripods - Models 3021, 3001 and 3051
Tamron 300/2.8 LD (IF)
Canon wide angles for nature work; 24/2.8, 28-105/3.5-4.5 and 20-35/3.5-4.5
Kinesis L525 Long Lens Bag
Image Critique
●
Introduction and Rules
Travel and Locations
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Tundra Swans in the NJ Pine Barrens by Bob Atkins
Viewing and Photographing Mountain Gorillas in Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda by Kelly
Flynn
Churchill by Frank Brabec. Polar bears and birds in northern Canada.
Galapagos by Shun Cheung.
Yellowstone National Park by Frank Brabec
The Florida Everglades by Grover Larkins
Yellowstone Trip Report by Ted Hendy
Kenya Photo Safari by Shun Cheung
Antarctica and South Georgia Island by Shun Cheung
●
●
●
●
Venice Rookery (Florida) by Shun Cheung
Brazos Bend State Park, Tx by Jim Bridges
Calling with camera and tent on the emperor penguins (Antarctica) by Fritz Pölking
Southern Utah National Parks by Shun Cheung
Top Photo: (C) Copyright Robert M. Atkins, All rights reserved.
Western Coyote, Yosemite NP, Canon EOS system, EF 300/4L lens.
Bob Atkins
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of mp3 players/accessories
Choosing a Computer System for Digital Imaging
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
This
by Darron Spohn, January 2002
article discusses what you need to consider when choosing a computer system
for digital imaging work. Digital imaging, in this context, is defined as getting a
still photograph into a computer and preparing that photograph for printing. If you
are shooting with digital cameras you can skip the section on scanners. This article
will discuss general principles in choosing a system, but will not delve into specific
hardware recommendations.
Computer hardware is evolving rapidly. What is state of the art today will be off
the market in nine months.
Choosing a Monitor
This discussion starts with monitors for the simple reason that the monitor is
critical to a digital imaging system. Just as light is the most important element in a
photograph, the monitor is the most important component in the digital imaging
workstation.
Get a monitor that gives you control over the individual electron guns. This may
take a bit of research on your part, but it is essential to matching screen display
with printed output. Another consideration is aperture grill versus shadow mask.
Aperture grill monitors are sharper than shadow mask monitors. This is not
important in most tasks, but when you're looking at a 24x30 inch image at actual
size to clone out dust and scratches it is vital that you have the sharpest monitor
possible. Research the various manufacturers' web sites for specifications. Look at
the aperture grill models only, and make sure you see something that states the
monitor gives you individual controls over the R,G, and B intensity, and the white
point settings.
You also want a monitor with a flat screen. These cost a bit more, but are well
worth the extra expense. The flatter screen means you won't stare at distorted
corners when you're working on your images. Spend the extra money and get the
flat-screen.
http://www.photo.net/photo/computers (1 of 33)7/3/2005 2:19:07 AM
Then consider size. Most people assume bigger is better. It isn't. Look over the
specs carefully. You'll notice that smaller monitors are significantly sharper than
larger monitors. Seventeen-inch to 19-inch monitors offer the best compromise
between sharpness and screen area. This has not changed in the last 10 years. The
problem is that a 17-inch or 19-inch monitor is too small for your images and all
the tool palettes you'll need to work on them. The solution is to use two monitors.
Get a 15-inch monitor for holding your tool palettes. You won't believe how much
time this will save you until you use a dual-monitor setup.
LCD monitors are just now (early 2002) maturing to the point where they may be
useful for critical color work. Their advantage is a smaller footprint than CRTs,
meaning they take up less desk space. LCD monitors do not flicker like CRTs, so
are easier on your eyes during long work sessions. The disadvantage is that LCD
monitors remain two to three times as expensive as CRTs with the same usable
pixel dimensions.
Calibrating the Monitor
You need a monitor that gives you hardware control over the white point and the
individual electron guns so you can calibrate it properly. PhotoShop ships with a
built-in software calibrator. The Macintosh OS ships with a Calibration Control
Panel. Adobe ships Adobe Gamma with PhotoShop. Ignore these tools. They're
good enough for non-critical work, such as desktop publishing or web
development, but the only way to properly calibrate a monitor is with a hardware
sensor to measure the colors, and software that lets you adjust the red, green, and
blue separately. Optical makes a very nice calibrator for a good price, but - as with
all things in the computer industry - things will change with time. Ask on the photo.
net non-archived forum for current choices.
How Much RAM Do You Need?
Before deciding how much RAM to purchase you need to decide how you're going
to scan your photos. If you want a home desktop scanner for getting 35mm images
into your computer you'll need a lot less RAM than someone who shoots 4x5 film
and sends slides to a service bureau for drum scanning.
Also consider how much post-scan manipulation you'll perform on the files.
Cleaning up dust and scratches does not increase file sizes. Using multiple
adjustment layers in PhotoShop can easily double or triple the file size. Keeping
these files in RAM so your computer doesn't access the scratch disk frequently will
speed your work tremendously. For example, consider a typical 35mm slide
scanned on a home desktop film scanner. These usually come in around 25MB.
Add some adjustment layers and you may be working on a 75MB file. If you shoot
medium format or 4x5 film and send your slides to a service bureau for drum
scanning you'll receive 300MB files. Add a few adjustment layers to those and you
can see the file swell to 900MB. That is when 1GB RAM can quickly become too
little, and you'll hear your scratch disk churning away as PhotoShop writes
information to the disk.
If you're working on 35mm images you'll want 512MB RAM to give enough room
for the OS, PhotoShop, and other applications. Larger formats require more RAM.
The answer is simple: get as much RAM as your computer will hold.
Choosing the Computer
Processor speed is not as important as you might think. This statement will seem
quaint in 10 years, but computers have gotten so fast that processor speed is a
secondary consideration. PhotoShop craves RAM. Budget for RAM first, then
decide how fast a computer you can afford.
Macintosh, PC, or Linux?
This is a never-ending debate here and on many discussion boards. Because of the
volatile nature of computer hardware, any recommendations in this article will be
outdated in a few years. Who knows what is coming down the line three to five
years from now? But you have a decision to make, and you're spending a lot of
money on a system, so you want to get the best platform for the long term. If you
post a question on the non-archived forum regarding platform choice you'll get
conflicting opinions from both Macintosh and Windows camps, with perhaps a
Linux proponent chiming in.
The best advice is to study the current market and see which platform offers the
best color management tools. As of this writing, the Macintosh still leads in the
color management department, but Windows has made great strides. Linux, despite
its devoted following, does not offer much in the way of color management. Only
you can decide which platform is best for you. Just don't swallow the old "(Insert
platform here) has the most software available" argument. How much software do
you need? If that software is available for a particular OS, then that platform will
work for you. What is more important, preparing your photos for printing or
playing games?
Also consider the processor's true speed, not just its MHz rating. Judging processor
speed by MHz rating is like judging a car's speed by the size of its engine. There
are other variables at play here. The following information will be outdated
quickly, but it serves as a reminder to do your research and consider the total
package before making a decision. Apple's current G4 computers top out at
867MHz. Intel's Pentium processors top out around 2Hz. Taken at face value, you
would assume the Intel-based computers are twice as fast as Power Macintosh
computers. They aren't, at least not in PhotoShop. The G4 is a RISC chip, and
processes more instructions per cycle than do the Pentium chips. The 867MHz G4
is actually as fast or faster in PhotoShop than the 2GHz Pentium IV. Ironically, the
1.3GHz Pentium III is faster than Intel's latest Pentium IV. Again, do your research
on current models so you don't make an expensive mistake.
Almost any computer you can buy today is more than fast enough for all but the
most demanding professional needs. Expansion room is more important than RAW
speed. Most bottom-of-the-line computers have limited expansion capabilities,
making them unsuitable for using as a digital workstation.
The decision often comes down to your comfort with a platform. Unless you are
willing to learn a new operating system and its foibles, you're better off sticking
with what you know how to troubleshoot. When something goes wrong you need to
fix it, not wait around a few days while a friend gets time to come over or you have
to take the computer to a shop and pay shop rates for fixing a software problem.
Hard Drives
Go for capacity. A few years ago SCSI drives were the only game in town for
digital imaging. No longer. Today's ATA drives are often just as fast as SCSI
drives, and cost less than one-third what an equivalent size SCSI drive costs. You
can spend more money on a SCSI drive and save a few seconds here and there
while you're opening and closing files, but the day will come soon when you need
more capacity. Those seconds will seem unimportant when you find yourself
installing a larger drive so you can work on your images. Go for capacity. You
won't regret it. Get a 7200 RPM drive with a 1MB or larger cache, and make sure
the access time is under 9 ms. If your computer doesn't have one already, invest in
an Ultra ATA 100 or faster drive controller too.
Whatever computer you choose, make sure it has multiple drive bays and a power
supply that can support the drives. You will run out of drive space eventually.
Adding a drive is easier that replacing a drive, and less expensive than adding an
external drive.
Having multiple drives opens another possibility; striping. You can buy software
that writes to two drives simultaneously, yielding noticeable gains in read/write
performance. This used to be the exclusive domain of SCSI, but recent software
works on ATA drives as well. Most of the new ATA controllers include striping
software.
Backup and Storage
There is a plethora of storage options available, and the future will undoubtedly
bring more. Current choices include CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, and DVD-RW. ZIP
and JAZ drives, although available as of this writing, are not suitable for digital
imaging. ZIP disks are too expensive per MB, and Jazz drives never caught on in
the marketplace.
CD-R (CD Writable) media are the least expensive of your choices. One
disadvantage is you cannot change the information once you write it to a CD. That
is also an advantage, as you cannot accidentally overwrite your files. Also, if you
write multiple sessions to a CD you'll see multiple CD icons on your screen when
you pop the CD into your computer to retrieve a file. This is a minor annoyance
unless you write dozens of sessions on one CD.
CD-RW (CD Rewritable) has the advantage of allowing you to write over existing
data, much like your computer's internal hard drive. This can be a disadvantage if
you delete an important file. CD-RW blanks are currently much more expensive
than CD-R media.
DVD-R (DVD Writable) writes to DVD discs, of course. The advantage is DVDs
can store much more data than CDs. The disadvantage is that writing that data can
take a long time. This is not an issue if you use them only for backup. Start your
backup program before you go to bed and remove the media in the morning.
DVD-RAM (DVD Rewritable) is more versatile than DVD-R, but the blanks cost
more.
Also consider how you will share files with service bureaus and editors. Every and
service bureau editor has a CD drive. Not all have DVD drives. If you're working
with a service bureau it is a simple matter of asking them what media they can
accept. If you work with just a few editors you can do the same. However, if you're
sending work out to many media seeking work, CD is the safest route.
Don't buy your blank media at a discount computer store. You can never know
where the media were manufactured, and thus have no idea how the disks are long
term. Buy known brands, or go to CR Recordable.com and order online.
Scanning
Before deciding on a scanner you need to decide what you want to do with your
images. Do you want to print 8x10s from an inkjet printer? Or do you want 30x40
fine art prints? Any desktop film scanner will do a decent enough job for making
small prints from an inkjet printer. Only a drum scanner will capture enough
information for 30x40 fine art prints. There is a middle ground of course, but you
should carefully consider your needs, your standards, and the limitations of
affordable scanners before deciding to purchase one.
Scanner manufacturers throw around DPI and Dmax ratings to impress consumers.
DPI improves with each generation, and advertised Dmax ratings of home scanners
inch closer to those of drum scanners with each new introduction. Be very skeptical
of these claims, especially when it comes to Dmax. There is no industry standard
for measuring Dmax, so marketing departments are pretty much free to claim
whatever figures they think will drive sales.
Even worse, no manufacturer publishes signal-to-noise ratios. S/N is the biggest
drawback to home desktop scanners. You can find several models with similar DPI
and Dmax ratings, but when you use them you'll see noticeable differences in
noise. Compare those scanners with a drum scan, and you'll clearly see the
difference. Where drum scanners capture clean details, home scanners exhibit
muddiness. This is not an issue for 90 percent of the people using home scanners.
As mentioned, they're good enough for printing to inkjet printers.
Don't let this dissuade you from buying a desktop film scanner. They're certainly
good enough for most peoples needs. Newspapers around th world use desktop
scanners and get results far better than in the old days of shooting halftones and
color separations. Desktop scanners serve well to get your work in your computer,
where you can publish it on the Internet or write it to CD to send to prospective
clients. And inkjet prints, when done properly, are indistinguishable from lab
prints. But if you're after that last 10 percent of quality, nothing you can afford to
buy will do the job.
This is where service bureaus come in. They can afford the best equipment because
they can spread the cost out over hundreds of customers. Beware, though, that not
all service bureaus are created equal. The majority of them specialize in prepress
scanning, and their standards are simply not high enough for the fine art market.
Look for a service bureau that employs fine art photographers and specializes in
working with the fine art market. The photo.net archives contain many
recommendations for good service bureaus.
Software Choices
There are many choices, but only one standard. PhotoShop is the standard. Every
service bureau has PhotoShop installed on its computers. If you're going to work
with a service bureau, PhotoShop is your only choice. The publishing industry
grew up with PhotoShop, and there is an entire sub-industry devoted to making
PhotoShop work better than even Adobe intended.
But is PhotoShop your only choice for home use? It depends upon your budget and
comfort level of striking out into uncharted territory. If you can afford PhotoShop,
and need occasional help when things don't go exactly right, then get it. Most
bookstores have entire sections devoted to PhotoShop, so you can easily find
tutorials and guides for this software. If you have a lower budget, or a pioneering
spirit, your choices are more flexible.
Photo Elements is a scaled down version of PhotoShop available for Windows and
Macintosh platforms. It doesn't have all the features of PhotoShop, but if you just
want to use a cheap film scanner to get images on the web and share with friends
and family, PhotoShop Elements does the job. Be aware, though, that PhotoShop
Elements will not let you use ICC profiles, making it unsuitable for critical color
work.
Corel PhotoPaint has its admirers, and is also available for multiple platforms.
People with experience using PhotoPaint are welcome to add comments at the
bottom of this article.
For Linux users Linux, the GIMP is a nice image editor. As mentioned previously
though, color management tools are lacking, but the GIMP has an excellent
interface and, best of all, it is free. Color management tools may appear as Linux
matures. The GIMP is also available for Windows and Macintosh OS X.
For other recommendations see the Digital Imaging Software category in the
archives.
Printing Choices
How you intend the print your photos will determine everything else. Inkjet output
at home will require far less RAM than preparing files for a high end printer (the
current state of the art is the CSI Lightjet 430). Printing technology changes as
rapidly as computer technology, so study the current market and make your
decision based on today's needs.
Inkjet printers have improved tremendously in the past few years. Early color inkjet
printers had poor archival properties; the prints faded into oblivion in a matter of
months. Printer manufacturers and third parties have improved their inks and
papers to the point where inkjet prints can often exceed the life of minilab prints.
They can look better too, if you prepare the files properly. If you want to share
prints with friends and family, inkjets are the way to go.
But if you have higher aspirations, you'll need more computer power and a better
scan than you can get at home. Again, this is where service bureaus come in.
You're not going to get fine art quality out of a home printer, no matter how good
inkjet printers get. They'll always lag behind the state of the art, because of cost
simple engineering economics. A $250 inkjet printer cannot be designed and built
to the same standards as a $250,000 continuous tone printer. Consider your needs
and make your choices.
Should you get an inkjet printer for proofing your images before sending them to a
service bureau for high end output? Absolutely not. This statement is going to stir
come controversy, but consider the ramification. Proofing on one device for output
on another device throws more variables into the equation. Those of use who
struggled with math in school understand the importance of minimal variables.
Proof on the same device you use for final output and you'll avoid a lot of
headaches.
Budgeting Decisions
Now you're ready to get down to the details. Where do you spend your money?
Choose a monitor or, preferably, monitors. Buy an excellent monitor for your
working monitor, then get a cheap one for your tool palettes. Next, decide how
much RAM you'll need. Look up the price of RAM, and plug it into your
spreadsheet. Then add in the software. Now you'll see how much you have left over
for a computer and peripherals.
Low end system
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
512MB minimum for working with 35mm originals
Software = PhotoShop or other
Monitors = 17-inch for images, 15-inch for tool palettes
Backup device = CD-RW
Scanner = low end film scanner
Printer = inkjet for sharing files with friends and family
Hardware calibrator for monitor
Computer = Whatever is left in your budget
High end system
●
●
1GB minimum, but more is better
Software = PhotoShop, there is no other clear choice
●
●
●
●
●
●
Monitors = 17-inch or 19-inch for images, 15-inch for tool palettes
Backup device = CD-RW, DVD-RAM optional
Hardware calibrator for monitor
Printer = Laser printer for business use, let your service bureau worry about
proof prints
Scanner = Don't bother. Do it right and send your originals to a service
bureau for drum scanning.
Computer = Whatever is left in your budget
One More Consideration
If you're serious about the fine art market, you should honestly evaluate your
computer skills and the cost versus the benefit of preparing the files yourself.
Doing the prep work gives you absolute control over the final image, but do you
have the skills and inclination to sit in front of the computer and prep the files
yourself? Do you know how to set up a color management workflow that will
succeed outside your home or office?
Before the advent of digital imaging very few photographers bothered printing their
own color work. They'd shoot the images, then drop off the film at a lab for
processing and printing. Unless you have extensive darkroom experience you'll
find this whole process frustrating. And it will not put money in your pocket. Think
about this if you're running a business. You might find that you're better off letting
a service bureau work with your files so you can spend your time generating new
images. Your images are your income, after all.
Conclusion
You need RAM, but you also need a monitor with hardware control over the
individual electron guns. If you cannot calibrate the monitor, you will not know
what your print will look like. You will then churn out endless trial-and-error
proofs trying to get a good print. Fortunately, you can save money by purchasing a
smaller monitor. Buying a 17-inch image monitor and a 15-inch palette monitor is
less expensive than buying a 21-inch monitor, and gives you more screen real
estate. Unless your workspace is cramped, buy two monitors. You will be glad you
did.
Do not sacrifice RAM in your budget. Without adequate RAM you'll find your
system painfully slow, no matter what processor it features. You're better off with
maximum RAM and a slower processor than with minimum RAM and a faster
processor.
Operating systems are a tertiary, although important, consideration. Both Apple's
Macintosh OS and Microsoft's Windows have more applications available than you
will need, and both can run the one critical image editor you will need. If you're
printing at home exclusively your image editor choices are extensive. If you're
printing commercially or sending your files to a service bureau, then you will need
Adobe PhotoShop. As mentioned above, the digital graphics art industry grew up
with PhotoShop, and it is the one application you can know will work at any
service bureau worth using.
But Ultra ATA hard drives in the largest capability you can afford. This is one
purchase you can safely put off until you need the extra capacity. Hard drives are
getting larger, faster, and cheaper all the time, so waiting is a good idea anyway.
Buy a computer with plenty of expansion room. You'll want internal hard drives
unless you need to carry your drives from place to place.
This information will help you decide what computer equipment you need, but you
have to decide if digital imaging is right for you. Computers, like cameras, are
tools. Having the right tools to do the job is important, but the right tools are
useless unless you have the skills necessary to use them. If you have those skills
then you're well on your way to success. If you don't have the skills then you'll
need professional help. There are many people offering digital imaging workshops,
and they're a great way to start.
Photo Classroom run by West Coast Imaging
Santa Fe Workshops
Reader's Comments
You're not going to get fine art quality out of a home printer, no matter how good
inkjet printers get.
My experience (including dye sub, Frontier and Lightjet) has been quite the
opposite, though I'd be glad if someone could point me to an output device that
produces a better image than my Canon 800 inkjet.
-- Vuk Vuksanovic, January 16, 2002
Some would argue that the Epsons are better. One problem with Canon's 800 is it is
limited to 8x10. Canon has a new printer coming out that will address this issue
though. The other Epson advantage is more papers to choose from including some
very nice matte papers.
The high end Nikon 8000 desktop scanner can scan Medium format and costs
around $3000. The quality is probably good enough for most purposes.
If you use a digital SLR be aware that Kodak seems to favour the Apple platform
somewhat and if you shoot with a Canon and want to use RAW files, a Windows
PC will offer you many more options. Canon's own software is poor but they make
an SDK for the PC platform only which has resulted in several excellent third party
applications.
-- Andrew Grant, January 16, 2002
About the different kinds of drives, I think deciphering the family of DVD drives is
probably one of the most confusing decisions when building a computer system
nowadays. This is a good link from CNET if anybody wants to learn about the
different types.
http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1091-8-6270835-5.html?tag=st.co.1091-86270835-1.txt.1091-8-6270835-5
IMO, I disagree with the article that DVD-RAMs are more versatile than DVD-R/
RWs. I think it depends on whether you find use for DVD-RAM's double sided
disks or not. Unlike DVD-RAMs, DVD-R/RWs can author movie disks(using
DVD-R disks) which may be important to some, and they are generally faster than
DVD-RAMs. DVD-R/RW seems like the most popular format right now (I think
this is what Apple's Superdrive basically is), but the DVD+RW (not mentioned
here) is also popular since it allows you to use the drive like a hard drive, but it
may not be as economical as the DVD-R/RW, depending on your usage. Confused?
So am I;)
As far as the different types of CD-R/RWs to get and some other good information
on them, here's another good article.
http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1091-8-8020643-1.html?tag=st.co.1091-88020643-4.subnav.1091-8-8020643-1
I thought it was interesting that budget Comp/USA disks had a lower BLER
(BLock Error Rate)than the pricey Sony disks. The Yamaha disks though
outperformed them all. However, as the article mentions, you should not expect any
consistency from budget CD-R/RWs like the CompUSA ones, because they may
use different OEMs for different batches.
About striping your disks, if you're planning to do this, it's worth mentioning that
you need to make sure you buy 2 disks that are *identical*. Also keep in mind that
striping (RAID 0), will also increase the chances of disk failure since you are
splitting your data between 2 disks, and if one of them dies, all is lost. Having said
that, I still use a RAID drive on my computer, and just make sure to back up my
data every now and then. I'd also recommend motherboards with hardware RAID
controllers rather than software RAID control.
-- Tommy Huynh, January 16, 2002
On the G4 side, take a look at the Acard IDE PCI card - it gives you four more IDE
(ATA100) drives, and has hardware raid. Superfast, and exceptionally stable. Also,
in the DVD issues, having a drive like the Pioneer mounted in the latest Apple
products not only allows you to save files, but the included software lets you make
slide shows on DVD for clients. A good way to show off a portfolio, and at 5 bucks
a disk, beats the heck out of prints cost-wise:)
-- Robert Landrigan, January 16, 2002
Speeding up your machine for extensive processing.
Okay, just a few words from experience; my company (one of the big US imaging
companies) builds a specialist solution for high speed Photoshop and image post
processing. The input files are 75-100mb in size from a specialist scanner, but the
image manipulation is faily standard - cleanup/scratch removal/sharpen/etc... using
custom tools and Photoshop as an option.
The core spec machines is: 2*PIII 1ghz
1gb RAM
Promise IDE RAID - with 2 pairs of 2*40gb-9ms-2mb cache-7200RPM disks
(Striped to RAID 0 for speed)
Running Win2k Pro
The big speed gain in part comes from the dual processor, but mainly from the
RAID subsystem, which is surprisingly inexpensive. All the parts for this can be
bought surprisingly inexpensively (not sure of $ price, but les than a comparable
Dell box) and it blazes through the applications. Win 2k or Winnt4 will let you
make the most of the speed.
Hope this might help...
-- Paul Gittins, January 17, 2002
A point that needs to be emphasised when considering striping drives for speed:
this will half the reliability of your drives. Backup then becomes critical, and the
risk of downtime rebuilding a system goes up. That's not to say striping is all bad,
but it's something to bear in mind.
-- Rodger Donaldson, January 17, 2002
It's nice to see some general recommendations here, but I think two important
aspects are completely missed:
1) Establishing a color management workflow is not the simplest of tasks. Expect
to spend substantial money and/or time "learning the ropes" until you get the
required results.
2) No matter how much money you have and no matter how much hardware you've
bought, learning PhotoShop intimately will take a long time. Don't expect to see
magnificent results overnight.
-- Dan Wolfgang, January 17, 2002
..."Should you get an inkjet printer for proofing your images before sending them to
a service bureau for high end output? Absolutely not."...
I really don't understand this comment. This is common practice. It's farily simple
to profile a certain printer and duplicate its output on a good inkjet. Certain inkjets
can be used with software like Adobe PressReady - which does a fantastic job at
simulating CMYK press output on cheap inkjets. HP has just started shipping a
whole line of pre-press proofing inkjets (starting at $800).
-- Steven Lyons, January 17, 2002
Perhaps this title should have read "Choosing a(n) (Ideal) Computer..."? Albeit the
thrust of this article is to address new computer system purchasers but there are
many of us out here running with adequate (as per Adobe specs) systems that may
only need a bit of tweaking. Yes, our systems are slower and Yes, they may be less
than desirable but probably are 'good enough' to start with.
As example, I'm printing with an Epson 880. With this printer I lose out on having
6 colors (mine is 4) printing with 'longlife' inks (definitely not mine). But while this
printer is a 'family' printer with school reports being run through it, I'll forego the
better image quality for cost savings.
The way I look at this is that I'm still in a learning curve manipulating images in
my spare time (I have another real day job to pay for my hobby) and until I get
more comfortable with all the aspects of digital manipulations...I'll make do
(realizing my limitations).
After all, I may dream of a Porsche but I won't buy one to learn to drive with.
-- Richard H. Weiner, January 17, 2002
Doug, establising a color management workflow is a whole 'nother article. I've got
mine down pat, but I'm not sure I have the experience to write an article outside the
scope of what I'm doing. Any volunteers?
-- Darron Spohn, January 18, 2002
My 2 cents:
Backup and Storage.
A mere 2400 dpi, 16 bit/channel TIFF scan from a 35mm slide frame is about 50
megs. This is almost 10% of a CD! And, if you are serious about preprocessing,
you want to save a separate copy of the same image on different stages of
preprocessing so you can easily revert to any later on. Think about it if you do tons
of scans and want to use CD as your storage.
Scanning.
Selecting your desktop scanner be very careful not to go with total amateur
solution. While result of one frame scans from many scanners may be very similar,
it is your time that counts here. Make sure that your selection equipment:
- can be properly calibrated,
- has auto-focus capability,
- can batch process bulk loads of frames slides,
- can batch process strips of 35 mm film,
- can batch process entire rolls of 35 mm film,
- works with Silver Fast (or something alike),
- automatically removes impressions of dust/scratches (read about digital ICE),
- supports some fast connection to the computer (SCSI or, I guess, USB 2.0).
These requirements will make sure that your will not spend most of your time
scanning you photos.
I would also slightly disagree with Darron as far as drum vs desktop scanners
quality comparison. Some relatively cheap scanners can give you the same quality
as many drum ones. It is the processing time and high specialization (features like
built-in CMYK separation) that makes drum scanners better for large print shops.
Printing Choices.
Consider sending scanned, preprocessed files to a digital lab. They will "print" your
work on a real photographic paper. Of course, based on your targeted audience
(friends/family vs fine art) you may want to select different labs that give you
different processes, results, source scans requirements and, finally, prices.
-- Pawel Loj, January 20, 2002
I'll confine my comments to the PC world since I'm not very familiar with Macs.
SCSI: What makes great is not so much ultimate speed and throughput but that it
offloads the I/O processing from your CPU. This means that you system will
continue to be responsive when moving a lot of data. ATA100 (and now ATA133)
disks will move a lot of data quickly but they will bog down the main CPU making
the machine unresponsive. Som IDE RAID controllers will also offload the
processing similar to a SCSI controller. I have used and own both SCSI and IDE
based systems and the SCSI systems are more responsive.
Processor: Seriously consider going to a dual processor system. Once again, this is
about not having the system bog down. Dual processors will make multi-tasking
much easier.
If my budget were limited, I'd probably pick dual processors over SCSI.
-- Paul Wilson, January 21, 2002
I felt like this article just lacked the "meat" that I was hoping it would have.
Leaving out the mid-range options seems like a mistake to me. I'm using the Canon
FS4000US scanner and Epson 1280 Photo printer, and am having a great time with
the digital darkroom. I'm blown away by the quality that I'm getting right off the
bat; I'm sure I'll improve as I learn new techniques. This article came across to me
as relatively discouraging -- the exact opposite of the experience I'm having right
now.
-- Scott Hill, January 21, 2002
Vincent J M:
You post: "look at the Wilhelm research fiasco". I have used the Wilhelm pages for
deciding on printer and paper. Has something happened (fiasco) that I have not
seen?
-- Per-Christian Nilssen, January 25, 2002
Scott Hill is right on with his comments, I too use a Canon FS4000 scanner at the
input end and an Epson 2000p at the output end, and I am very pleased with the
prints I produce with these peripherals. My computer is a thrift shop mac 7300 that
I maxed out to 512 megs of ram it works fine with photoshop elements and the
Canon scanner plug in.
-- Richard Alan Fox, January 25, 2002
I am just about to decide for a (probably Epson 1290) printer and have already a
scanner and computer. So, information about reasonably priced system calibration
methods, tricks and solutions are of interest for me. I have already found a few
articles that I will add to the links below. If others know more resources, I would be
glad to hear about them.
-- Philippe Wiget, January 31, 2002
Nice article, Darron. However, I would argue a few points. SCSI hard drives , in
my opinion, are still a better way to go. 1-They don't bog down the CPU when
under heavy load. 2-If you ever do run out of ram, and it does happen, you won't
think your computer just died. 3-And lastly, when opening and closing very large
100 meg or larger files it makes a huge difference. I run a P4 at 2 gig with 1 gig of
fast RDRAM and a Seagate Cheeta spinning at 15,000 rpm. With access times
around 3.6 ms and throughput near 70 megs per second, it does make a big
difference in my work time. At $100 an hour, the SCSI drive has already paid for
itself a couple times over!!
As an example, I just opened a 100 meg tiff file in less than 1 second, rotated it 90
degrees in less than 1 second, and closed it in less than 1 second - while still on the
internet AND running other programs! Photo manipulation is very time consuming
and every bit helps. As for which platform is fastest, that's like saying which is
faster, Ford or Chevy. It depends on which Ford or Chevy, who the mechanic is,
and what he has done to the engine. If anyone would like to do some comp tests, I
am game. We would need the same image. (Easy enough to download a large
image from one of the digital camera sites and make it larger - say 100 megs). I am
always interested in faster ways to work!!!
Again, a great article.
-- Steve Bingham (www.dustylens.com), January 31, 2002
Reading the most recent comment I thought it was pertinent to touch base on the P4
debacle and RAM.
The Pentium 4 is fast in clock speed, but spins its wheels. It just doesn't have the
grunt power needed to truly chug through photoshop work. A 1.13 Ghz Pentium 3
will outpace it in most any imaging process. Also, RDRAM is a relatively lost
cause now. Its pricy and posts minimal speed gains for a considerable increase in
cost, even simple PC133 SDRAM will perform admirable. DDR RAM is probably
the best way to go, however it hasn't realized its full potential, and right now its
hard to say whether it ever will. They hardly stepped in the doorway of second
generation DDR ram, and if they had made it to the third generation as planned,
we'd all be weeping over our modest SDRAM and RDRAM. The third generation
would have been able to produce several times the performance over normal
SDRAM (depending on the system and who's designs you followed) but the overall
performance would have definately been higher.
I guess that's all dreaming right now because the second and third generation DDR
rams haven't yet come to be. Even with that though, an Athlon at approximately
1.2Ghz with 1gb DDR, a Pentium 3 1.13 Ghz with 1Gb PC133 SDRAM or a G4
with 1gb of ram will all perform well, and easily trample all over a Pentium 4
(sorry intel, you blew it).
Incidentally, a rumor in the computer industry that leaked from intel supposedly is
that the P4 will be remarketed as the Celeron. Food for thought.
-- Carl Smith, February 4, 2002
A word about Filesystems, Drives, and OSses
Some here have said many good things about SCSI drives ; it is true that SCSI is
faster, but this is mainly because the fastest drives (ie 15000rpm) are not available
in IDE, and the SCSI controller offloads the processor too. However, regarding the
Bang for Buck, an IDE raid wind hands down because SCSI drives that are faster
than IDE are also horrendously expensive.
Regarding processor load, this depends a lot on the OS too. Win95/98/Me is
incapable of asynchronous I/O, ie. the processor is used 100% during disk accesses.
This is the same for Network accesses. They are also not real multi-task OSses.
They are slow.
XP and 2000 will, on the other hand, work like you'd expect and let the processor
run your apps during disk accesses. An IDE drive will maybe use 5-10% of your
cpu, a SCSI will use <1%, the difference is marginal given the huge price
difference.
XP is a peach and performs very well once you switch off the gimmicks.
Few people know this, but if you use a Windows box, you should really format
your hard drives in FAT32 not in NTFS. My own personal benchmarks indicate
that NTFS is 2 to 100 times SLOWER than the good old FAT32 depending on
what you do. It is almost never faster except in particular situations that never
happen (ie if you put 10000 files in the same directory).
This is the main reason why NT machines seem to run slower and slower as time
goes by. NTFS is a hog on fragmentation, and it is not uncommon to see your
favourite big photoshop scratch file fragmented into several tens of thousands
fragments. My record is more than 20000 fragments for one single file. In such
cases, it is slow as hell.
This is why NTFS has to be defragmented every day at least. FAT32, on the other
hand, fragmentsvery little and will keep your HDD throughput to the max all the
time.
Take care.
-- Pierre Caillaud, February 5, 2002
About monitors, it is not true that Aperture Grill CRTs are generally sharper.
Shadow masked CRTs are generally considered to be sharper than Aperture grills
because the electron beam is more confined. However Aperture grill CRTs
generally give richer, more accurate colors which is what you want if you are
editing photos, especially in the corners where Shadow masked CRTs often suffer
from increased dot pitches and distorted pixels resulting in uneven brightness and
inconsistent color.
-- Tommy Huynh, February 10, 2002
I simply dissagree with the tip about choosing monitor. I work in a computer
business and I see and evaluate a lot of equipment. Generaly an aperture grill
display realy has a very fine dot but this doesn't mean that the picture is sharp and
pleasant for viewing for long hours on a daily basis. Most AG CRTs I have used
(and they were all high priced models) were irritative for my eyes. This was
specialy noticable on high resolutions. And the colors; the black is never near black
when compared to shaddow mask display and the structure of dots on quality
shaddow mask monitor is much more apropriate for viewing and editing photos on
screen and picture also looks more natural and ergonomic (less irritative). But I
have to say that this is so when evaluating high priced shaddow mask monitors like
those from EIZO which I generaly prefer.
-- Joze Volf, February 16, 2002
For those choosing Windows, I would also strongly suggest steering clear of any
Windows 9x/Me platform and choosing Windows XP. Solid as a rock, and a true
multitasking/multiuser OS.
Re. file systems, I have to disagree with one of the comments that you should
choose FAT32 over NTFS on an XP system. When formatting, FAT32 volumes are
limited to a maximum of 32Gb on Win2K/XP. This is a significant limitation,
IMHO. While NTFS does need defragmenting for best performance, this can be
done easily enough. I use a product called DiskKeeper that runs in the background
and keeps my disks defragged automatically. There are many other benefits of
NTFS, including transaction logging, automatic rollback, security, compressed
folders, virtually unlimited partition size, etc.
-- Gary Voth, February 18, 2002
It always amazes me to hear anyone worrying about "archival" print stability from
a print made originally from a negative/positive already scanned into very high
quality digital form. The digital form which is saved on hard disk, cd, or now dvd
will last forever and can be transferred to many other storage device with no loss of
information. But more to the point: you can reprint the digital file anytime you
want and expect nothing but dramatically increased quality every time you print it.
You will throw away many evolutions of cheap ($ 100 to $500) ink jet printers
before you have to worry about achival quality of the prints you've made. You will
be printing them again in 1/10 the time at 10 times the quality of the print you are
now worried about having archival qualities. What strikes me as most important in
this review is the time and cost of "my labor" to produce prints from home
equipment. As much as I hate the cost of letting professionals do it form me, I still
think I'm better off spending my own time taking new photographs than sitting in a
small room fighting with my computer. Someday, however, I'm sure I will have the
latest Mac, scanner, and printer!
-- Larry Kincaid, March 3, 2002
Overall a very well done article. I use PaintShopPro instead of PhotoShop. PSP
(from Jasc Software) handles all my photo manipulation needs and makes TIFF
files which are 100% compatible with Photoshop files. PSP costs less than
Photoshop - enough less that you can buy a SCSI drive with the difference!
-- Ray Paseur, March 5, 2002
One compromise between the processor load of the typical IDE drive and the cost
of SCSI drives is to invest in a high-end IDE RAID card. (A currently-shipping
example is the Adaptec ATA RAID 2400A.) These cards include a dedicated RAID
processor (often an Intel i960-family chip), thus presenting a much smaller load to
the main processor in the computer.
-- Dan Tremitiere, March 14, 2002
Rather than giving a direct feedback to the article, I would rather talk about my
own experience with regards digital darkroom equipment. I have a Mac G4 with
640 MB RAM and 40 G drive. I have an Epson 1280 printer that can print up to
13" x 19" and a midrange Epson Scanner. I use MIS archival dye/pigment inks on
Somerset Archival Photo Enhanced (Textured Finish) watercolor paper. The prints
I get from this set up are museum quality comparable to very expensive giclee that
one can get from service bureaus. BTW, gicleé prints are in reality just prints
printed in expensive inkjet printers using pigment inks on archival fine art
watercolor paper.
Below, are some of the links I went through while doing research on printers, inks
and papers. I hope that you will benefit from these sites as I did.
• http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/ • http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/ • http://
www.tssphoto.com • http://www.visual-artists.com/ • http://www.einks.net/lyson.
html • http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcnew.html • http://
www.legionpaper.com/digital/resellers.htm • http://www.peimag.com/site_central.
htm
-- Ayos Kah, March 26, 2002
Hi,
I enjoyed this article. I was wondering of anyone could elaborate on the dual
monitors. How is it done. Besides a monitor, what do you need.
Andrew
-- Andrew Delianides, March 26, 2002
A quick note about CRT vs LCD. Some profiling software & hardware do not work
with LCDs. For instance, the EZ Monaco color probe does not work with LCDs,
according to the manual.
I don't know if it is just a way to prevent the suction cups from damaging the LCD
screen. Among the links below there is an article from Luminous Landscape which
deals with a Mac product which works with LCDs. In any case, should you choose
to use a LCD, always check if it is compatible with your profiling solution.
-- Fabrizio Giudici, April 11, 2002
Hard Disks: IDE RAID (promise fasttrack 100 with 4 x4 40GB WD ATA100,
raid0) worksfor me, never seen anything better, the only thing that beats it is
SCSI160 raid, and a controller for this is way too expensive. Works awesome on
XP. FAT32 is still way to go (Pierre is right), no it is not limited to 32gb, an
fragmentation of MFT and such is not an issue then. Gary is wrong, and NTFS
really gets slower, and cannot be read from a plain boot disk in case of crash.
DiskKeeper is slowing you down and you have to pay for it too.
Inkjets: Epson 1280 works for me as well, the main cost is still ink and photo
paper, cheaper than any lab print still.
Monitors: I have two 20" trinitrons. Works great as well, got them refurbished at a
great price. Photoshop Interface Improver is nice to have as well. (ATI Radeon
7000 VE card) I could not even think to go back to 15" or 17"!!
-- Carl B, May 10, 2002
A word about Archiving and Storage
Lets look at the basics for a bit, ~20Mb/image will give you no more than 32
images/CD!!! At the rate at which we shoot, we will have to burn 1 cd per "roll".
Add to that the time for burning time. All this equals frustration. RAID drives
sound good for now, but does anyone know about lifetimes on these puppies?
The main question however is, what happens a few years from now when SCSI
drives, RAID, IDE, CDRW and DVDRW, etc. are passe? How does one migrate
upward?
I am struggling with this as my digital collection grows to a few gigs in a few
months. With slides you know you have a tanglible medium in you hand!
Any pearls of wisdom anyone?
-- Ajoy Prabhu (www.AjoyPrabhu.com), May 22, 2002
The following is gleaned from what I have read from reliable online and print
sources as well as my own experience.
Dual monitors (aka Dual Head) -- There are two ways to do this: use a video card
that has two outputs, or use two video cards. I have not tried to use two video
cards; I expect there would be difficulties with resource conflicts. Probably best to
use two cards from the same manufacturer.
Matrox used to be the king of dual-head (and quad, etc.!) cards. Now ATI and
nVidia have also gotten into the act. If you don't care about 3D performance
(mostly used in games), Matrox is still an excellent choice. I have used a number of
their cards, albeit with only one monitor, and had no complaints. Their 2D quality,
which is what you need for photo editing, is legendary. Their software (driver)
support for dual-head is supposed to be good and the cards run about $120 for a
G450 dual-head with 32MB video RAM.
ATI makes a number of dual-head cards. I have a Radeon 8500 which works OK.
ATI's problem has always been with driver support but they seem to be improving.
Their 2D quality is also good. ATI used to make all their own cards but now they
also sell chips to other companies so it is more difficult to know what you are
getting. Lots of choices from <$100 up.
nVidia actually only makes the video chips which they sell to other manufacturers,
so you have to be careful that you are getting a card from a quality manufacturer.
Their 2D quality has been a problem in the past but is now quite good. They have a
good reputation for driver support, but this doesn't necessarily extend to dualhead
support. Dual-head cards using nVidia chips have been something of a compromise
in the past.
update: Matrox is coming out with a new video chipset sometime later in 2002 that
should provide good 3D performance and triple head capability. But it will be
expensive. Also, SiS has begun producing a chipset ("Xabre") that provides dualhead capabilities on the cheap. But I would wait and see on this one. Check out the
review at: http://www.dansdata.com/xabre.htm
Hard drives -- check out the following site:
http://www.storagereview.com/
SCSI vs. IDE/ATA: I think that most people would benefit little from SCSI. Its
main advantages -- faster seek times and the ability to handle multiple access
requests intelligently -- are of use where one needs to get lots of little files spread
all over the disk(s) rather than loading one big image file. Modern IDE/ATA
controllers often use less cpu time than SCSI. A 7200 rpm ATA-100 or ATA-133
drive will give decent performance and double the capacity at half the price of a
10000 rpm U160 SCSI drive. Better to spend your money elsewhere. Seagate and
Maxtor make dependable drives. Avoid IBM; they have had some reliability
problems recently with their IDE/ATA drives.
dual cpu -- Here is a review where they compared Intel and AMD systems using
photoshop and a 50 MB file:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000321
Notice that the dual-cpu setup doesn't provide much benefit. It may be that the
system is limited by RAM bandwidth, or Adobe didn't optimize very well for 2
processors. This may not apply to Mac systems, for which Adobe is known to
optimize photoshop. If you are trying to run many programs at the same time, a
dual-cpu system would probably be more responsive. If the memory performance is
really the limiting factor (as the reviewer claims), then Macintosh systems should
be at a disadvantage relative to the systems in the above article. I haven't seen any
comparisons involving large files on both modern Mac and PC though. Probably
best to pick whichever operating system you feel more comfortable with.
software -- Microsoft started putting useable color profiling in Windows with
Windows 98. It is reportedly identical to what was used on Macintosh at the time.
The Mac version may have been improved since then but I don't know how or what
effect this would have. Adobe Photoshop Elements reportedly *does* support color
profiling. It is limited to sRGB (appropriate for output to a web page) and Adobe
RGB (what you would use to print on your color inkjet). It doesn't support things
like CMYK, which is what commercial printers use. Photoshop LE, etc. do not
support color profiles.
Note that Windows 98 (and possible ME as well) may limit the amount of RAM
you can use to 768MB. Windows XP has a number of drawbacks, mostly related to
security. Windows 2000 is probably the best of the bunch for photo editing.
printing -- With inkjet printers, you aren't buying a printer. You're buying an ink/
paper system. The printer is cheap and not intended to last decades. Would you
want a Leica M2 if you could only use 1950s film with it? Using the latest inks
usually requires the latest printer. Printer companies reportedly don't make money
from the printers; they make it from the ink and paper. This is one reason to buy
name-brand supplies, it supports the companies. I would not buy off-brand ink
anyway as it can ruin the printer.
Ink comes in two basic types, dye or pigment based. Dye based inks don't last as
long as pigment based. Some printers use pigment for black and dye for color.
They cannot be used together, which is why you can get color shifts in the black
areas, especially if you aren't using color profiling correctly. (They use pigment for
black because it gives better text quality.) I only know of one printer that uses
pigment based color inks: Epson 2000P. That is why they claim the images will last
100 years if printed on the correct paper (e.g. Epson heavyweight matte) and
protected from bright light, smog, etc.
There are two ways to squirt the ink onto the paper. One way involves heating
some of the ink to boiling, which produces pressure and forces it through the
nozzle. The other way uses a piezo-electric device, which flexes when current is
passed through it and forces the ink through the nozzle. Printers that use the first
method usually have the head built into the cartridge so it is replaced every time
you buy a new cartridge. This is usually touted as an advantage, but I figure that
they wouldn't do it unless they had to; boiling the ink probably would clog the
nozzles after a while.
There's my two cents worth. Hope it's of use to someone.
-- Brian Breczinski, May 28, 2002
I used digital cameras for a while then realized that while digital images would
only ever be as good as the resolution in which they were taken, negatives could
always be rescanned. Film cameras can be as small as digital and there are some
very sharp cameras around. From an archival point of view your negatives are way
better than a CD too, but when you do this you need more computer than if you just
shoot digital and download the images from the camera.
The Nikon Coolscan 4000 is the cornerstone of the system. It has fairly nice
software included with good download support from Nikon for new versions and is
very easy to use - feed in the negatives, choose output size and format, crop, adjust
color and go. It's quite fast, and works on a Firewire interface, they even include a
PCI Firewire card in the box. I can't scan prints or pages but I don't really need to. I
haven't used any other negative scanners so I don't know if this is really the best but it's very, very good.
A Macintosh dual-1GHz G4 does everything else. It's easy to use and the included
iPhoto software is good enough for checking out what you've scanned, even if it
isn't the best way to organize a lot of images. If you've looked at a Mac before and
rejected it because of the operating system you owe it to yourself to take a look at
MacOS X. Until a month ago I had been a Windows user since version 3.1...
The number one thing is RAM - more is better. It is as cheap now as it has ever
been so go for a full gigabyte. If your vendor is charging more than $100 for 256M
that's way too much - see www.mushkin.com for RAM for any system, with a good
return policy. The second thing is hard disk - storagereview.com provides excellent
reviews of hard drives, and their leader board is a good way to choose the fastest at
any given time. Fast hard drives make a big difference. In IDE right now the
Western Digital 120G with 8M cache (not the 2M cache version) is great. In SCSI
the Seagate X15-36LP series is even better.
Arguments over choice of computing platform are possibly the biggest waste of
time on the internet so take my views with a grain of salt and look at them all
before handing over your money. Most of all be clear about what you expect from
your computer and see your candidate systems do that before committing to
anything. Take along a CD with a >50M TIFF image and see it loaded,
manipulated and printed - if your sales person won't or can't do that they shouldn't
get your money.
-- Adam Eberbach, June 19, 2002
My digital darkroom workhorse? Amiga 1200 w/8Mbs ram, '040 cpu, SCSI drive,
Epson 880 printer, working off Photo CD's (when required), photos scanned on
Windows ME platform in PNG format on HP ScanJet 3200 scanner, and then rewritten to JPEG format on Amiga Cross-Doss for printing at a digital color lab.
Photogenics, Personal Paint, Image FX for image manipulation. Who needs
Photoshop?
-- Juan J. Garza, November 26, 2002
Excellent general article. I'm not sure why the author felt the need to poo-poo
complete home solutions and promote outsourcing for "fine art." Every year massmarketed printers and scanners get closer to the big-bucks hardware. Some will
argue they can't see the difference now.
I love the dual-monitor recommendation since most people rarely think about it.
My ATI Radeon 7500 (now on sale at $75) dual-output is very stable in WinXP
with the latest drivers and two medium-size monitors are way cheaper than one
monster.
One item nobody mentioned is you should not use multi-session CD-R because one
bad write will kill your ability to read the rest of the disk. Not to mention that namebrand CD-R blanks are absurdly cheap now. The storage boxes cost me more than
the disks.
I'm a big fan of RAID 0 on-the-mobo with ATA drives. SCSI drives are just too
expensive and termination-tempermental. As far as reliability, all your irreplaceable
image work is stored on CD-R or other media, right? If not, I can still buy four
ATA drives and get mirroring (reliability) cheaper than the SCSI solution. And for
system crash recovery you DO use back-up software, right?
I have a similar problem with dual-processor mobo's. Good concept but the mobo
price is jacked up so far above single-processor versions it just isn't worth it.
The question of memory is a little trickier. The format (EDO, SDRAM, DDR) is
not so critical if you buy as much as you need up front. More important is to get
decent quality memory. You might not think this but some of the cheapest no-name
memory modules are unstable and will contribute to system instability in
mysterious ways. I do not really understand why this should be so but I have
experienced it myself and so have others.
The article did not dwell much on I/O's but any new box I put together has to have
Firewire and USB2 ports to maximize peripheral choices. Again, for me, SCSI is
entirely optional (been there done that, no big value).
-- Eric Arnold, December 18, 2002
Inkjet printers have improved tremendously in the past few years. Early color inkjet
printers had poor archival properties; the prints faded into oblivion in a matter of
months.
And exactly how many current inkjet printers offer "archival" print stability? Your
only choice is the Epson 2000P (since it has been around a while - I know there are
newer printers too) which is not exactly cheap, and the claims of archival stability
(100? 200 years?) cannot be verified in real life. There is yet no agreement among
the experts on how to measure archival permanence of prints by accelerated testing
- look at the Wilhelm research fiasco.
What I do know is that many prints I have made from Epson 870 printers are fading
after 6 months. They are turning orange. This is at least better than the 3 months
which my Epson 750 gives me. The papers used were Epson PGPP (3 months on a
750) and Premium semi-gloss (6 months, slight but noticeable fading).
Printer manufacturers and third parties have improved their inks and papers to the
point where inkjet prints can often exceed the life of minilab prints.
That's a really tall claim. Have you done real tests? What papers and printers were
tested? Any links? Were Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Royal tested? Who did
the testing and under what conditions? What kind of accelerated aging tests were
done?
-- Vincent J M, December 19, 2002
I thought I'd had a few comments on Corel PhotoPaint, a rather nice digital imaging
program.
My first encounter with a real graphic program was with CorelDraw 3, something
like 10 years ago. (CorelDraw is Corel's vector imaging program, counterpart to
Adobe Illustrator.) My uncle was using it at the time, and I decided to learn about
how it worked. At that time PhotoPaint was a minor add-on to CorelDraw and only
a minor improvement on Windows 3.1 Paint program. As the versions went, Corel
progressively expanded and developped the Corel Draw graphics suite, turning
PhotoPaint in an amazingly powerful program without actually inflating the price
tag.
I haven't tried the latest version (PhotoPaint 12 I believe.) but I've work quite a lot
with versions 7, 9 and 10 and they were all real good. Every time I read a tutorial
about photo editing, it was based on Adobe PhotoShop. Everytime I was able to do
the same thing with PhotoPaint. The tools have the same name. The settings are
very similar. The set of commands in a picture editing program can only vary so
much.
Now I understand that some people really need some of the arcane functions found
only in Adobe PhotoShop. It is also true that for a professional potographer, the
digital editing program is a rather minor part of the investment. But me, I'd rather
pay one third of the price, use the remainder for a bigger monitor or a new lens and
get a nice vector drawing program as an added bonus.
In case I didn't really get my point across, if you're building a digital editing
workstation from scratch, I suggest you take a real good look at Corel PhotoPaint.
Serge
-- Serge Boucher, February 2, 2003
I feel there are some good points and some misleading points made in this article. I
am a graphic designer and have more experience in this area than in my hobby
(Photography). I'll start with the accurate points that should be emphasized. RAM,
RAM,RAM - It's like money, you can't have too much. I personally prefer http://
www.memorytogo.com I spent around 2 hundred for 2 gigs for my mack there
almost 2 years ago. Monitors are very important, but LCD's still haven't reached the
quality found in CRTs when comparing dot pitch, aperature, or pixels per inch. As
far as having two monitors, it's more costly by the time one upgrades the video card
and cables then bying one solid 22inch CRT. Personally I chose the Philips
Professional Brilliance, for price/color control capabilities. The best color control
on the market to my knowlede in that found in Lacie monitor calibration systems.
A point of disagreement regarding the need for less quality for desktop publishing.
I produce posters which are 24'x36" and need not only reproducable fine art quality
imaging but also the ability to create an 8pt type face for a copyright. In terms of
storage capacity DVD's are great for archiving but at around 10 bucs a disk, they
are not the choice for backups. I will add some more points when time allows. One
other note in terms of software. Buy at educational pricing, even if it means you
have to pay 180 bucs at the local community college, you save thousands on
software. To view some educational pricing on software like Photoshop,
Pagemaker, Quark or Wacom Intunous Tablets check out http://www.journeyed.
com
-- Kyle Nolan, February 21, 2003
Concerning CPU and RAM choice, currently the way to go is AMD. On a cost and
performance side the Athlon and the P4 are more or less equivalent. One month the
Intel is the fastest, one month the AMD is: it does not really matter what you have,
just buy a CPU one or two steps behind the cutting edge and you will get the best
performance for your bucks (i.e. right now that would be an Athlon XP 2400+).
Where you really save money is on the RAM: RAMBUS modules (the ones used
by the latest P4 motherboards) are about TWICE as expensive per megabyte as
DDR modules (the ones used by Athlon motherboards)! If you want 1 GB of RAM
that can be a nice amount of money, almost the difference between a (good) CD
burner and a (entry level) DVD burner. Speedwise, in principle RAMBUS should
be faster than DDR. In practice you won't see the difference. Last but not least
when shopping for DDR memory, get the PC-2700 modules (333 MHz bus clock),
not the marginally cheaper PC-2100 (266 MHz). Don't buy PC-3200 (400 MHz)
DDR: most motherboards support only 1 (one) PC-3200 module, that is 512 MB of
RAM. If one day you want/need more memory you'll have to throw away your
hugely expensive super-fast PC-3200 module and get two PC-2700. Well done!
Concerning backup devices, IMHO a CD burner doesn't make much sense: I scan
my 35 mm film on a Canon FS4000 and the resulting Photoshop files are around
100 MB each (at 14 bit/color, 4000 dpi). That means 6 or 7 images per CD.
Ridiculous. Get a DVD burner. Among DVD burners, possibly the best buy at the
moment is the Sony DRU500: it can burn basically any kind of DVD media (DVDR/RW, DVD+R/RW, DVD-RAM...) I have it and it's absolutely great.
Hard disks: I have a humble 120 GB ATA-133 7200 RPM hard disk (not a SCSI)
and I can still open a 100 MB Photoshop file in a few seconds. Whether a SCSI
hard disk is going to be faster than an ATA-133 depends on many factors, but
especially on the SCSI controller you have. Unless you have a fancy controller with
plenty of on board cache, you won't see much of a difference between SCSI and
ATA disks. The ATA's, though, are cheaper and you don't need an additional SCSI
controller that, in my own experience, can be an endless pain in the a** (because of
compatibility and performance issues).
Linux: great OS, I use it at work and I love it, but there is nor a decent color
calibration tool, neither a package comparable to Photoshop (there is "The Gimp",
but I find it doesn't come even close to PS 7, unfortunately).
-- Roberto Totaro, February 24, 2003
Great news! Photoshop Now Works in Linux! http://www.codeweavers.com/
products/office/supported_applications.php
It may not be free, but If you need to keep a windows box around for photo editing
like I do, you can chuck it now.
-- Robert Cohen, April 29, 2003
I just wanted to share my own "backup" sollution. I bought two identical 200Gb
($200 each) disks and installed them as D: and X: on my Windows XP system
(installed on C:). I save all my work on D: and every night at 03:00 am the system
starts to xcopy (with lots of flags) everything on D:, that has the archive flag active,
over to X: and resets the archive flag on the original file. So if I add a picture or
modify an existing image, it will be copied the next noght. Once a week I copy all
my work out on a DVD-RW and store it in my safe.
I started with this after I had, anot so plesant, experience with a disk crash om my
system. Lots of pictures from my digital camera and a few Adobe Premiere projects
diappeared!! I had all work stored on a Western Digital SE 200GB disk. The NTFS
partition was "Unreadable" from Disk Manager from within Windows XP. I read
lots about this problem and discovered that a progra called R-Studio (R-tools
Technology Inc) could help me. And it could!!! It scanned the entire disk for a few
hours and then displayed the entire directory structure. R-Studio was able to restore
all files but 5 to another disk - I was releaved I can tell you. Since then I went for
BACKUP!
-- Robert Nilsson, July 27, 2003
I just want to add a comment regarding monitor suggestion. 17" monitor is really
not for photo editing (and other tasks). I would go with 21" CRT monitor with flat
screen (do not confuse with flat panel). I work on 21" Sony G520 and really love it,
and there're better quality monitors out there. 15" is really miniscule, I think -- and
wouldn't suggest it to anyone who will work with photos. Besides monitor size, you
should also look at resolution. I think 1280x960 is optimal. Monitor frequency is
also very important, as if it is low (60hz or so) you will not be productive and hurt
your eyes. To have high frequency (100hz or above) with high resolution you will
also need a good video card.
-- Sunimoto Sato, September 10, 2003
In response to RAID commentary:
I've a set of 60 GB IBM 120GXPs in a Promise RAID-0 array. They continue to
function well in tandem after nearly two years. Despite this luck, I'd still caution
those attempting to use such an array without backup.
Oddly however, my more recent 120 GB WD1200JB is significantly faster,
particularly in write times. Read benchmarks are nearly identical between the two.
Given how quick IDE drives have become, I doubt I'll deal with RAID in the
future.
I'd like to re-emphasize Phil's RAM comments. RAM is everything.History states
in particular toss it back like candy. If you're into serious multitasking like I am,
and beat the tar out of PS, take the largest image you intend to play with and
multiply it by 15. That's how much RAM you may need to cover a probable worst
case scenario.
DI
-- David Indech, September 20, 2003
Very interesting article. I'd like to add two things :
SCSI drives are faster. When you install the OS and main applications on a IDE/
ATA drive, the system sometimes slows down or nearly freezes for a second before
you get control back, and this lack of responsiveness can be annoying. I've changed
computers a few times over the years, and once I looked at transfer rate/seek time/
etc and "deduced" that SCSI wasn't worth it. It's the only computer-buying decision
I've ever regretted.
By the way, forget benchmarks : they don't give any relevant information. The only
way to judge a computer's speed is to actually use it to do the work you have to do.
-- Serge Boucher, January 4, 2004
ARCHIVAL LIFE: One should be aware that archival life is dependent on BOTH
ink and paper types. For instance, prints from my canon i965 fade very quickly
when printed on standard canon paper. However, when printing on Ilford papers,
fading is much less of a problem. I've had photos on my wall (not under glass) for
about 6 months now with no visible fading - hopefully this will last. One should
also not place the blame entirely on the printers. Be careful where you keep your
photos; for instance, keeping them near a fridge or laser printer may result in severe
fading due to high ozone levels. Equally, keep photos away from air conditioning
and direct sunlight. Even lab photos will fade readily if not looked after.
Also worth noting is that the prints I get from my humble inkjet are very difficult to
distinguish from lab prints. Given this, the benefit of having your own printer that
you know really well should not be underestimated - it provides so much more
control than the average lab. IMHO any standard of digital photographer should
have an decent inkjet (or equiv) even if only to provide proofs.
-- Fergus Kane, April 3, 2004
On the archival media side, don't overlook magnetic tape - whetever DAT/DDT or
DLT. While it is much more expnsive than just getting a CD-RW drive, the media
is much more archival oriented than CD-R / CD-RW is ever going to be. It also
comes in large media (starting in 10 - 15GB per tape).
If you *are* going the CD-R / CD-RW route, you should absolutely read some of
the articles that have recently been published about its potential for not being longlived at all.
-- Sander Vesik, May 8, 2004
Well these days there is a program out there that will let a linux/unix based PC
decode the Canon and other RAW images. The program is called dcraw.c .This
actually work on Windows and Mac OSX. You just have to compile it your self
and it is not that hard. After using dcraw I noticed that 99.7% of my pictures where
sharper and the color was much better too.
-- William Leming, September 10, 2004
Doug, establising a color management workflow is a whole 'nother article. I've got
mine down pat, but I'm not sure I have the experience to write an article outside the
scope of what I'm doing. Any volunteers?
-- Darron Spohn, January 18, 2002
Don't be shy, Darron. Do it!!! Desperate to learn more. My wife and I quickly
learned that the long pole in the tent is the relationship between what we see on the
monitor and on the paper.
-- Donald Trask, September 15, 2004
With regards to the monitor specs: I do a lot of photograph restoration and it took
me months to find the right monitor. I ended up getting the 17" NEC MultiSync
FE700 in 2000 - it's now 2005 and i have no complaints or regrets. I've been
contemplating going with LCD, but have yet to find one that convinces me to part
with my FE.
-- George Frost, May 13, 2005
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
●
Digital Photography and Color Management- Helpful information on
Apple's site, explaining color management and ColorSync technology,
which is supposed to insure that the colors on your monitor are the colors
you'll get on various output devices. (contributed by Tom Coppedge)
Calibrating & Profiling LCD Displays- An article on the luminous
landscape site. (contributed by Philippe Wiget)
Monitor Profiling and Calibration- Another one on luminous landscape.
(contributed by Philippe Wiget)
●
●
Computer darkroom- Articles concerning color management and
Photoshop (contributed by Philippe Wiget)
Learn how to scan- An amateur photographer gives a fantastic lesson on the
details of digital imaging. Not a way to transform your photos, but more
how to get your scanned images to look like the one on the light table.
(contributed by Brian E)
●
●
●
Famous Chinese Finearts- Born 1937 in, Chongqing, China, FengFu Fang
graduated from the Art institute of Southwest China Normal University in
1960. He is currently a Professor, the Dean of the Birds&Flowers Painting
Teaching and Research Section. a Creation Research Fellow of the Art
Research institute of China, and a member of the Artist Association of
Shichuan. (contributed by Yihua Fang)
SmartDraw Digital Photo Editor- SmartDraw Photo Editor, Organizer, and
Publisher Software all in one easy-to-use Program. Free Trial download
available. (contributed by Tim Marks)
Custom 35mm Film & Slide Scanning Service- Comprehensive service
options and attention to detail. Also, lots of info on things like resolution,
dynamic range, etc... (contributed by William Bloodworth)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: Digital Camera HQ - Excellent reviews of Canon digital cameras
Evaluating Photos
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Evaluating
Photos
Learn
●
Equipment
By
Philip Greenspun
●
Forums
●
Home
: Learn : One Article
Gallery
●
Community
Contents:
1. Top
2. With slides
3. With negatives
Reader's Comments
"With the camera, it's all or nothing. You either get what you're after at once, or what you
do has to be worthless. I don't think the essence of photography has the hand in it so
much. The essence is done very quietly with a flash of the mind, and with a machine. I
think too that photography is editing, editing after the taking. After knowing what to take,
you have to do the editing."
-- Walker Evans, 1971
You've taken a bunch of pictures. How do you evaluate them to decide if they are any good?
With slides
http://www.photo.net/photo/evaluation (1 of 17)7/3/2005 2:19:24 AM
Evaluating Photos
Your pictures will mostly look gorgeous because slides can hold at
least twice as much contrast as prints. You will pat yourself on the
back for being a photographic genius.
The first thing you need is a color corrected light table. Don't waste
your time trying to build your own. For one thing, the appropriate
fluorescent tubes are plenty expensive so you might as well have a
decent box to put them in.
Everyone says the Macbeth Prooflite, the JUST, and the Kaiser boxes are the
best, but I can't find anything wrong with the Acculights, which are less than
half the price ($160 for a 14x24" box). I've had one in my home studio for 10
years and it still works great. B&H sells these by the truckload.
Set a slide-saver page (I like the Beseler polypropylene ones myself) down on
the light table and start stuffing it with mounted 35mm slides. Use a Sharpie
super fine point pen to mark the top of the plastic page with a roll ID. Note
briefly which are decent pictures but basically behave like a robot.
Once you've got all your rolls organized into slidesaver pages, put them back down on the light table
and look at the good pictures with a loupe. A very
good loupe. With the money you saved on the lightbox, you can afford the
best: a Schneider. Get the 4X for viewing 35mm full-frame ($110, comes in
several exciting colors now). When you see the sharpness and color saturation
of your images through the Schneider loupe, you will quit your day job. Too
bad your photograph will never ever look this good as a Cibachrome, on a
magazine page, or on a Web page.
[There are other loupes worth having. If you make 6x6cm images, you will
love the Schneider 6x6 magnifier ($215), which can also be used with 35mm
images almost as effectively as the 4x. You might also want a high
magnification loupe for deciding whether something is sharp enough and/or too grainy. PEAKs are
cheap but I'm not convinced that they are useful. Schneider makes a 10X ($231) loupe that is probably
excellent but I haven't tried it.
A lot of people from Rodenstock to Hoya make imitations of the Schneider 4X loupe. They aren't much
cheaper and I don't think they are worth the hassle of investigating.]
Use the Sharpie to mark the really good pictures or put a Post-It at the top of the page with the
worthwhile frame numbers noted.
Evaluating Photos
For price and selection, Adorama is probably the best place in the U.S. to buy light boxes and loupes.
With negatives
Prepare for a confidence-destroying experience. Proof prints are generally terrible but the negative
contains a lot of information that can be extracted with careful printing or with PhotoShop.
My favorite way of evaluating proofs is to have an enlarged contact sheet made. This can only be done
by pro labs with 8x10 enlargers. What they do is flatten all the negs between glass just as they would for
a regular contact sheet, but then stick the whole mess in the enlarger and project onto a 16x20" sheet of
paper. This costs about $30 but lets you look at a whole roll at once. If your time is valuable it can be
worth it, especially because you'll never spend a minute trying to match a proof to its negative.
[ top ]
Reader's Comments
I've used the Schneider 4x loupe, the NPC 5.5x Prolupe, and the Rodenstock 4x loupe in direct
comparisons on approximatley 1000 slides.
The Schneider 4x gave excellent color, excellent contrast, and uniform sharpness across the entire frame.
It was possible to see the whole frame from one viewing spot, even with eyeglasses on. The only
significant criticism of the Schneider is that it is made from light gage plastic, and fairly delicate.
The NPC also gave excellent color rendition and excellent contrast. It too was uniformly sharp over the
entire frame. Because of the larger power of magnification, slightly more detail is discernable with the
NPC than with the Schneider. The NPC is harder to view with eye glasses on. The NPC is very robust it is made from aluminum and plastic and it weighs about twice as much as the Schneider.
Evaluating Photos
I liked the Schneider and the NPC so well that I have kept them both. I see these as complimentary
products.
The Rodenstock was less satisfying. The primary gripes are:
1) The skirt diameter is barely large enough to cover a 35mm frame, so placement of the loupe is more
critical than it is for either the Schneider or the NPC.
2)My sample was not able to deliver a uniformly sharp image across the whole frame with a single focus
setting. You could either have sharp corners or you could have a sharp central region. You could not
have both simultaneously. This is in spite of the touted aspherical lens. Maybe other samples are better
in this regard.
3)The Rodenstock didn't seem to present as bright an image when used to view prints as the Schneider
or the NPC.
I sent the Rodenstock back to the vendor after a week of direct comparison with the other two loupes.
-- Glen Johnson, December 19, 1996
I have been using a Porta-Trace 1012-2 light table, and it is a very nice product. This unit can be
purchased with two 5,000K lamps, and its surface is exactly the right size to view one archival slide
storage page at a time. The cost was only $49.95 at B&H in fall of 1996, and there is also a carrying case
available for less than $25 more, Two lamps used to cover a 10x12 surface provides very bright, even
illumination.
If you buy one, they include a plastic strip that you can attach to the viewing surface to provide a "stop"
to keep stuff from falling off the table when it is in the raised position. Don't put this strip where they tell
you to put it. Install it between the screws at the bottom, instead of above the screws - that way you can
rest your archival slide storage page on this strip and still illuminate the entire page.
-- Glen Johnson, December 19, 1996
I have to second Glen's comment on the Porta-Trace lightboxes. The 1618-3 is very nice for looking at
two archival pages of slides (1 roll of 36 slides) at once and the three lights give a very uniform
illumination without significant hotspots. Pearl Art Supply has a great deal on these every few months
for $79.
-- Andrew Kim, February 2, 1997
Someone asked how to contact PortaTrace, but the question has been removed from the Q&A area.
Evaluating Photos
PortaTrace can be contacted at
Gagne, Inc. 1080 Chenango St. Binghamton, NY (no zip given) 607-723-9550
If you want to buy one of their tables, check out your local camera stores, or call B&H.
-- Glen Johnson, June 25, 1997
Well, making a lightbox on your own can be a rewarding experience.
Bulbman (Reno, Nevada, 1-800-648-1163) sells 15" to 24" Colortone 50 and Phillips Ultralume colorcorrected fluorescent bulbs (5000K, Color Rendition Index 90 -- normal household lightbulbs are
usually 3500-4300K, CRI 60); they're around $14 each. Home Depot sells complete light fixtures for
around $5 (made by Light of America), or you can assemble some yourself using end fixtures and
ballasts for half the cost. Your local plastic/acrylic shop can sell you lightbox white, 1/4" acrylic cut-tosize. The base box, at least 8" deep to give even illumination to acrylic surface, can be made of
assembled wood pieces, or even plastic storage boxes -- painted flat white.
It cost me around $85 to make a 24x20, 4 lamps, 60w lightbox. Bright, color-corrected, and comfortably
fit four pages of slides.
I got the idea originally from a posting in a rec.photo newsgroup (don't have the poster's name and email
address handy), btw.
-- Lolo LaSid, June 27, 1997
In Tokyo I've been unable to find the brands mentioned (JUST, Acculight, Macbeth, etc.). Instead, the
leading brands are Fuji and Hakuba, with a few models made by Cabin and one by Hama (Germanmade, I think). I ended up buying a new model by Hakuba called the 7000 Pro (about 17,500 yen) which
looks just about as good as the Fuji pro models in terms of the eveness of the light, but are nearly half
the price. It fits one page of 12 6x7 shots or four 4x5's, and is about 2cm thick.
The most expensive are the Hama (39,000 yen, but big) and two Fuji pro models, which differ from the
normal Fuji models in that the light is very evenly distributed from edge to edge; one model is thinner
and smaller than the other, but both are about 30,000 yen. Cabin makes a relatively thin model for about
25,000 yen, but I think the Fuji pro is better and not much more money. All the other models I looked at
(under 10,000 yen) are aluminum box models about 7cm thick and have uneven light distribution; the
light fades away and the edges, and you can see an outline of the bulbs inside.
I also have the schneider 6x6 3X loupe to view the slides shot w/ my Zeiss and Schneider lenses.
Viewing with eyeglasses is no problem (the entire image is sharp without having to "look around" the
Evaluating Photos
eyepiece), and contrast/sharpness are excellent. I can even discern the subtle differences between shots
taken with a Zeiss sonnar from shots taken from a Schneider tele-xenar.
-- Jim Chow, July 22, 1997
If you're just starting out, you might find yourself unable to throw out a slide that looks decent, but is
basically "not there." Or you don't have enough experience to figure out which of the three exposures
you bracketed will be right for you.
If that's the case, do what I do. Buy two folders, and divide your slides into "cream of the crop", and
"stuff I'm not sure is all that good but that I'm willing to keep." That'll make editing ruthlessly a lot
easier, and then later on when you are older and wiser, really throw out the ones that aren't any good.
-- Piaw Na, September 18, 1997
Just a follow up on the loupe comparison that I posted above. Recently I've had a chance to use several
samples of the new Rodenstock 4x aspherical lupe, and they were great performers. They were able to
hold sharpness at a single focus setting from corner to center. This suggests that the first one I got was a
lemon, or that they've made some changes. In any event, the Rodenstock is definitely worth a look. It is
ergonomically sound, well constructed, and the potential is there for excellent sharpness. Check your
sample. If you've got a good one, keep it.
-- Glen Johnson, September 23, 1997
When editing slides, I prefer to project them first using a very good projector and a stack loader. My
projector of choice is a now discontinued (darn!) Leica RT300, which takes the Kodak Carousel trays
(and stack loader) and has a wonderful, sharp and neutral optical system as opposed to the standard coke
bottle green glass.
-- Ellis Vener, August 8, 1998
First I used a Peak 8x loupe and I thought it was pretty good. Sure, you had to move around a bit in
order to see the entire frame, but I liked it. Then I bought a real lightbox (Kaiser 2175) and a real loupe
(Schneider 4x). What a difference! So yes, Peak's are cheap and they're definitely not very useful.
-- Patrick Hudepohl, August 31, 1998
While evaluating my slides I notice that I don't have the faintest idea of how professionals evaluate,
store, process theirs. What needs do magazines have? (I know they would gladly xerox a polaroid if it
had Prince Charles in boxers)
-- Eric --, November 9, 1998
Evaluating Photos
I've used microfiche (rear-screen projection) viewers for checking slides and negatives, especially for
sharpness. They're cheap on the 2nd-hand market (everything's computerized now, right?)
The film is held between glasses and can easily be moved to scan different areas. Some of them are
available with dual mangification.
Defend yourself on color balance. Most are just a quartz-iodine lamp, perhaps with a heat filter.
-- David Mc Lanahan, November 26, 1998
Update on Loupes
I think Philip's advice on loupes needs updating. If there was a time when the automatic first choice in
loupes was Schneider, that time is now past. Philip himself has subsequently written (in a Q&A
response): "People rave about the Schneider [loupe] because it was the first expensive high-quality loupe
that was generally available in the USA (for the 35mm frame). That doesn't mean it is better than a
similarly-priced Rodenstock, just as a Schneider 210mm view camera lens would probably be very hard
to distinguish from a Rodenstock view camera lens." Today, if you are looking for a top-quality loupe
for examining your 35mm transparencies, your choices are broader (and are definitely worth the hassle
of investigating): in order of increasing price, the Rodenstock 4x (B&H $100), the Schneider 4x (B&H
$109), the Canon 4x (B&H $130), the Canon 8x (B&H $170), the Carl Zeiss/Contax 5x (B&H $180),
and the Schneider Aspheric 6x (B&H $254). (The 6x and 8x loupes are not full-frame.) If you're looking
for a top-quality loupe for examining your medium-format transparencies, the current king is probably
the Rodenstock 6x6 Aspheric (B&H $230), a more recent design than the excellent Schneider 6x6 (B&H
$224). Rebates are sometimes available. Cheap loupes are generally to be avoided.
My two cents worth: for 35mm transparencies, I like the Carl Zeiss/Contax 5x, or the Canon 4x and
Canon 8x used together. (The Canon philosophy is that you need the 4x for full-frame viewing and
sorting of slides, and the 8x for critical examination of detail, sharpness, and grain. These two Canon
loupes, by the way, are part of Canon's "L" or "Luxury" line of premium optics and have the red ring of
Canon's "L" lenses.) These Carl Zeiss/Contax and Canon loupes are of absolutely top optical quality,
tack sharp from center to edge of frame, beautifully made, with smoothly adjustable focusing rings and
interchangeable skirts (black for transparency viewing, translucent for print viewing). For mediumformat transparencies, I like the Rodenstock 6x6 Aspheric, which has the same virtues but a reversible
(instead of interchangeable) skirt.
I have to disagree with Philip on lightboxes. It's odd to me that Philip is pretty critical on most things,
but not on these. He dismisses the subject pretty cavalierly in a sentence or two: after noting that there
are expensive lightboxes available (Macbeth Prooflite, JUST, Kaiser), he says that he can't see anything
wrong with the inexpensive Acculight, which he's been contentedly using for 10 years. Well, taking this
Evaluating Photos
advice (as well as some other favorable comment I'd received on the Acculight), I figured this was a
good place to save some money, and I bought one. Unlike Philip, and unfortunately for me, I don't have
any trouble seeing what's wrong with it Instead of saving money, I'm probably going to wind up
spending more than if I'd just bought a high-quality lightbox in the first place, because I'm not happy
with the Acculight and would like to replace it. Yes, it was cheap and no doubt I got my money's worth,
but here's yet another example that in this world you get what you pay for.
I already had a small, portable, top-quality Mamiya Cabin lightpanel (CL-5000P, B&H $80), but it was
too small for slide sorting, so I wanted a larger lightbox. I bought the Acculight Portable Viewer (outside
dimensions 18x15, viewing surface 17.2x12.4; B&H $90). Setting them up side by side, it was
immediately apparent, not at all subtle, and would leap out at virtually any viewer, that they didn't
produce the same color or quality of light at all. The Mamiya Cabin's light was superbly EVEN; the
Acculight was not at all, and it was easy to see just where the bulbs lay beneath the translucent panel,
since the light was brighter there, and duller near the edges. Later I read, in a Q&A response by James
Chow, describing his own lightbox comparisons: "The cheap light tables were inferior in light quality
compared to the more expensive models. You could actually see the bulbs underneath, as light
distribution wasn't uniform from edge to edge as in the more expensive boxes." Right on, James, and the
same thing I was noticing in my Cabin vs. Acculight comparison. (And I see you say pretty much the
same thing above.) Also, the color/quality of light was different in the two lightboxes. I have no way to
test which one is "right," but my money would be on the Mamiya Cabin, and I certainly prefer
examining my slides on it.
So if you're planning to buy a cheap lightbox, be aware that you're probably going to get what you pay
for. Maybe I'm being too fussy, too critical, but if you are inclined that way too, you might like to make
some careful comparisons of brightness, color/quality of light, and evenness of light distribution
(especially near the edges). Take along a few slides of your own, and take your candidates for purchase
for a test drive. Caveat emptor.
Over the holidays I had a chance to try out several of the 35mm loupes mentioned here side-by-side at
B&H in NY. The loupes that most impressed me there were the Canon 4x and the NPC 5.5x.
The Canon 4x loupe is of the same basic design as the Schneider, but not as boxy in construction. To my
eyes it was the clear winner in color transmission and lack of distortion among all the loupes I tried. It
also allowed for plenty of extra room in viewing a 35mm slide, allowing for a less than perfect
registration. I find this to be a useful consideration in viewing slides stored in printfile sheets, as the
bumps and humps of the sheets can slow you down if you need perfect registration. The canon's
*apparent* field of view seemed wider in this application than any of the other 4x loupes.
Likewise, I found the NPC to be the best in terms of distortion and color of the medium- magnification
Evaluating Photos
loupes, preferring it even to the contax. The NPC just covers a 35mm slide mount, so proper registration
(and a closer eyepoint) is necessary to view slides, but the additional magnification (and thus,
information) is well worth it. I find the higher magnification loupes to be good for checking sharpness,
but strongly lacking in viewing area.
For reference, the other loupes I tried were: 4x: Schneider, Rodenstock, Iston, Peak, Kenko, Fuji 5.5-6x:
Contax, Kenko
At $130 for the Canon and $120 for the NPC, I don't think you can go wrong with either.
-- Keith Donnelly, January 13, 1999
The Contax/Carl Zeiss 5x loupe is amazing. I can't claim to have tried every loupe on the market, but
fortunately I won't have to. This baby is cleanly engineered, extremely well constructed, and of
unsurpassed optical quality. It is truly and elegant instrument and an absolute pleasure to use for work
with 35mm transparencies.
I can also highly recommend the Porta-Trace line of light boxes. I have a 60 watt, 18x24" model that
illuminates slides with a really nice, even light. The plexiglass editing surface and three 5000k lamps are
encased in a well-machined stainless steel body; it is a very utilitarian piece of equipment.
-- John Weiland, January 21, 1999
I too think Phil's Loupe evaluation needs some updating. I was at B&H today, and I wasn't even
shopping for a loupe. While I was browsing around waiting for my filters to come up, I casually checked
out the images they had on their demo lightboxes. I tried out all the loupes... Canon, Kenko, Peake... ho
hum. Then I saw they had a Schneider 4x, and got excited. Well, the excitement died down when I
looked through it... not that much better than the other ones. Then I grabbed the last one... BAM! This
one had high contrast, neutral color, razor sharpness corner to corner, without the need to shift my
eyeball anywhere. The difference was absolutely amazing. I looked at the skirt of this fantastic loupe...
Rodenstock Aspharische Lupe, 4x, Made in Germany. I turned around and told the guy to put one in my
order! At this time of writing, it's 99.95, SKU# ROL4X. Get one!! Now, let me head over to rodenstock.
com to see if they make 8x or 10x loupes....
-- Huyen Seow, January 27, 1999
Just to clarify: I was wearing glasses, and I did try all the loupes, including the NPC and Contax loupes
(the latter of which was slightly better than most of the others), and I even had the new Leica 5x loupe
called up (they didn't have one on display). Of all these, only the Leica came close to the Rodenstock. It
seemed heavier and more solid than the Rodenstock, and it had the same optical characteristics, except
for a noticeably warmish color cast... but it was twice as expensive (surprise, surprise).
Evaluating Photos
-- Huyen Seow, January 29, 1999
I've read in both a John Shaw book and an Ernst Wildi book that you need something like 7x to 10x for
critical evaluation of 35mm slides. Wildi said the higher magnification lupe can be a fairly inexpensive
one since you're only evaluating a local area of the slide anyhow(so just accept the middle portion). I
trust these two photographers' opinions, and wonder what others might think. (Shaw and Wildi aren't
anti-4X-- I know Shaw recommends the Sneider 4X to see the whole image-- they're talking of "critical"
evaluation, however this may be defined.)
-- Dean Goldsworthy, March 1, 1999
I have found a very inexpensive oversize 7x loupe being advertised on Ebay in the medium format
section. It goes for $20 and is comparable to loupes priced much higher. I like the large size and dual
glass elements. Also neat is the added measuring scale that you can attach to the base for measuring
subjects in the negatives. Great value! It can also be bought directly from the distributor, MPS. Their
number is (870) 932-4454. I bought four of them.
-- Kent Watkins, March 4, 1999
After dropping and stepping on my two year old Schneider Loupe, I went down to B&H Photo one
afternoon to pick up another one. Well, it turns out Schneider isn't the only game in town, and I came
home with a Fuji Professional 4x Loupe after peering through the dozen they have on display. I don't
think I saved any money, because Schneider had a rebate on theirs, but the Fuji is terrific, particularly if
you wear glasses (I do).
I also picked up the smallest Cabin Light Panel (it was on sale), and I have to say that the quality of the
light blows away my Porta Trace Lightbox. Next trip to B&H, I'll certainly be purchasing one of the
large Cabin Light Panels that can handle a whole page of slides.
-- Eric Edelman, March 11, 1999
Just thought I'd post a reminder for an old trick. If you have a "normal" lens for your 35mm camera (50
to 55mm, f/1.8 or 1.4), it can be used as a loupe. Just pull it off the camera, hold in your hand, and look
through the film side of the lens. The optical quality will probably be better than than dedicated slide
viewing loupes. For heavy use a loupe may be more convenient - the normal lens has no skirt or stand,
and protruding hardware on the back of the lens could damage your eyeglasses, or your eye.
-- Julian Vrieslander, May 2, 1999
The E-6 lab I use has Just Normlicht light tables available for their customers, so I decided to get a Just
Normlicht for consistency and some confidence in knowing I had a table which meets ANSI and ISO
standard viewing specifications.
Evaluating Photos
When I was looking around for a table, *every* manufacturer says they use 5000K color corrected
tubes. After putting the same transparencies on different 5000K tables it was obvious that there were
sometimes HUGE differences. Even after you get past the 5000K issues, there are two other important
specifications which rarely get mentioned: Luminance and Color Rendering Index (CRI). I believe the
proper spec for luminance is about 1400 cd/m2 and the CRI should be greater than 90.
I purchased a mid-sized Cabin CL5000M in order to have a highly portable light table I could bring
along when showing my portfolio to prospective clients. A 4x5 transparency I shot with a light blue
background went significantly magenta when viewed on the Cabin. When this same transparency was
viewed on a Just Normlicht and several other light tables, it was blue as expected. It was apparent the
Cabin was *way* off the mark even though they spec color temp and luminance per the ANSI
specification (they don't spec CRI). I returned the Cabin as I viewed it as unreliable for color evaluation.
I have a small 4x5 Cabin, and the same color shift happens on that table so I don't believe I ran into a
bad sample.
Others may also find interesting an info sheet (#CIS-152) published by Kodak titled, "Recommendations
for Viewing Transparencies". I received it through the mail by calling Kodak.
-- Larry Huppert, May 13, 1999
I went down to ProPhoto to see what full frame 4x loupe was the best after reading all the other
comments on loupes. I thought that the Rodenstock was to tight but good clarity. canon was bright. But
the Scheider was the best of all! I looked at most of the other names but they are not worth it. Oh the
Jobo was good for what you pay and I did not get to see the NPC 5.5x. I now have a Scheider.
-- Doug McIntosh, June 10, 1999
I find the best & cheapest loupe to be a leftover 50mm lens, especially the Olympus 1.8
Now I'd like a clear plastic base that bayonets on!
-- Tom Trottier, July 17, 1999
I went to B&H to test out all the loupes and want to add the following opinions and conclusions to the
above comments:
1) Quality of loupes has improved. The "made in Germany" and/or higher prices don't guarantee better
quality or value. 2) There ARE alternatives to Schneider, Rodenstock, Contax, Leica, etc which are just
as good. Seems like most of the above comments focus on premium (overpriced) loupes. Peak, Kenko,
Fuji, Pentax, and NPC have some very competitive models at a fraction of the price. 3) I spent an hour
comparing the Schneider 10x ($244) with the Peak 10x scale lupe ($59) using various slides. The Peak
MATCHES the Schneider in image sharpness and color. I actually liked the Peak more, bought it, and
Evaluating Photos
saved $185! The Schneider seems a little more durable (all metal), while the Peak has a plastic focusing
ring. The Peak optics are great (4 elements, 2 groups, coated). The Peak has a clear skirt; Schneider has
black skirt. The Peak comes with a nice case and also a handy scale that is visible in the viewfinder. 4) I
also bought a Pentax 5.5 lupe. It is sharp. It has a nice big image. It is GREAT for eyeglass wearers. My
only gripe is that when I look too close into the finder, the edges of the 35mm image start to pincushion. I tried the Fuji Professional (4x) and the newer Kenko 4x (with the slide-able skirt a-la the
Rodenstock). In my opinion, they match the Schneider 4x and Rodenstock 4x but at a slightly lower
price. There is the excellent Canon 4x, but is pricey at $139. 5) In conclusion, do try out various loupes.
There are some excellent Japanese-made models with optics that match German optics. However, I have
seen some aweful samples of Peaks and Kenkos that were totally unacceptable (major distortion,
horrible color transmission). My point is that there are alternatives. Go out there, test the loupes, and
trust your eyes. A $244 Schneider is not necessarily better than a "cheap" $59 Peak.
-- Ken Nguyen, July 19, 1999
I am very thankful for Phil's alway illuminating (my pun)comments since I have only recently begun
shooting slides again and he has satisfied my initial curiosity regarding loupes and light tables. I guess I
must be somewhat of a rube, though, since I have been strictly using a 2 x 2 viewer to look at my slides.
Is the true advantage of quality loupes and light tables both color quality and sharpness? And wouldnt
the value of the higher power loupe be in checking for sharpness if you wished to produce large prints? I
won't touch the issue of which brand is better since this seems to be very subjective and there are no
shortage of strong opinions here. Or maybe the length of this thread is proving that what started as a
short list of quality products has expanded rapidly in the last couple of years.
-- Bill Servatius, July 19, 1999
It is curious to note that there seems to be little said about the bulbs used in the light boxes. I know that
for viewing my images and general lighing within the house) full-spectrum lighting makes a huge
difference. Ottbiolight has a 48" bulb with a CRI of 98 (CRI stands for "color rendering index". CRI is a
measurement of how much of the suns spectrum is replicated by the lightbulb. If the color frequencies
are not in the light you are viewing with, they cannot be accuratly rendered) The bulb has a color
temperature of 5000K (that's about the color of the light around noon on a clear summers day. 6000K is
the color of an overcast day, I like working inside under about 5500K) Unfortunatly it is a 48" bulb. I
know there are shorter bulbs out there with CRIs of 92 or so, but I would have to look through my
papers...
Has anyone done research on the results of using different bulbs in their projectors?
-- grant groberg, August 22, 1999
I'd also like to add to the chorus of people who like the Cabin Lightpanels. They come in at least 3 sizes
Evaluating Photos
with the smallest one being portable and AA powered (it has a plug option as well.) The light from these
Cabin Lightpanels is so even it's really amazing.
There's very little information on the web with respect to these units so please make an effort to search
them out. They are really a cut above the rest. The even-ness of the light is truly amazing.
Mamiya is importing them into the US for Cabin, which is nice because I had an intermittent problem
with my portable one (which does get a lot of use and abuse travelling with me) and they replaced it
without a question.
-- Gen Kanai, August 26, 1999
When I first read the title of this section (Evaluating Photos), I thought that it would deal with the
difficult subject of the quality of photographs; the issue of subjective / objective values; and questions
like: What makes an image of photographers like Alfred Stieglitz, Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson
great? Is it the emotions that they transmit, their social content, their opportunity, the beauty of the
subjects, their graphic composition, or certain combination of these factors? I hope that this kind of
questions will be addressed in this section (or perhaps another) of your excellent forum along with the
reference to light boxes, slide-saver pages, loupes, projectors and contact sheets. Julio Garcia Coll,
August 29, 1999
-- Julio Garcia Coll, August 29, 1999
Just wondering why nobody mentioned the EMO Macromax 4x loupe. It is really sharp (tests in german
photog magazines gave EMO and Schneider loups the same rating), and has a diopter correction. Price is
about $100.
-- Franz Waldhaeusl, October 15, 1999
I live in Canada just north of Toronto. Finding a good loupe is a pain in the ass. Most good camera store
have either a cheap plastic loupe or else they have the 8x maginifer by nikon ( not a really loupe) One
day I was at Broadway camera in Toronto looking for a loupe. They had two Pentax, the 5.5x and the
zoom. Nice and big, good quility but out of my price range. ($149.95CDN for the5.5x and $299.99CDN
for the Zoom). I ask the saleman if he had any other loupe, he pulls these new loupe he just got from
Cabin. It is a 4x loupe made in Japn and the casing was all metal. Now I do not know if the salesman
was BS me but he said these were Schnieder loupe under different name. Who cares they were Excellent
optically and only cost $80 CDN.
-- Patrick Wong, January 2, 2000
Loupes: I started out with a cheapo Nikon 8x loupe that is, I believe, a re-badged Peak made as a
promotional giveaway. I covered the clear plastic base with black gaffer's tape. Eye centering is critical,
but you can see an entire 35mm slide. Distortion is severe near the edges, but at the center its resolution
Evaluating Photos
is adequate. Keep in mind as you read this that I wear glasses and have a fairly strong prescription.
I later moved up to a Fuji 4x loupe, also a promotional giveaway, but a much better loupe. It is silver,
has a sliding skirt, and is marked "Fujifilm" not "Fuji Professional" as some are. After several years of
use, I can say that it is a very nice loupe, with much less distortion than the Nikon 8x.
4x, though, isn't enough to evaluate critical sharpness, so I bought a Schneider 8x loupe. I would say that
8x is a minimum to evaluate sharpness; 10x would be better. It resolves more and seems brighter than
the cheap Nikon 8x, although it can only cover part of a 35mm transparency. Distortion is high unless
your eye is perfectly centered, and the zone of sharpness is limited to the circle directly under your eye.
I tried a Schneider 6x loupe, but it offered neither the magnification of the 8x nor the convenience of the
4x, so I got rid of it.
The loupe I use for rough editing is the front end of a Kodak Ektagraphic 178mm f/3.5 FF projector lens.
It gives very little magnification, perhaps about 2x. Its field of view covers an entire 2x2 mount, so
centering is no problem, and is the flattest, edge-to-edge, of any loupe I've ever seen. I can float it above
a bunch of spread-out slides, standing or sitting up straight with both eyes open, flicking rejects off the
light table. I acquired this lens thinking it was a whole Carousel lens. Thankfully, before tossing it in the
trash, I considered other uses for it.
Light Tables: For many years I examined my slides on an inexpensive Tundra portable light box with a
4x5" viewing area. It takes 4 AA batteries, and eats them voraciously. The box it came in said the light
was color-corrected, but who knows what you get for $20. It is barely bright enough in the middle for
critical sharpness evaluations, one slide at a time, and can hold four slides for rough editing.
I finally got fed up with this, and bought a Just-Normlicht Smart Light 5000 (model SL5/DL2). It has a
14 x 15" viewing area -- just enough to spread out 36 slides, making little groups as needed. I had
considered getting a smaller box, thinking "hey, if it can hold a page of slides I'm OK," but I'm very,
very happy that I went with the larger box. The extra working area makes editing and organizing just fly.
The SL5/DL2 uses two 15W color-corrected fluorescent tubes. I was concerned that it wouldn't be bright
enough compared spec-for-spec with the PortaTrace 1618-4C's four 15W tubes, but the Just-Normlicht
is blazingly bright and even, with no hot spots or dimming anywhere on the viewing surface. My
primary viewing area is on a credenza by a window -- unfortunate placement, but I can't re-arrange my
office for a light table -- and the Just is bright enough to overpower the window light. Need I say that it
is brighter and whiter than the little 4AA Tundra by a factor of 10 or so? Some published specs say the
Smart Light uses bulbs with a CRI of 91+ or 92+; the literature that came with the box indicates a CRI
of 98+, so perhaps Just has updated their bulbs. The Just-Normlicht Smart Light 5000 is $229 at Camera
World of Oregon, with free shipping, but I bought mine during one of their "Buy $200, Get $50 Off"
promotions, so I paid $179 shipped -- a few dollars more than the slightly larger Porta-Trace 1618-4C.
-- John Kuraoka, May 3, 2000
I was recently browsing the local photostore looking for a good 4x loupe (I was using the old 50mm lens
Evaluating Photos
for looking at my slides, but I still wanted a loupe). I was pretty sure that I will get either Schneider or
Rodenstock based on what I read on the net. Then I noticed the Mamiya display with their new array of
loupes. So I asked for a mighty Rodenstock 4x loupe and decided to evaluate it against the Mamiya 4x
just for kicks. A brief look at the test slide convinced me that I probably drank too much the night
before. The Mamiya was noticably brighter cleareer and even a tad sharper than the venerable
Rodenstock. So I decided to ask for an independent opinion and invited the store clerks to test it out.
Their conclusion was unanimous- the Mamiya was indeed better. It was a bit cheaper than Rodestock
too and the construction seesm to be really good- all metal, smooth focusing ring etc. I bought the
Mamiya. Apparently the Mamiya is a full multi-coated asperic lens system which is quite a bit newer
than the Rodenstock design and that may be why it is superior. (Oh, yes, and it beats viewing through
the old 50mm lens hands down. The iamge is brighter and sharper and you don't have to hold the lens at
a certain distance.) The moral is that German glass is no longer the undisputed king of the hill. I'd
recommend the Mamiya 4x loupe to anyone.
-- Aleksandr Noy, October 22, 2000
Not all lightboxes are equal. If you bracket it can be difficult to make a judgement on which slide has the
best exposure if there is a wide variation of brightness due to the box. When I swiped a Porta-trace with
a Gossen Luna-star f2 (dome removed), I saw a range of 2.5 fstops. With a Just Normlicht, it's only 1
fstop.
-- Quang-Tuan Luong, March 14, 2001
How about taking an old 50mm. lens, take out the front elemant and put it on top of a skirt (Maybe a
skirt from an old loupe). The optical quality will be exellent, but can it be done? Can anyone tell me
what magnification will this give me?
-- Moti Meiri, June 19, 2001
I appreciate the opinions expressed here and did look at a number of loupes mentioned - the Pentax, the
Rodenstock, the Schneider, etc. Then I remembered a piece of information I sent away for some time
ago on the Mamiya line of loupes. As I remembered, the specifications seemed of a high order so I
looked around on the net to see who carried them and what the range of prices was. I found them at a
number of online dealers and decided to order from ADORAMA at a price in the middle of the range I
discovered. It took a week or so to arrive here in Canada, but I can tell you the wait was worth it. I
purchased the Mamiya 5x apochromatic loupe - 3 elements in 3 groups. It comes supplied with a
translucent and an opaque skirt and allows for diopter correction. It is an attractive shade of grey, much
like titanium. The optics are fully corrected and give no distortion whatsoever, unlike the Pentax unit I
saw that was tentamount to looking at prints through the bottom of a pop bottle it was so bad. I find it
hard to imagine there is anything better than this and the price was certainly right. I wouldn't hesitate to
recommend it to anyone. HTH
-- Graham Fawcett, July 9, 2001
Evaluating Photos
I've had a Peak Anastigmat 4x loupe for a couple of years, and been happy with it (it cost ~$150). After
reading the raves over the Schneider 4x, I decided to get one. I have to say that the Peak performs just as
well as the Schneider, although it was more expensive. The Schneider comes with two skirts, opaque
and translucent, while the Peak only has translucent. The Peak came with an eyepiece cap and element
protector, and cleaning cloth that the Schneider didn't. Last, the Schneider came with a leash, which is
nice, that the Schneider didn't. Anyway, the Peak is certainly not inferior to the Schneider. Maybe
everyone here is generalizing on a cheaper Peak.
-- Scott Hill, August 30, 2001
Just today I went down to the local photostore looking to get a lightbox. I originally went in to look at
the Porta_Trace boxes that I've heard so many good things about. Well, they had one and it was ok,
though priced $30 more then online ($79.99, not that it was to much to spend, just too much extra to
spend to buy locally) so I thought I would wait. Then, after flipping the switch on the little 4x5 Cabin
light panel I was really impressed. Excellent, even light that looked perfect and for the same price as
online, $79.99. Well, after some serious thought I decided a smaller one would actually be better for me
then the larger unit. I live in a small apartment while going to school so space is scarce, plus a nice
portable unit will let me take it home on holidays and such. So, ready to buy the Cabin I saw a slightly
larger, flat white lightpanel setting on the shelf. Turns out its a 5x7 Hakuba model. It offered the same
quality of light as the cabin (compared side by side) but was just slightly larger, and had an AC adapter
and protective pouch included for only $10. I ended up walking out the door with the Hakuba panel and
am really happy with it. I just used my Minolta Spot F meter to check the brightness consistency and the
variance was only +/- .1 stop.....not bad! I'm shooting both 4x5 and 35mm so I can fit about 6 35mm
slides or one 4x5 on at once. Better then the little 4x5 Cabin, but still nice and portable. If your in the
market for a small, portable lightpanel I would deffinetly recomend the Hakuba. Doesn't have the fancy
name, but delivers the performance just as well.
-- chris long, June 21, 2002
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Equipment Reviews by David Paris- On my reviews page I have a detailed comparison between
the Contax Carl Zeiss Triotar T* 5X loupe and NPC Pro 5.5X loupe, a review of the Porta-Trace
11x18 light table, as well as reviews of other photographic equipment. (contributed by David
Paris)
●
Egydio Zuanazzi - photographer - Brazil- Portfolio, Gallery and details to contact the
photographer. (contributed by Egydio Zuanazzi)
Evaluating Photos
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of PDA
Welcome to arsdigita.com
July 3rd, 2005
arsdigita.com
Sql
What you need, when you need it
Database Management
Popular Links
Sql
Database Management
Acs
Online Education
Java
Cms
Portal
E-commerce
Website Hosting
Dating
Bookmark this page | Make this your homepage
Acs
Online Education
Java
Cms
Popular Categories
Sql
Online education
Portal
Dating
Jewish singles
Ebooks
Database management
Java
E-commerce
Work from home
Airline tickets
Used wind power generator
Acs
Cms
Website hosting
Music
Data warehousing
Free website hosting
Favorite Categories
Travel
Airline Tickets
Hotels
Car Rental
Air Charter
South Beach Hotels
Money Savers
Online Banking
Online Payment
Debt Consolidation
Foreclosures
Free Credit Report
Gambling
Free Casino Games
Poker
Texas Holdem
Blackjack
Casino
Services
Car Insurance
Mortgage
Business Opportunities
Life Insurance
Work From Home
Leisure
Music
Dating
Christian Singles
Cell Phones
Jewish Singles
Learn More
Real Estate Training
College
Weight Loss
Alcohol Treatment
MCSE Certification
Search:
Search
Sql | Database Management | Acs | Online Education | Java | Cms | Portal |
http://www.arsdigita.com/books/panda/images7/3/2005 2:19:39 AM
Portal
photo.net Interview: Elsa Dorfman
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
photo.net Interview: Elsa
Dorfman
by Lisa Surati for photo.net.
Home : Interviews : One Interview
Our first featured interview in the photo.net interview series is with Elsa Dorfman, a portrait
photographer in Cambridge, MA .
Background
Elsa's portraits do not illuminate or glamorize her clients; rather, Elsa presents her clients in an
extraordinary way, as themselves. Elsa embraces her clients' uniqueness and imperfections to present
them in a way reflective of their daily lives. She encourages clients to wear everyday clothes and to
bring their pets, toys, musical instruments, skis, and anything else that is an important part of who they
are and where they are in their lives.
http://www.photo.net/interviews/elsadorfman/ (1 of 5)7/3/2005 2:19:48 AM
In June of 1965 Elsa was working at what is now called
Educational Development Corporation (EDC)
developing teaching materials for elementary school
science teachers. There, Elsa met George Cope, the
photographer who took all the photographs for the books
EDC turned out. George handed the camera to Elsa and
taught her how to use it, making photography seem
accessible to her. She's been recording the lives of people
since. Elsa photographs her clients with the Polaroid
20x24 (pictured on top left with Elsa), one of only six in
existence. The camera weighs about 200 pounds, and is
25.2" wide, 40.94" long, and 59.06" high. The camera is
essentially a box with a hole in the front for the lens. The
box has a Polaroid film processor built into the back
door. Elsa loves her Polariod 20x24 because of its history
and due to the fact that so many people who worked with
camera are still devoted to it. She loves the camera's
quirkiness and unpredictability - it seems to have its own
soul. Elsa also uses the Polaroid Polacolor ER instant
color film ASA 80. She usually lets the film develop for 70 seconds before peeling it apart. Elsa also
uses Broncolor strobes because she finds it very good for non-technical people.
In addition to taking portraits, Elsa has written a book Elsa's Housebook: A Woman's Photojournal and
her work can be found in En Famille, a poem by Robert Creeley (the entire book is on the web.) Leslie
Sills' new book, In Real Life: Six Women Photographers features a chapter on Elsa and her work.
The Interview
Photo.net met up with Elsa and asked her a few questions.
1. What drove you to make the transition from teacher to photographer?
It wasn't exactly a transition from choice. I was a failure as a teacher. I was a good teacher in the
opinion of the kids, but the administration was sure I was a failure. I couldn't get the kids to
salute the flag by 8:05 or read the bible. And I didn't always wear high heels. Sometimes I wore
knee socks and saddle shoes, let alone sneakers. I wasn't that organized, and I didn't decorate my
classroom, at least not to the schools standards. I was a teacher by default. I had no idea what TO
BE.
In those days, the early sixties, there were no role models - at least I didn't see any around me. I
had been in New York City and had been a groupie. I was just middle class enough to know that
that lifestyle (the word didn't exist until around 1974) wasn't really for me. I never liked drugs. I
liked to know what was happening. I liked to be in control. So I went from teacher to
experimental teacher at Educational Services Inc. (now called EDC). While at EDC, I was
photographed by their photographer George Cope. And so there was a lineage, and I guess the
role model I was searching for.
2. What about photography captivated your interest?
Well, it was easier for me, at least, than sitting in
a room by myself writing a novel. And it was
clear I couldn't have a straight life in some office.
I loved the fact photography got me out on the
street with a reason. It was a project. And I adored
the spirituality of the darkroom. It just clicked,
forgive me. I always wore glasses and I always
stared. I think looking and observing was always a
big part of me. The way moving is a big part of
some people, staying put and looking were a big
part of me. And I was always curious about
people. Imagining their lives.
3. Why did you choose portrait photography.
I am very urban. I never was a hiker or a person
who got ecstatic because they reached the top of a
hill, let alone mountain. When I went to summer
camp and had to hike up a tiny mountain, I never
could understand what the big deal was getting to
the top. So what, there it was. Back down again. And I never saw the beauty in schlepping along
a trail. It just wasn't me. And though I adore gardens and flowers and plants now, at the time, it
never occurred to me to actually photograph them. But I always was interested in people. And of
course, I started photographing, by photographing kids for the Educational Services Inc.
materials. I was always surrounded by pictures of kids in classrooms with science materials.
There were also the market forces. People wanted pictures of my literary friends, and my literary
friends needed pictures. It all sort of happened without an intellectual decision.
Actually, in my life nothing has happened from an intellectual decision. I sort of bumbled into
this or that, and then when I was halfway down the hole, I'd say, gee, I think I am going
somewhere, skid down the rest of the way. I never know going forward, I only know looking
backwards afterwards.
4. What advice would you give to a person interested in becoming a professional photographer?
The person has to be really high energy (which I'm not) strong to do schlepping and organized.
The person has to be able to work with other people (which I'm not good at). I don't consider
myself a professional photographer because I schlep along and make barely make enough money
to pay my bills and live a little. I consider the big guys, and women, to be the real photographers.
But I would say to someone, and I often do, make sure you have enough money to pay your rent
and your health insurance.
Also learn a skill so you can earn money, then you can follow your bliss. I guess young people
have to know their way around digital. They have to be hustlers. Energetic. Know what they
want. I think they have to be type A people. Singapore tomorrow. Of course, I'll be there.
Newfoundland next week, well, maybe on Thursday. Even when I was young (now turning 64), I
wasn't that kind of person. I think a photographer has to be a good business person and a good
marketer. Forgive me it is really true. It pays to have a head for business and marketing.
When I was entering the work force in the early sixties, business and marketing were dirty words.
The only thing we thought about in the sixties, at least in my crowd, was stopping the war in
Vietnam. It was a different life. I don't think we ever thought we would grow up and have to
know important stuff and support ourselves and have health insurance. If you had told me then,
that my advice to a young person contemplating a creative career in 2001 was make sure you get
health insurance, I would have roared with laughter at the insanity of such an idea. And look, it
happened.
I think it is important to remember that making it as a photographer isn't entirely dependent on
talent. I believe making it as a photographer is more about perseverance than brilliance. I know
lots of really great photographers who didn't have the stamina to plug along for more than a
decade. I don't think one has to be brilliant to make it as a photographer, rather one has to stick
with it. Be competent, reliable, do the job and a bit more. Most people are incompetent no matter
the field they are in, so the merely competent thrive. I also think one has to be lucky. One has to
figure out how to be lucky. Don't ask me, maybe it is simply karma. One has to figure out where
to be to be lucky. One has to recognize when one is lucky. Don't let the luck evaporate. And one
has to show up. That is, the work must get seen, people have to know what you're doing. Luck
isn't going to ring at your doorbell or send you an email. You have to find it, make it happen and
recognize it. I think one has to remember life is long and not be in a hurry. If you stay alive long
enough and keep working, you will probably make it. Before you know it, you're sixty, all the
more talented people are bankers or whatever and all the things you insisted were on the right
track turn out to be prescient. I guess my motto would be who knew. So photo.net is providing a
big service....
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
I found this interview an interesting and informative insight into a prolific photographer's way of
thinking and path to success. Elsa Dorfman speaks to probably many of our hearts (certainly mine) when
she speaks of working a day job 'by default', yet being an artist on the inside.
I would have enjoyed reading even more about Elsa Dorfman's creative and technical process.
I would like to see further interviews on photo.net in the future!
-- T T, April 13, 2001
Good Advice... It really puts things in perspective :)
-- Alex English, April 15, 2001
Ahhhh, how refreshing...at last a photographer without pretense...A photographer who admits to the
financial struggles the vast majority of us face year after year. Thank you Elsa for being so very honest.
And thank you for providing an example of integrity and honesty for new and emerging photographers.
a new fan, Heidi Johnson
-- Heidi Johnson, November 13, 2002
you might like to hear an interview w/ me that was on THE NEXT BIG THING, a public radio program:
http://www.nextbigthing.org/archive/episode.html?05232003
-- Elsa Dorfman, June 1, 2003
Some very interesting advice. I liked how the advice (in the last question) wasn't about equipment or
even about any of the standard tips and tricks you'd find in a photographic book but rather just some
good, solid advice about life in general, obviously coming from someone who's been there and done
that.
It was certainly very reassuring to me and I don't feel bad that my photos are "just good enough". As
long as I believe that I can be better and that I keep at it, I will eventually be taking photos that are
"wow". Even if it takes me 20 years ... by then I'll be 40 and only half way through life ... plenty of time
to fill album after album, book after book of awesome photos.
Which is obviously what I'm looking forward to doing :-)
-- Nathanael Boehm, November 2, 2003
Add a comment
Related Links
●
http://bermangraphics.com/- Other good interviews with photographers. (contributed by T T)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of TV
photo.net Interview: David Julian
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
photo.net Interview: David
Julian
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
by Lisa Surati for photo.net.
Community
Home
: Interviews : One Interview
Our second featured interview in the photo.net interview series is
with David Julian, a pictorial photographer in Seattle, WA .
Background
David Julian works as a professional photographer, illustrator,
designer and teaches annually at the Santa Fe Workshops. Working
as an artist in related fields, David creates images for galleries and
private collectors as well as illustrations for print and multimedia
companies.
The Interview
Photo.net met up with David and asked him a few questions.
1. Tell us about your experiences getting started as a professional photographer.
I began as most folks did in photography's pre-automatic days, by using a simple manual camera
to record where I went and what features I liked there. I was quite shy and therefore avoided
photographing people. I stuck to shooting macros, as I am a very detail-oriented person and love
insects and other natural fauna. As I began to take the camera camping and on road trips, I added
landscapes to my repertoire, keeping the best landscape photographers' work in mind to measure
myself against. I also drew ideas and made notes of images I wanted to find. I trained myself to
see more graphically, and learned to use the camera's features to obtain the results I desired.
As I loved rich color and deep saturation, I shot only color
slide film and louped or projected the results for friends.
That grew as a source for critical praise and feedback,
helping me see what worked or what didn't in my images. It
also gave me lots of personal confidence- something I
lacked in my younger days. I never got around to taking any
photography courses, preferring to remain self-taught and
largely un-influenced by any mentors. I therefore never
optically printed my own black and white images, as most
http://www.photo.net/interviews/davidjulian/ (1 of 6)7/3/2005 2:19:56 AM
learning photographers did.
I went to Trinidad in 1982 and Venezuela in 1984 for vacation, and fell in love with the tropical
rainforests there. They excited my spirit and revealed a plethora of endless opportunities, both for
personal explorations and for documenting a threatened environment. I made several trips back to
the tropics over the next few years using every bit my staff job's vacation time. I began to market
my tropical rainforest images locally, and created a traveling slideshow and wall exhibit, which
donated to the Rainforest Alliance in NYC for use in conservation education and their
fundraising efforts. That launched an avenue for funding my trips and writing off my expenses at
tax time. It was a win-win situation for both of us.
Since then, I've steadily added many thousands of images of nature, landscapes and experimental
images to my files, choosing to remain semi-professional, in that I do not consider Photography
to be my main business. It is mostly a personal pursuit and an integral part of my full-time
profession as an illustrator and designer. This arrangement takes the pressure off of having to
make 100% of my living at photography and possibly losing that personal freedom to shoot or
not to shoot when I am motivated to capture what is before me. It also allows me to express
myself in other ways that photography cannot fulfill. I could have easily gone full-time pro and
become an environmental photographer or fine-art photographer, but my interest in illustration,
design and financial stability veered me away from that at the time. I probably also felt that the
commercial pressure would make my photography less than always enjoyable, which it now
definitely is.
2. What advice would you have for other photographers who are considering becoming
professional?
My advice to beginning photographers is to first forget
about the endless miasma of technical details of today's
devices and train your eye to respond to and compose your
favorite subjects. Learn to listen to your inner impressions
and to make the kind of pictures YOU want to make, rather
than emulate the scenes made by others. Become the filter
in front of the lens, as a decision-maker and an artist. Where
ever you go or whatever you shoot, endeavor to find a
personal way of interpreting what you see. Experience your
subjects without a camera first, making mental or written notes as to what you find interesting or
moving. Allow yourself to react emotionally and artistically before reacting technically. Enjoy
this simplicity as you learn how to make better images. Then, as you thoroughly learn your
camera's technical features and how it manipulates and captures light, you will instinctively make
more personally "filtered" images and not as many artless recordings. Take courses in
composition and "seeing" if you need to. Study paintings, watercolors or other art to cross-train
you aesthetic mind to see beyond physical reality. I spent a lot of time studying the early
landscape painters to learn about light and composition. Later, I also studied the images of
advertising photographers like Pete Turner and Eric Meola; compositional masters David
Meunch, Richard Misrach, Walker Evans and Wynn Bullock; and conceptual masters Jerry
Uelsmann, William Eggelston and Man Ray.
My advice to advanced amateur photographers about to go professional is to work for a few
excellent photographers who's work you admire, and to learn how they operate a business. I
lacked that useful stage of development, and it made it harder on me without it. Don't hesitate to
call someone nearby that you admire and be straight with them about your idea. Most won't bite they like the admiration and recall how they got help early on. Be prepared to put yourself
second, and offer the mentor your utmost. THAT will pay off for sure. Read PDN
(PhotoDistrictNews) and other PRO pubs to keep abreast of legal issues and trends. Learn NOT
to sell your work without proper compensation and rights control. Join or study ASMP, ASPP, or
other industry organizations and their literature. Attend meetings and parties and above all, have
some FUN as you learn.
3. Do you prefer working with digital or film cameras? Why?
I prefer film cameras at this time, as I require a lot of dependable image quality and love to edit
film on a light box with a high-quality loupe. I also feel that film offers a more stable platform for
professional reproduction at this present time, and at a reasonable cost. I must add however, that
a well-featured digital camera with manual setting options is a very useful and speedy tool for
learning composition and experimenting with spontaneity. Digital images can also be
immediately judged and edited, speeding up the learning process. Although you can see all of
your shoot on the computer, I still love the sheer joy of first seeing my images days after they
were created. It's like unwrapping a visual present. Someday, when digital cameras are as fullyfeatured, reasonably priced and of the same quality as film cameras, I will go totally digital. But
even then, I will never discard my 3x5-foot light box and my Schneider loupe!
4. Can you tell us about your technical process.
Ooh, that's a tough one. I use many processes, depending on my
desired results. I use optical printing, digital printing and
manipulation in roughly equal amounts. I use traditional cameras
and a few home-made ones as well (my Kaputski is a modified
1966 Pentax 67 with a Russian projector lens on it) . I always take
a photograph as if there were no digital tools available, but
sometime later use the computer to "digitally darkroom" the image
to its full potential. I am extremely facile in Photoshop, yet I limit
most of my manipulations to those that also exist in the optical
darkroom realm. I do this to insure that my photographs stay as
Photography, and that my illustrations remain as Illustration.
That's purely a personal issue, and a commercial one at this time.
That could change as perceptions change. I reject photographers
that use digital imaging to "create" scenes that they did not actually find in nature. That does not
apply to enhancement or retouching imperfections out. I just dislike unartistic and obvious fakery
that tries to depict reality.
5. Can you tell us about your creative process.
As I stated above, I employ a very inner-focused approach. I also go into a receptive, almost
meditative state when I first arrive at a scene. I use all five senses to learn about my subject. The
smell of a dewy wheat field, the taste of seaside air, the texture of a new leaf and the gurgle of a
creek all lead me to better interpret my reactions to a particular lace. Even the smell of rubber and
gasoline has helped my shoot portraits of classic autos! One can only imagine what it was like
when I used to shoot nudes... but that's another story entirely.
6. What about photography captivates your interest?
Photography allows me to re-live my travels, share my artistic vision and enhance my spiritual
connection to this planet. It may sound cliché, but it's all true. Through photography I notice
incredible details and the effects of time better than without it. I see what most folks miss, and I
record them as well. I also pre-visualize some of my images and then set out to hunt it down and
capture it. That often happens years later!
7. What do you want to photograph that you've not yet shot?
I want to learn how to photograph people as a journalist does- developing a connection with them
as I do with nature. That may also increase my repertoire and add dimension to my life.
For more information about David Julian visit his website
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
I'd like to say that I completely agree with David about not making photography his main, money
bringing occupation. I feel the same way, not regarding photgraphy, but multimedia: I like a lot
developing little interactive movies, but I wouldn't make it for money, because I know it very
well: making something for money robs one's freedom and, if something goes wrong, even the
pleasure in doing that hobby. I'd be glad, if somebody could prove me that it's not so.
-- Maria Bostenaru, August 24, 2001
Agreed with the above. I illustrate for a living and taking photographs as a hobby has restored the
feeling of self expression that drawing used to give me before I did it professionally. The trouble
with doing something you love for money is that most of the time the concept and direction
dictated by a client overwhelms and overides whatever you may want to do or say. Doing
something purely for yourself is far more satisfying creatively. That doesn't mean to say I would
change jobs, just that money and self expression rarely go together.
-- richard harris - www.photographlondon.co.uk, August 25, 2001
The daily grind can take the pleasure out of any work.
I'm not doing any commercial work at the moment, but when I was I felt there was a positive
influence on my personal work.
The pressure of having to produce a usable picture makes you a better photographer.
I think it's good to have more than one source of income, so I think part-time photography and
something else is a viable way to go.
-- Steve Hovland, September 19, 2001
I have heard that the eyes are a window to a being's soul. As such, we can let photography be an
outward projection and capturing of this interaction. It's obvious to me that there is more to life
then just our physical surroundings. David, you do a wonderful job of illustrating this in your
photos and I hope that they inspire others to dream and wonder and interact with their world as
you do...
-- Michael Woods, October 19, 2001
Your suggestions in your answer to question 2 is what limits most photographers from creating
better images. I hope more people understand that and put it into practice. Your response is the
best way I've seen those thoughts articulated yet.
I am mostly self taught and have similiar opinions in some areas. I've read this interview a couple
of times already and just wanted to say that I find it very inspiring.
-- Tom Menegatos, November 11, 2001
Add a comment
Related Links
❍
❍
Photography and the art of seeing- This book by Freeman Patterson gives some good
advices on how to see creatively. (contributed by Jérôme RADIX)
http://bermangraphics.com/- Other good interviews with photographers (contributed by T
T)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Laptop/Notebook Computers
photo.net Equipment Articles
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
Equipment
●
Equipment
●
Forums●
●
Gallery
●
Community
Section
General Articles
By Type of Equipment
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Digital
35mm
Medium Format
Large Format
Color Printers
Tripods
Bags
Film
Filters
Video
By Manufacturer
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Canon
Contax
Leica
Minolta
Nikon
Olympus
Pentax
http://www.photo.net/equipment/ (1 of 2)7/3/2005 2:20:06 AM
General Articles
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Where to Buy a Camera
What Camera Should I Buy? (By Goal)
What Camera Should I Buy? (By Type)
Choosing a Camera for a Long Trip
Caveat Emptor
Old Beaters
Protecting Your Camera in Bad Weather
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Project Mngt Software
http://www.photo.net/equipment/ (2 of 2)7/3/2005 2:20:06 AM
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
Equipment
●
Equipment
●
Forums●
●
Gallery
●
Community
Section
General Articles
By Type of Equipment
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Digital
35mm
Medium Format
Large Format
Color Printers
Tripods
Bags
Film
Filters
Video
By Manufacturer
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Canon
Contax
Leica
Minolta
Nikon
Olympus
Pentax
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ (1 of 3)7/3/2005 2:20:11 AM
Canon
Digital Cameras • EOS 1D Mark II • EOS 1D • EOS
20D • EOS 10D • EOS 10D vs EOS 300D (Digital Rebel)
• EOS 1D (Josh Root) • EOS 300D (Digital Rebel) • EOS
D60 • EOS D30 • CMOS Sensor Cleaning on the EOS
10D (and 300D?) • Powershot A80 • Powershot G1
• Powershot G2 • Powershot G3 • Powershot G5
• Powershot Pro1 • S100 (Digital ELPH)
35mm Film Cameras • EOS 1N • EOS 1V • EOS 3
• EOS 5/A2E • EOS Elan 7 • EOS Elan II • Rebel 2000
(EOS 300) • Rebel G (EOS 500N)
Lenses • EF Lens Motors • IS Lenses • How Shift Lenses
Change Your Life • EF 14mm • EF 15mm/2.8 Fisheye
• EF 17-35mm/2.8L • Canon's New EF-S Lenses • EF-S
18-55mm/3.5-5.6 • EF-S 18-55mm/3.5-5.6 vs. EF2470/2.8L Shootout! • EF 20-35mm/2.8 • EF 24-85mm • EF
24mm/1.4L • TS-E 24mm/3.5L • EF 28-105mm/3.5-4.5
• EF 28-300mm/3.5-5.6L IS USM • EF 28-70mm/2.8L
• EF 35-350mm • EF 50mm/1.0 • EF 50mm/1.4 • EF
50mm/1.8 • EF 50mm/f1.4 vs. f1.8 • MP-E 65mm 1-5X
Macro • EF 70-200mm (2.8, 4, and image-stabilized) • EF
70-210mm/3.5-4.5 • EF 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
• EF 70-300mm/4.5-5.6DO IS USM Test • EF 75-300 IS
USM • EF 80-200mm/2.8L • EF 85mm/1.8 USM • EF
100mm Macro vs Tamron 90mm Macro • EF 100mm/2.0
• EF 100mm/2.8 Macro • EF 180mm/3.5L USM Macro
• EF 300mm/2.8L • EF 300mm/4L • EF 600mm/4L • EF
600mm/4L IS
Photo Printers • CP-220 Compact Photo Printer • i900D
Photo Printer
Scanners • Canoscan FS4000US
Accessories • BP50 Battery Pack • Off Camera Shoe
Cord 2 • Speedlite 380EX
permission.
Agent | Privacy
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Sports Photography
by Rob Miracle for photo.net.
(punctuated by some photos by Philip
Greenspun)
We have all at one time or another been captivated by sports images. It may
be Kirk Gibson’s World Series Homerun, and the image of him running the
bases, overcoming the pain he was in or an image of high flying Michael
Jordan slam dunking a basketball with his tongue out. We have all been
captured in the moment of human drama. We all like a good action photo
and, in particular, if your kids play sports, you want to remember them in
their toils.
Quality sports shots are somewhat difficult to come by. Most people have limited access to events to
photograph them. The further away you are from the event, the harder it becomes to capture the event in
a pleasing manner. Sports are an event where crowd control is important, not only for the crowd's safety,
but for the players also. There is nothing more frightening than to be on the sidelines of a football game,
focused on a play in the field, when out of the blue a 250 pound line backer drives a player into your
legs or a foul ball comes crashing at your $8,000 lens!
Location, Location, Location!
http://www.photo.net/learn/sports/overview (1 of 21)7/3/2005 2:20:20 AM
You can only photograph things you can see. The closer you are to someone,
the better you can see them. Sports are no different. You have to get as close
to what you are shooting as you can. Typically, for a photographer with a
press pass, you can get to the sidelines or other similar locations. You
generally will not be permitted on the playing field. Depending on the sport,
you most likely will be limited to designated locations. For instance, at most
Division I football games, the media cannot shoot between the two 35 yard
markers. For most people, the situation is even worse. You probably don’t
have press access and are stuck in the stands for your shots. Get as close a
possible. Even if you make it to the sidelines, you will be jostling for space
with many other photographers, both still and video who have worked hard to
get there and have the same job to do that you have.
You also have to be familiar with the sport to be able to capture the moment. This means knowing where
to position yourself for the best action. This is critical because of angular momentum that will be
discussed in the section on freezing action. Not only does it matter with the subject, but the background.
Look at what is going to be behind your subject. While we will try to minimize the impact that a
background has, it will still be unavoidable. So you need to position your self where the background is
the most pleasing.
The Decisive Moment
Sports and Action photography is all about timing. Its about reacting. Its about
being in the right place at the right time and its about execute. These are all
qualities of the athlete and those of the photographer as well. Each sport has
predictable and unpredictable moments. Under "Knowing your Sport", you
will learn about these moments for individual sports. For instance, in
basketball, you will have opportunities to photograph layups, jump shots, free
throws, etc. Understanding the timing of these predictable actions allows you
to capture the peak moment, when the action is most dramatic.
By knowing these moments you can anticipate the action. This helps in two
ways, one it helps you with focus which will be discussed in a later segment,
and secondly it helps you snap the shutter at the right time. The saying goes
"If you see the action you missed it." This basically means if you wait for the
soccer player to head the ball then press the shutter release, the ball most likely will be sailing out of the
frame. You have to push the button before the action so that the mirror has time to flip out of the way
and the shutter open and close. There is a delay between the image hitting your optical nerve and the
shutter closing. You have to, through experience, learn what that time is and adjust for it.
Required Equipment
Most sports are shot on 35mm cameras because of their portability. While
some photographers have captured great sports moments with other format
cameras, we will concentrate our efforts on the 35mm arena which is the most
commonly used gear.
"Its not the equipment but the photographer who makes the picture" is
generally a true statement. However with sports and action photography,
having the wrong equipment means not getting the shots you want or need.
This relates back to the section on location. The further away, the longer the
lens is needed to capture the same image in the frame. Different sports require
different lens lengths. For instance, basketball is generally shot from the
baseline or sideline near the baseline. You generally can get good results with
an 85mm lens in this situation. However, by the time the players are at mid
court, you need a 135mm to capture them. If they are playing under the far goal, a 200-300mm lens is
needed to fill the frame well, yet for shooting a soccer game, a 300-400mm lens is needed for just about
anything useful.
Generally, for a 35mm camera, each 100mm in lens focal length gets you about 10 yards (9 meters) in
coverage. This coverage means that on a vertical format photo, a normal human will fill the frame fairly
well. Thus, if you are shooting American Football from the 30 yard line with a 300mm lens, you will be
able to get tight shots in an arc from the goal line to mid-field to the other 40 yard marker. As players get
closer, your lens may be too long. Many photographers will carry two bodies with two different length
lenses for this reason.
Lens speed is also a critical factor. The faster the lens, the faster the shutter speed you can use, which as
the lens grows longer, this becomes even more important. This will be covered in the freezing action
section in more depth. If you look at the sidelines of any Division 1 college football game or an NFL
football game, you will see people with really big lenses. These range from 300mm to 600mm or longer
and even then, they may have a 1.4X converter or 2X converter on. You need fast shutter speeds to
freeze action with long lenses. Every F Stop you give up requires a faster film or less freezing potential.
Most consumer grade long lenses and zooms have variable apertures, but most are F5.6 at the long end
of the lens. F5.6 is good for outdoor day time shots, but becomes very inhibiting for night games and
indoor action. Most people use lenses that are F2.8 or faster. These lenses are very expensive. A 400mm
F2.8 sells for over $8000 US. They are also very heavy and bulky. Using a monopod is a life saver with
these big lenses.
Besides these long lenses, you need a camera that can drive them.
Today, most new cameras are auto focus. Auto focus makes this
easier on us, but the AF systems are not fool proof. Luckily, many
sports lend them selves well to manual focus, so sometimes you
can get a bargain on a manual version of a lens to use on a manual
camera and still get good photos. However AF comes in handy for
a few sports. Hockey and Soccer involve many subject to camera
distance changes. Motion is less predictable and these sports are
some what harder to manual focus. Football, Basketball, and Baseball are quite easy to manual focus.
You may also need a flash with a high output. I personally do not recommend a flash at any sporting
event. I find the results unpleasing. However the new modern flash systems produce great results. Some
sporting events like gymnastics and others are no-flash events. It is best to talk to an event official
(referee, coach, etc.) before using your flash. Flashes will be covered more in the section on lighting.
Other equipment which can come in handy are remote triggers. These allow you to mount a camera
where you cannot be during the game and remotely triggering it, recovering it after the event. Basketball
and Horse Racing are two good examples of sports where great photos come from someone who never
sees the viewfinder while they are shooting. Pictures of NBA stars slam dunking the basketball taken
above the rim or the winner of the horse race thundering by are done remotely.
[Editor's note: Among digital cameras available in April 2001, the most suitable cheap camera is the
Olympus E-10. A working sports photographer would use a Nikon D1, Canon D30, or one of the Kodak/
Nikon or Kodak/Canon professional bodies. Where to buy all of this exotic stuff? Your neighborhood
camera shop won't have it. Check out the photo.net recommended retailers.]
Depth of Field -- Isolating the subject.
Most all dramatic sports photos are shot with the lens wide open or one stop from wide open. This is
done for two reasons. First you need all the shutter speed you can get, which means shooting wide open,
but just as important, it has to do with isolating the subject. As the aperture on a lens opens up, less and
less of the photo is in focus. The longer the lens, the more dramatic the change. The larger the distance
between the subject and the background the more out of focus the background will come. If you use a
long lens and a fast aperture, then your subject will stand out and the background elements will have less
impact on your photo.
Reducing background noise is an important goal in many photographs, sports action or not. In studio or
landscape settings, you have time to control the elements that make up the picture. Action photography
is a "grab it now" type of shooting and you live with the background that is there. If you open up the lens
to its maximum, you will find your subjects standing out and becoming memorable.
When you are shooting sports, in particular football and soccer, keep in mind that plays shot on the far
side of the field are closer to the background than shots on the near side of the field. Thus if you are
shooting a soccer player moving the ball down field and the player passes in front of the bench when
you snap the shot, you will have a very distracting background. It may be hard to separate the player and
ball from the background noise. Fences, signs, poles, bleachers, stands, and people on the far sideline
can really mess up a good shot. Even though you might be shooting wide open, the background will be
too prominent in these shots. Should they be avoided? If you have better shots, don’t use it. However, it
may be your best shot. Shoot it, just be aware that distracting backgrounds are more problematic on
shots on the far side of the field.
Focus
An out of focus shot is pretty useless. There isn’t much you can do with them other than throw them
away. So achieving crisp focus should be a goal of every one. Today’s AF cameras do a very good job
of focusing, and focusing quickly. AF has really made a lot of photographers lazy. I used to manual
focus everything, but now that I have an AF system with AF lenses, I let it do my work for me.
However, many times, manual focus works better. To understand this, you need to know how auto focus
works. The camera takes a series of measurements across its AF sensors. It looks for contrasting lines. It
moves the lens until these lines achieve the maximum sharpness. These sensors are located in the
viewfinder of the camera. Different camera models have different sensor configurations and different
capabilities. These sensors either are a simple spot meter in the center of the view finder. A line of three
sensors that run across the viewfinder. Or a cross which run side to side and top to bottom. Generally,
these sensors do not cover the full range of the view finder and your view finder will have markings
showing where the AF sensors are.
If you are following a football player as he runs down the side lines, or a horse as it heads over a water
jump, you start by pointing the camera at the subject. If you have a spot AF sensor, you have to be dead
on the subject or you will find a focused background and a blurry subject. Wide horizontal sensors will
allow you to lead your subject a little bit or allow you to compose shots that are off center. However,
when you turn the camera to shoot a vertically framed shot, your sensors now run up and down. There
are two things to be aware of here. First the AF is now vertical, thus your subject now has to be in the
middle of the frame again, just like the spot sensor. Depending on the AF sensors in your camera, they
may not focus on horizontal lines as well as vertical and you may find the AF less than responsive.
However, you are shooting vertical sports, like volleyball, shooting vertically works pretty well.
Depending on your composition, many sports photos are shot vertically. Humans are vertical people and
if you are trying to get a good shot of your favorite baseball player cranking a home run, you want to
turn the camera to a vertical format. Luckily, baseball lends itself well to a small AF sensor for pitchers
pitching and batters batting.
Some of the high end cameras have a cross pattern of AF sensors and they are generally selectable. By
using a sensor array in this format, you have good vertical and horizontal sensor patterns regardless of
which way you hold the camera.
For those times where AF isn’t working well, or if you have a manual focus camera, you need to
understand how to focus. There are two primary means of focusing a camera: Follow focus and Zone
Focus. Follow focus is where you keep your camera on your subject, rotating the focus collar attempting
to keep the subject in focus. This works very well on side to side movement, where the camera to subject
distance is not changing rapidly. You might use this method for football, auto racing, or other events
where you turn side to side following the action. This requires practice to get down. A good way to
practice is to go out to the street and follow focus cars as they drive past.
The second method is called zone focus. Here you expect the action to take place at a particular place, at
the goal mouth on a hockey rink, or at the jump point on a long jump event at a track meet. You can
focus on the area you want to be sharp and when the subject moves into the zone, you then take the
photo. This is timing related. You need to practice the timing on this as well, Both of these methods
allowed photographers to capture fantastic photos before the invention of auto focus and will continue to
into the future. Even if you have an AF system, you should learn to follow focus and zone focus because
there may be times where your AF isn’t available (low light, low contrast situations for instance) and
you need to be able to come back with the shot.
Composition
Faces
"Give me faces" or "I want to see faces" is a common cry from the
photo editor because that is the cry he gets from his bosses. The
face is the primary source of emotion in a shot and that emotion is
what makes or breaks a shot. Shots of the subjects backside just
don’t cut it. Don’t waste the film on a back shot unless you can see
part of their face. When shooting a sport you need to be aware of
the players locations. For instance, in basketball, if shooting from a
side line, you only shoot people taking jump shots from the top of
the key around the backside away from you. Any one taking a
jump shot on your side of the court will be a shot of their back side. If you can’t see their face, leave it
on the cutting room floor.
Some sports, faces are hard to deal with. Football, Hockey, and Baseball tend to be difficult to catch
faces depending on the level of play. Youth hockey for instance involves face cages on the helmets.
Football at all levels of play involve face cages. Baseball caps create harsh shadows across faces. The
easy solution is to use a fill flash to try to get past these barriers, however, flashes are generally not
friendly for sports due to limited range and the possible distraction. Still its best to get the cage in the
shot because the face will show through better than the back of the helmet.
Vertical/Horizontal
There are two ways to hold a 35mm camera that effects the composition. This was discussed somewhat
in the focus section regarding the AF sensors. You can hold the camera in the traditional way where the
long side of the film is horizontal to the ground. This is a horizontal or landscape format. If you turn the
camera so that the long side of the film is perpendicular to the ground, you are now shooting vertical or
portrait format.
Many modern cameras have an additional release that allows you to hold a camera in a traditional
manner (left hand under the lens, right hand along the right side of the body) as opposed to the old way
of shooting vertically (left hand under the lens, right hand on top of the camera since the camera was
rotated 90 degrees left). These vertical releases have been a wonder for sports photography since it
allows the camera to be held in a more stable fashion.
Why would you want to do this? Think about the shape of humans. They are taller than they are wide.
To fill the frame with a person playing a sport, they fit the frame better while holding the camera
vertically. Even in a tight head shot, it fits better vertically. A lot of sports shots, in particular if it is of
an individual is shot vertically. Horizontal shots are used more showing conflict.
Individual vs. Conflict.
The vertical vs. horizontal decision needs to be made based on
your desired goal in capturing the scene. If you are highlighting an
individual, you should shoot vertical. A majority of photo
opportunities in basketball and baseball come from individual
efforts.
However, there are times where you want to show the conflict in
the scene, for instance two hockey players fighting for a puck
along the dasher boards, or a soccer player being pursued by the
defense. To capture these multiple people, you typically will have to shoot horizontal. You should make
a conscious decision before you fire the frame as to your goals in capturing the shot.
Rule of Thirds
There is a common photograph rule called "The Rule of Thirds", which says that if you divide the frame
into a thirds vertically and horizontally and place the subject where the lines intersect, the resulting
photo is more interesting. Camera manufacturers don’t believe in this because their AF sensors are
centered in the camera.
For Sports photography, following the Rule of Thirds in principle is a good idea. That is lead your
subject into the frame. If you are shooting a football player running left to right, leave more room on the
right side than the left to imply that he is going somewhere. Shooting the player leaving the frame is
poor composition. If you are shooting a tight "portrait" style shot, have the subjects head on a "Rule of
Thirds" line. If you fill the frame, you should be in pretty good shape, just leave some space on the
frame in the direction the player is facing.
Framing
Depending on how you get your photo output, you should be aware that many cameras do not show the
full frame. Because of this many labs "enlarge" standard prints to approximate what you see in your
viewfinder. If your camera shows the full frame, like many high end cameras do, and you fill the frame
with a person, the 4X6 coming from the lab will in all probably crop part of the frame in a way you do
not like. I cannot count the number of times a soccer ball has been cropped out due to this enlarging
factor.
If you scan from the negative for your publication, you have more control in capturing the whole frame.
Get to know your output methods, lab habits, etc. If you find you are loosing parts of your frame, don’t
fill the frame as tight.
Know your Sport, Know your Players
Each sport is different in the techniques used to capture the moment. Each sport has a limited number of
unique shots. You can only shoot so many basketball games before you start feeling like, "been there,
done that". Each sport also has opportunities to get "safeties" . A safety is a shot that is easy to get and
will give you something to publish if you fail to get good action. For instance, I was shooting a baseball
game. In the visitors at bat in the second inning, the skies opened up and it started raining. I had time to
shoot the home team in the field and at bat once. Realizing the pending weather, I concentrated on
getting some simple usable shots instead of waiting on some excitement at a base, like a steal. Safeties
include things like batters batting, pitchers pitching, basketball players shooting free throws, the
quarterback under center. Take times when the action is slow to get some good tight shots to use in case
no good action materializes. Shoot your safeties first, concentrate on action later. You always want to
come back with something.
Its also important to spend some time at an event and not rush the assignment. Many photographers are
under intense deadlines and cannot devote enough time to their sporting events and it shows in their
work. I expect one usable shot every 20 frames. I like to shoot at least 72 (2 -36’s) per event and I can
come out with several usable shots and some fantastic ones. If you go to a soccer game and shoot a 12
exposure roll, don’t expect much.
Its very important to know the sport you are covering. You have to know the coach and their coaching
style. You have to understand some basic fundementals of the game or you will become very frustrated.
For instance, in football, if its 3rd down and 1 yard to go, don't expect a pass, but point the camera at the
full back. In most likelyhood, he will be getting the ball, unless its late in the game and they have to
pass. Or don't wait on a steal at 2nd base with 2 outs. Coaches hate making the last out of the inning on
the base paths.
You also need to know players and their habits. Some players are full of emotion and tend to display
their pattened moves. For instance at a local high school girls soccer match, I got a dramatic sequence of
a player doing a cartwheel throw in. I knew it was coming and I was prepared for her move when she
got the ball.
Knowing your sport goes beyond the rules and players. Know your coaches and what tends to make
them emotional. Get fan shots or cheerleader shots with their emotion. A co-worker once told me "even
a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while". Any photographer will eventually get the "action" shot, but
sometimes you need that crying cheerleader after a loss, or fans in costumes going nuts to completely
tell the story. The game goes beyond the boundries of the field and the rule book.
Baseball
Baseball is one of the hardest sports to shoot. The action is unpredictable. You wait and wait and then
when you are half asleep, something happens. Much of the field is out of range of normal zoom and
telephoto lenses. Depending on the level of your sport, you will need long lenses. For most regulation
fields (90 feet between bases, 350+ feet to the wall), you need 400mm or longer if you are shooting from
the dugouts. It lets you shoot all the infield positions reasonably tight from the dugout/press area. The
near base can be gotten with a 200-300mm lens. If you are shooting little league, you can get away with
a 200-300mm lens because of the smaller fields unless you are trying to catch the outfield. Night
baseball is too poorly lit and you need professional long telephotos to capture good images here.
Your safeties in baseball consist of the pitcher, throwing the ball, the batters batting, the catcher catching
or getting a sign from the dugout. After these shots, the game becomes a little less predictable. When a
batter hits the ball to an infielder, you have to find the play, aim the camera, focus, and fire. Generally its
too late. What you have to do is kinda keep the camera pointed at the short stop or the second baseman.
Keep the camera near your face, but you need to watch the play. In particular, if you are standing where
you can see the batter's stomach, you are in risk of getting hit by a foul ball. If you see the batters back,
you will rarely see a foul ball. Once you have an idea of where the play is going, you can adjust, focus
and fire. If you are shooting from the first base dugout, 3rd and Short Stop should be about the same
distance away, so you can zone focus here. Likewise, from the third base dugout, 2nd and 1st are about
the same distance.
Once runners get on base, spend a few batters focused on an open base in front of the runner. Thus if a
runner is on first and no one is on second or third, there is a good chance for a play at second base. It
could be a steal or a double play. If no one is on, concentrate on first base. If multiple people are on,
concentrate on either the fielders or on home plate. You have to wait and be patient. Baseball games are
long and you will opportunities. Make sure to get your safeties. If you get into a pitching dual, your
safeties may only be shots of the pitchers.
Basketball
Unlike baseball, basketball is the easiest sport to shoot. Action is contained in a 100 foot x 50 foot area.
There are two objects (the nets) where the action always heads. Basketball is a game of limited shots
though. You can shoot jump shots, lay ups, free throws, blocks, dribbling, and defense. Zone focus
works well in basketball. You know lay ups are going to happen close to the net, so focus on the net and
wait on the action to come to you. Your focusing techniques will vary somewhat if you are on the side
line or base line. If you are on the baseline, zone focus is the best method. If you are along the side, you
can follow focus. Your safeties are free throws and players dribbling or looking to pass. At these times
action is minimal and you can get some good tight shots of players.
Basketball (and other gym sports) is probably the worst lighting situation you will get into, however,
you can get away with much slower shutter speeds. When a player drives for a lay up or takes a jump
shot, they almost pause at the top of their jump. This is the peak of the action and the shot should be
taken then. Since they have stopped moving for a millisecond, that is the best time to freeze them. Once
you have these shots under your belt, you can then start working on emotion shots, blocks, and other
action which may not come along as often.
Generally you can get away with anywhere between a 50mm and 135mm lens with 85-105 being
optimal. This lets you cover out to about mid court. If you want to shoot shots under the far basket, you
will need a longer lens. However a fast lens, like an 85mm F1.4 is an excellent choice for most of your
basketball action shots.
Football
Football is also an easy sport to shoot but may be one of the most equipment intense sports. Most of the
time, you will be shooting at night and fast glass is required. Motion is predictable and a student of the
game can almost predict the plays to allow you to get ready. Knowing your sports allows you to know if
its a passing situation or running situation so you know where to focus your attention. For instance, in a
football game, if it is 3rd down with 1 yard to go, you can be pretty comfortable that a running play is
coming. So get your lens pointed at the backfield and get ready.
Football affords the fewest safeties. You can get the QB getting ready to pass or the coach on the side
lines. However, the action shots are plenty. You will get opportunities to photograph the quarterback
throwing the ball and running backs running the ball. Make sure you get these shots. Then you can go
hunting pass plays to the receivers.
If you have freedom of movement, you want to set up 5-10 yards down field from the play. That way
you get the QB and running backs coming at you. If you are stuck in photo zones between the goal line
and the 35 yard marker, you will be limited to shooting plays that occur in that area. Big glass is
important to football. If you have freedom of movement, a 300mm F2.8 is the ideal lens. However if you
are restricted, you either need a 2x on the 300mm or a 600mm to reach plays on the far end of the field.
If you are patient or shooting youth league, you can get away with an 80-200 zoom. You will have to
wait on more plays to come your way. You wont get much in the middle or far side of the field.
Since football movement is up and down the field and most photographers shoot from a side line,
football is a follow focus sport. It is a pretty easy sport to follow focus because the subject to camera
distance changes constantly, so once you start focusing, you should be able to time your turning the
focus ring with their movement.
Soccer and Hockey
Auto focus was invented with soccer and hockey in mind. These two sports
involve rapid changes in direction. The subject to camera distance changes
so fast, its hard to follow focus because in an instant, the play is heading
another direction. Zone focusing is a bit more applicable, except there is no
guarantee the play will enter your focus zone. AF solves this problem
because it tracks the play better than you. These two sports alone are the
reason I moved from manual cameras to auto focus.
Soccer is a game where you need long lenses. Generally, you have good
access to the side lines. At the major league and college level, there may be
some limits, but they probably are not as tight as football because the number of players on the sidelines
is much less. You will typically shoot from the touch (or side) lines, though you can get some real good
shots from behind the net or along the goal line. The lens of choice for Soccer is a 400mm F2.8 or
longer. Many pro soccer photographers will have two cameras. One with the long lens mounted and a
second with an 80-200mm zoom. This gives me some flexibility in composition while giving me the
length needed to capture this large field game. If play gets close, they can switch bodies and go to the
shorter lens.
Soccer is a good game to get some dynamic and exciting photos. Your safeties include players dribbling
the ball and throw ins. Get these shots and then work on catching headers, traps, corner kicks, and goalie
saves. Soccer headers require the most accurate guessing on timing. The ball will be out of the frame
quickly. It takes a lot of practice to capture these.
Hockey, while similar to soccer in its unpredictable movement, has an advantage of being played in a
smaller contained area. An 80-200mm lens is good for shooting hockey regardless of where the play is.
To get shots on the far end of the rink, up to 300mm may be needed. Hockey however has some quirks
that you need to be aware of. Frequently you are limited to shooting through the glass which limits the
angles you can shoot or through chain link fence for outdoor roller hockey. Some arenas you are limited
to one location and have a small hole to shoot though and you most likely will be competing with other
photographers for this real estate.
The ice or deck wrecks havoc with your camera’s meter. You will need to overexpose by at least one
stop in ice rinks to get white ice. This takes away from your available shutter speed. Your safeties
includes faceoffs, and players skating with the puck/ball. Good shots can be had of the goalies, though
many of your shots will be of players on the rink.
Volleyball
Volleyball is a rarely covered event, with beach volleyball getting more press than the traditional gym
based variety. Volleyball can yield some rich, colorful and dramatic shots given the need and desire to
take them. Your access in volleyball venues will vary drastically. For instance, during a high school
game, you may be permitted to shoot along the sidelines, or not far behind the end lines. As the level of
competition goes up, you will be moved further and further back. In beach volley ball, you probably will
not be permitted in the sand pit at all. So pack a long lens and some sun block (for the beach game).
Volleyball shots are tricky to use auto focus on. If you are shooting from behind the lines towards the
net, the AF could trigger on the net, the back of the opposing players, the back wall, or just about any
point in between. It is best to use a vertical sensor for this sport since people are going up and down and
there is little side to side movement. For manual focus, you want to zone focus. From behind the end
line, most all action at the net will be at the same distance from you, so focus on an area just a little
behind the net and leave it there.
For shots along the side lines, it is best to shoot at an angle to capture the faces. These are the best times
to capture digs and diving players as you should have a fairly un-obscured view of all the players.
Traditionally, volleyball follows the "Bump Set Spike" ritual. Learn who the diggers, setter, and hitters
are. Then take your time working on a shot of the individual skill you want to capture. Your setter will
be easy to track and get shots of. Digging is a bit tricky since it can come from any were on a given half
of the court, be a low or high dig, involve a dive or other less than predictable motion. Hitters/blockers
are fairly easy to capture since that area of play is somewhat limited.
Your safeties are the player serving and the setters since they are fairly easy to capture. Next work on
your hitters/blockers followed by digs.
Golf
Golf is a fairly easy game to shoot as far as action goes, but it is one of the toughest because of the
nature of the game. That is you can get good action shots if you can get there at all. Consider the
following. Golf is a long distance, one direction game. It is played over a course of thousands of yards in
a some what straight path and it is played from hole to hole. Secondly, it is a quiet game where the
slightest distraction is not allowed. Finally, for your safety, your access to swing areas is limited.
The first problem is addressed by one of two methods. First, you can camp at one location, such as a tee
box or a green on one hole and shoot multiple people as they pass you. Or alternatively, you can with the
permission of the course, use a cart and follow individual golfers. Cart paths are narrow and heading
against the grain is difficult. Ideally, you will learn the course and find a spot where you can shoot both
green play and a tee box with minimal movement.
Even at 400mm, you may not get close enough for good tight shots. Longer lenses are almost a must for
capturing competitive golf. If you are shooting recreational golf, say your beer buddies, you can get
closer and a lens in the 200mm range will suffice. Any focus method will work since the players are
basically standing still. Golf, in particular at the pro level is very sound sensitive. Turn off the AF (you
don't need it any way) and go to a slient manual focus. If you have silent AF lenses, such as the Canon
USM or the Nikon AF-S lenses, then you can AF. Some events may require you to use a sound blimp
around the camera if your shutter/motor are distracting to the golfers.
There are a few main golf shots, in most all cases, they are individual shots. The primary action golf
shots include a shot during the back-swing, a shot near impact of the ball, a shot after the follow-through
with the golfer looking for the ball or any time during a putt (but be quiet). However, there are a lot of
opportunities for safeties in golf. Any shot of a golfer studying the course, be it looking at the scorecard,
messing with the golf bag, talking to the caddie, or lining up a putt are easy shots to get. These are times
where the firing of the shutter will be more tolerated. Also, shots after the follow-through are considered
safe shots. The action is paused and you know its going to happen so getting them is somewhat easier.
Don’t forget that a lot of good golf shots, and other sports for that matter do not involve play at all. One
of my personal favorite golf shots was of a greens keeper changing the pins.
Track and Field
Track and Field meets are a lot of fun to shoot. You get a lot of variety of shots, multiple opportunities
to shoot most participants and events and there generally is a lot of emotion displayed during a track
meet. The most difficult things about track meets are logistical.
Access can be restricted depending on the level of play that is being photographed. At a high school
meet, there is little in the way of restrictions. Just stay out of the participants way, or out of the way of
projectiles like shot puts and discus and you are okay. As you climb the ladder, access gets tighter and
tighter. Even at NCAA Division I level meets, the access is still pretty good. Pro level, Olympic, or
Major Events will be more tightly controlled due to the size of the event and the amount of media
present. Access will be restricted to particular shooting areas.
Logistically, track meets are hard to cover because multiple events are going on at once. If media
movement is controlled, you may only get to shoot one or two events. But at a more relaxed meet, you
will have more freedom to scoot from event to event. Because of time, multiple heats/attempts and so
on, the track will generally be filled with races while the inside of the track contains the field events.
There are no specific safety shots in a track meet, but the individual events are fairly easy since almost
all movement is predictable. Track events all move one direction. Shooting the finish, or turns provides
the most dramatic events. For the hurdles, it is pretty easy to time the players as they peak over the
hurdles. Relays, with the baton passing is probably the hardest part to capture because the runner taking
the baton may obscure the runner handing it off. Use follow focus to catch runners and they move past,
or zone focus if you are working on the finish line.
Field events, like wise are very predictable. Events like the high jump, long jump, and pole vault involve
participants running towards an object, and then jumping over it. This is a zone focus heaven. Use a little
depth of field (F5.6 or so) and focus on the bar for the high jump and pole vault and fire as they start up
and over. You should catch them at the peak as they hurdle over the event. If you didn’t get that run,
don’t worry, each player generally takes two or three shots and there are multiple players.
The Long jump, and its cousin, the triple-jump are pretty easy. They are also zone focus events. If you
are at the end of the pit, focus just a few feet into the pit and fire when they hit the board and begin their
jump. After a few jumps, you should have a feel for when they peak at their jump and will nail a few
really good jumps. If you have to shoot from the side, you still zone focus over the middle of the pit,
track the runner as they head down the track and fire when they go airborne.
The throwing and hurling events are likewise easy to shoot. The players have to stay within a confined
space, so zone focus and you will do well. Try to catch them when their face is towards you and when
their emotion is at its best or just after the throw.
If you have good access, you can get some great shots with an 80-200mm lens. If you are restricted you
may need a 400mm or longer, but in most cases you can get away with smaller lenses.
Gymnastics and Figure Skating
Gymnastics, as a rule, is a no flash event. While a flash may be tolerated at a basketball game, or a night
football or baseball game, its generally a no-no for gymnastics. The participants are easily distracted and
the slightest hesitation can cause serious injury. The bad thing is most gymnastics happen is poorly lit
situations. Lighting will be covered later.
Like Track and Field, gymnastics is a series of events with individuals performing. The events go on
simultaneous to each other and depending on the level of the meet, your access may be limited to
minimize distractions. With the exception of the floor program, most of the gymnastics events are kept
in a small area which makes focusing easy and the movements are predictable. Even with the vault, your
object is to catch the vault itself or the landing. So you will probably want to zone focus most of the
events. The floor exercise will require follow focus or auto focus. Your lens choice will vary too much
by access, but like other indoor sports you want the fastest glass available.
Events like the balance beam, rings, parallel bars, and the uneven bars provide several opportunities to
capture the athletes in artistic, athletic, and emotional poses where capturing the moment is somewhat
easier. The vault and floor exercises require more timing to get good shots. However, for the floor
exercises, its about emotion anyway, so catching the cute smiles and ballet style poses is critical to
telling the story more than catching someone in a tumbling pass.
Figure Skating combines the problems of gymnastics with the problems of hockey. You are limited by
your access to off ice and you have to compensate for the white surface. Lighting isn't as good as a
hockey game. Frequently, the lighting is spot lights, so knowing stage lighting is important. The
programs can be predictable and are generally published before the event so you know when the triple
jumps are coming. Lens length is determined by proximity to the surface but again, you want the fastest
glass possible. Autofocus is a good idea for Figure Skating, though some success with follow and zone
focusing can be achieved.
Motorsports and Racing Events
These sports are generally fairly easy to photograph. They generally occur during the daytime and you
can get away with longer slower lenses. AF isn't quite as important because the action occurs in a very
precticable fashion. You can follow or zone focus easy enough. Safety shots are the partcipants racing
past you. The challenge for racing sports is to show motion which will be covered shortly. You don't
want your Forumla 1 car looking like it is sitting still. Also much more importantly, there is a lot to the
game other than the cars or horses running around the track. The pits/paddock afford some of the best
shots. Be ready for an accident. They can happen at any time.
The biggest problem with racing sports is the distance from the track. You only have the partcipants for
a brief time on each lap and in the case of the ponies, you only get them for one lap (per race). You will
need big lenses in almost all circumstances for the race itself. Your shorter lenses work well for crowd
and off track shots.
Freezing Action Shots
So far, we have discussed each event and they types of shots to be taken. Safeties generally are taken at
times where the action is minimal, and we don’t have to concentrate as much on freezing the action. But
what sells, and what the viewers want to see are people suspended in mid-air. They want to see the crisp
ball laying just off the receivers finger tips. To do that, we must freeze the action.
Freezing the action requires fast shutter speeds. Most modern, high end 35mm SLRs have a top shutter
speed of 1/8000th of a second. Except for a speeding bullet, this is about fast enough to catch anything
you or I are likely to shoot, even an Indy car blasting around the track at 230mph.
But it isn’t that simple. Lets first discuss a standard photographic rule of thumb, which is the minimal
speed for hand-holding a lens. The minimal shutter speed for hand holding a lens is 1 divided by the
focal length of the lens. Thus a 50mm lens should not be hand held any slower than 1/50th of a second.
A 300mm lens should not be hand held at less than 1/300th of a second. If your camera does not have
shutter speeds between say 1/250 and 1/500, then you round up. So for a 300mm lens, your minimal
hand hold speed may be 1/500th of a second. The more proficient you get, the more likely you are to be
able to cheat by one shutter speed. A monopod is the preferred way for action photographers to gain
additional steadiness. It can generally buy you one to two shutter speeds of hand holding.
Not only has it become more difficult to hand hold these lenses, it becomes harder to freeze the action as
well. The lenses get heavier and harder to hold. Your breathing and heart beating and muscle strain are
enough to cause still objects hard to capture. Longer lenses not only magnify the scene, they magnify the
apparent movement. If a runner passes through the viewfinder with a 50mm lens attached in one second,
then at 500mm, the same person moving at the same speed will pass in 1/10th of a second.
Generally, to freeze action, you need at least two full shutter speeds if not more faster than the hand hold
speed. So for our 300mm lens, you will need at least 1/1200 to 1/2400 to freeze action with this lens
(rounding up, that’s 1/2000-1/4000th of a second). Even at these speeds, you may have to follow side to
side movement, called panning to have the movement crisp when you expose the film Lets say you are
shooting a car racing event. Even at high shutter speeds, if you hold the camera still and wait on the car,
you will capture a blur. By matching the movement of the subject with the movement of the lens, you
minimize the relative motion between the two.
For subjects coming to you or heading away, their apparent movement isn’t as great. Many people make
up some of the action freezing by getting things coming toward them.
Film is critical in freezing action. Each increase in film speed gets you one more shutter speed. So if you
shoot an event with ISO 100 film and the best you can get is 1/500th of a second, switching to an ISO
400 film gets you to 1/2000th which may be enough to freeze the action. Going to ISO 1600, will take
you to 1/8000th of a second.
Adding high shutter speeds, fast films, monopods, panning, or shooting objects as they come toward
you, and capturing action at its peak will let you freeze fantastic shots.
Giving the illusion of movement.
Many new action photographers worry about freezing action, trying to get the crispest shots possible.
Even veteran photographers will try for crisp shots, but they are not afraid to allow some blurring.
Stop and think about it for a minute. A baseball pitcher throws the ball, the batter swings the bat. Your
eyes don’t freeze the action precisely, so why should your pictures. A blurring bat, or an elongated ball
leaving a blurry arm imply movement. As long as most of the body and the face is crisp a little motion in
the hands, feet, and projectiles is acceptable and in many cases desired. This is another little cheat in not
having that fast of a shutter speed.
Some times, we slow the shutter speed down intentionally to amplify the movement. We have all seen
shots of runners where the background is a blur their arms and legs are a blur, but their body and head
are fairly well focused. Combining panning, slower shutter speeds, and predictable movement and you
can capture some very dramatic pictures showing all kinds of movement.
These types of shots require patients, work, and a lot of experimenting. Don’t hesitate, when at an event
to experiment with different techniques . . . after you get your safeties and your primary shots.
Lighting and Film
Lighting conditions are the single worse bane to sports photographers. There simply are no good lighting
conditions. During the day, under bright sun, there are harsh shadows and it creates shots that have too
much contrast. Morning and late afternoon shots are somewhat better if you can get the light behind you,
but you still end up with some rough shadow conditions. Overcast skies drops the light level too low for
using really long lenses or the shots don’t have popping color.
As the sun sets, or if you move indoors, the lighting is generally enough to let the players see the ball
coming at them. No two facilities are lit the same. You will find situations where little league fields are
better lit that college fields. You will find that different arenas and stadiums have different color balance
lights. Some facilities will even have bulbs of different color balance which makes some shots
unprintable.
Most modern pro arenas have fairly decent lighting and the color balance is pretty good. Professional
teams need lots of media coverage and after years of complaining, they have created decent lighting for
the media to use.
Critical to the sports and action photographer is the choice of film. By now, you should understand the
relationship of film speed to aperture to shutter speed. As light goes down, shutters slow down, apertures
open up, and film speed increases.
Most indoor sports events either require the resources of Sports Illustrated to mount strobes in the
ceiling, which are not distracting to players as a strobe blasting in their face, or require using high speed
film. Most indoor sports are shot at ISO 1600 with fast (F2.8 or faster) lenses .
Under these conditions, you can get away with 200mm or less in lens. That means you need to get a
shutter speed of around 1/400th to be able reasonably freeze the body while allowing limited motion in
the extremities. However a lot of time, the available shutter speed will be less than that. You do the best
you can. You can increase film speed, which will increase grain and contrast to compensate. You can
buy faster lenses, like a 200mm F2.0 or an 85mm F1.4. You can switch to a shorter lens to lessen the
impact of motion. Remember, you can freeze action well at 1/250 with an 85mm lens but can barely
hand hold a 200mm lens at the same speed.
Color slide film is limited in film speed. Most high speed color slide film has the grain of an ISO 3200
print film. Depending on your use, grain may not be too bad. Most newspapers use low line count
screens for their half tones, and a lot of grain will be hidden in the half tones. Most high speed films are
not very sharp and lack color saturation.
Lets take a couple of common films that are used by sports photographers: Fuji 800 and Fuji 1600. If
you shoot Fuji 800 at 1600 and push process it (over develop it to make up for underexposing it). You
will increase grain and loose some shadow detail. However Fuji 800 under these conditions still
provides more pleasing shots than Fuji 1600 rated and developed normally. Even pushed to 3200, Fuji
800 provides good results.
Not all films are designed for push processing. Most color C-41 based films develop their layers at
different rates and the normal 3 minute, 15 second development time is the amount of developing where
all layers come out right. Overdeveloping can cause uncorrectable color shifts. Some films are produced
with push processing in mind, like the Kodak Extapress line of films. Fuji doesn’t say one way or
another about Fuji SuperG 800, however many press photographers use this film and push it all the time.
Pushing film is a common process. Most places that develop slide film (process E-6) or Black and White
will push film upon request. However color print film (process C-41) is a different story. Most locations
will have a lab that will do it, but most mini-labs will not. Either the operators are not trained on
changing the time, the management does not want them to forget and then ruin future films when they
forget to reset the machine, or the machine just isn’t capable of using different times. You may have to
search to find a lab to push C-41.
Of course, you could soup your own. Processing film is a seminar in itself, but if you are scanning the
negatives for production, you rarely need prints anyway, so the equipment necessary to develop film is
minimal.
Emotion
Shots that lack emotion are ho-hum. They lack energy. They lack story
telling ability. If there is no emotion, then there is little desire to view it.
Most tight action shots of players will be emotional. Regardless of level,
these players, when they are exerting themselves, exhibit emotion. From the
little tee-ball player messing with her hair and her helmet, to the strain of a
pole vaulter working to get over the cross bar, there is plenty of emotion to
be found in sports. You will, from experience be able to edit out the shots
that lack emotion and do not tell the story. But it requires shooting and
shooting.
You should also look for emotion from other sources. As years of ABC’s Wide World of Sports told
us . . . The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Make sure to save film to shoot the players after
their events. Or during their events, don’t always focus on the ball, but on the emotion after the big 360
degree slam dunk. Don’t forget to look for emotion in the coaches and the fans. A lot of the best shots
come from the crowd.
Where to Start
This seminar contains a lot of hints and it talks about a lot of high level gear and access. It’s important to
understand that not every photographer will be able to take this information and expect to step onto the
hard wood at Chicago Stadium, sit in the press gallery and expect to capture Grade A shots of Dennis
Rodman in his antics. To get to that level, you have to have a proven sports portfolio and work for an
agency who can get you access.
Before you get to that level, you have to shoot a lot of minor sporting events. The best place to start is
your local youth leagues. Early in my career, I got broken in on high school sports, but through my
experience there, I got to shoot for my college papers and year books. That allowed me access to shoot
NCAA Division I sports early on. But I would not have had that opportunity without having developed a
portfolio from my early days of shooting.
Local youth leagues provide you great access and opportunities to use smaller lenses to capture shots. As
your portfolio develops, you can approach shooting at higher levels. You can get a lot of practice and
experience here which is valuable when going to "The Show".
Today, I am back shooting for a small town paper and the highest level of sports that I have reasonable
access to is high school. Even though I have been to "The Show", I still enjoy getting pictures of 5 year
olds when they catch their first ball or score their first goal.
You may however get opportunities to shoot pro games from a fan’s perspective. Depending on your
location in the arena, you can get some reasonably good shots. Take your long lens and some high speed
film and make the most of it. In these situations, freezing action isn’t as important as being able to hand
hold the lens. The players will be at such a distance that their movement will be like a person closer to
you with a normal lens on. As long as you have enough shutter speed to get a steady shot you should be
able to get memorable shots.
Summary
One final note. Don’t rush your action assignments. Spend some time, and expect to burn some film.
Only through practice and looking at the results and going back to it will you get the timing and skills
needed to one day capture world class shots.
More
●
●
●
●
●
100th Boston Marathon, photographed by Philip Greenspun
Head of the Charles 1998
MIT soccer photos by Philip Greenspun
"Where to buy a camera" -- retailers that actually stock the big long lenses
Canon 600/4 IS lens review
Text Copyright © 1998 Rob Miracle; Photos copyright 1994-1998 Philip Greenspun.
Sports Photos give us a sense of being there.
Add/View Comments
[email protected]
Reader's Comments
Maria
Predeal, Romania, 1985
Sports can be not only for preformance, but also for the family leisure.
Add a comment
Related Links
●
Luca Patrone Advertise photography- In the gallery "various" some creative shots made with
extreme fish eye optics. I like this lenses for sport and action (contributed by luca patrone)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of Consumer Electronics
Color Printers
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Color Printers
by Philip Greenspun
Last updated: August 25, 2001
Contents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ink Jet (small and cheap)
Dye Sublimation Printers (old)
Fujix 3000 (and now 4000)
Onto Conventional Paper
Ink Jet (big and expensive)
More
Reader's Comments
Ink Jet (small, cheap, and slow)
Inexpensive ink jet printers ($300 to $1000) can produce remarkably good quality
photographs if you choose your paper carefully. These prints can also be archival if
you choose your ink carefully. Epson and Canon typically make the best ink-jet
printers for photographers. The Canon S800, for example is a good low-cost
machine (about $300). The Epson Stylus Photo 2000P, about $750, offers
Pigmented Archival Ink, good for making prints that can last 100 years, i.e., five
times as long as a Genuine Kodak Paper print and almost twice as long as a
standard print on Fuji paper. For the best user interface, look at the Kodak Personal
Picture Maker 200 (PPM200; about $150). This printer includes an LCD screen
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/printers/primer (1 of 36)7/3/2005 2:20:36 AM
Color Printers
and slots for CompactFlash and SmartMedia cards. You can pop a storage card out
of your camera and into the printer, scroll through your photos, and make prints of
selected images all without using a personal computer.
Whatever printer you get, make sure to follow the manufacturer's recommendations
for paper. You'll need expensive glossy paper to get photo-quality results.
Expect to suffer from color calibration problems with any ink jet. Your monitor is
an RGB device. Your ink jet printer is a CMYK device. Good luck at getting
anything out of the printer that resembles what you see on the monitor.
Dye Sublimation Printers
"Dye-sub" printers were among the first photo-quality color computer printers,
emerging in the early 1990s. Sadly most of the prints made with these machines
had faded by the time we entered the New Millennium. The latest dye-sub printers
allegedly produce more archival prints but this whole technology seems to be
fading in favor of ink jet.
Color management is a problem with dye-sub, as with ink jet. These are CMYK
devices.
Fujix 3000 (and now 4000)
Though rather long in the tooth, this is the choice of most imaging professionals.
The Fujix machines uses three lasers to expose a specially treated "donor paper"
which is then thermally developed and transfered onto "receiver paper". It is a
traditional silver halide process but one need not maintain chemistry or clean
processor rollers. Resolution is 400 dpi on an 8.5x11 sheet (Fujix 3500) or 12x18
(Fujix 4000). Image quality is the best of any printer available, comparable to an
Ilfochrome, and archival qualities are reputed to be good. The printer is a standard
piece of office equipment and the expended donor paper goes back UPS to Fuji for
recycling and disposal. Consumables cost $2-4 per page and you can make
transparencies as well as opaque photos.
Another significant advantage of the Fujix over most color printers is that it is a
true RGB device and thus one need not deal with the horrors of CMYK conversion.
Even without going to special lengths with color management, you'll probably get a
nice print on your first try.
The Fujix can be obtained from a handful of national retailers, including Adorama.
The 4000 is about $13,000 and the 3500 is about $5500.
Color Printers
If you want to try Fujix printing before you buy, visit your local professional digital
color lab. They'll probably have a machine.
Onto Conventional Paper
A variety of companies make high-volume, high-cost machines that use RGB lasers
to print onto standard photographic paper, either Ilfochrome or RA-4 negative
printing paper. At their best, these can be as good as the Fujix printers and the perpage cost for media is much lower. Print size can be outrageously large. These
machines usually print on rolls and can therefore make a print 50 meters long (but
only 127 cm or 50" wide).
Vendors include Gretag Lab Systems (www.fotoprint.com), Durst Lambda, and
CSI Lightjet. Whatever you choose, remember that these machines only expose
paper. Development requires a standard RA-4 or Ilfochrome processor with
traditional photo chemistry. Traditional photo chemistry implies that someone is
cleaning and maintaining the processor regularly. Also note that expended photo
chemistry constitutes a disposal problem: you can't just dump it down the sink.
For most people it is not practical to own one of these machines. You prepare your
digital files and send them to a lab. If you aren't happy with your local labs, try
ColorWorks in Portland, Maine or Precision Color (Michigan and Nevada; (702)
736-8400 ask for Pat).
Ink Jet (big and expensive)
For a painterly look, try an Iris ink-jet print onto watercolor paper. The machines
themselves cost a lot and the original inks were not archival but it is an unusual
way to make art that cannot be easily duplicated with other kinds of machines.
Send a file to ColorWorks to try out Iris (Giclee) printing at its best.
More
●
Wilhelm Imaging Research conducts test of archival properties of paper and
inks
Reader's Comments
I recently saw some prints that were made from images that had been captured by a
low end digital camera. The prints were small. One set had been made with an
inexpensive ink jet printer. The other set had been made with a dye sublimation
printer.
Color Printers
The set that were made on the inexpensive ink jet printer looked like the typical
low resolution, lots of dots stereotypical cheap digital stuff that many people are
familiar with.
The dye sublimation prints looked good enough that they could have easily fooled
a casual viewer into thinking that they were small photographs.
I don't know whether the difference was printer setup software related or if it was
completely due to process. In any event, the difference was huge.
-- Glen Johnson, January 13, 1997
There's been a rash of new, low-cost and reputedly "photo quality" inkjet printers
released onto the market. In particular, the Canon BJC-4200 and 4550 (A3/tabloid
sized), and the Epson 500 are reputed to give near photo quality at around 720dpi.
Whilst there's plenty of reviews of these by the computer press, I've yet to find any
reviews by folks with a photographic bent ...
-- David Gurr, February 18, 1997
I have an Epson Stylus Colour II printer which I use for colour prints (Photoshop
produced files from either scanned or digital camera output). The quality is 'near
photographic' if you use Epson High Quality (720 dpi) paper (standard and glossy
paper is available). However, the cost of this paper is about $2.50/sheet (8.5" x
11"). I have compared the output for the same image printed with a Tectronix
dyesub printer and the dyesub images are superior. No dots are visible- even with a
magnifying glass- because the printing method 'melts' adjacent pixels together
during the printing process. Since the 'melted' pixels emmulate the silver grains of
traditional photographic paper, I think that this approaches (but does not equal)
'true' photographic quality.
-- Barry Hargrave, March 7, 1997
I believe a whole lot of photographers are setting themselves up for a rude shock
when all of their digital prints start fading away. The fact is that other than the
Kokak Xtralife ribbon prints, nothing is going to last!! Until photographers demand
(and are willing to support) printing that lasts, this will continue to be the time
bomb of the digital renaissance.
-- Jeff Mandell, March 7, 1997
Color Printers
Today I visited Sammy's Camera in Hollywood, CA, and saw a nice Fujix printer
that does not cost 30K anymore. The model is NC-500, it is only 7K, (like I have
7K laying around... ) and it uses "thermo autochrome" printing process. From the
brochure I found out that the dies are embeded the paper, and that's it. No messy
processing, just heat and UV light to stabilize the dyies. Paper, according to the
salesman, is about $1 a sheet. Output looked very nice, it had that "photographic"
quality. BTW, there is nothing mentioned in the FUJI's flyer regarding longevity of
the prints, so I took the sample I was able to obtain, cut it up into "test strips", and
placed them in following places: one with my photos in the notebook, second under
the transparent plastic of my notebook, and third - in direct sunlight (for about half
the day) in my balcony. I will let you know what happens in about a month. As a
control, I am using Kodak's RC Polycontrast paper print. If anyone has more info
or questions on the printer I saw, let me know. I'll do my best!
Cheers, Agnius
-- Agnius Griskevicius, April 17, 1997
Today I took down the test strip I had hanging in sunlight and compared to the
other 2 strips that were not treated so harshly. These are my observations: 1) Sunlit
strip of Fuji's "auto thermochrome" paper shifted to yellow and got
"warped" (wavy). Original grays now look green, original whites looks yellowish.
2) No naked eye observable difference of Kodak Polycontrast RC print hanged in
sunlight or archived in files. Conclusion: Because Fuji uses ultraviolet part of the
spectrum in "stabilizing" colors, direct exposure to vast quantities of sunlight
(which has plenty of UV in it, even filtered by smog here in L.A.), destroys the
prints. If you want more "permanence", make silver halide prints. For color use
Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome). I am not versed in color printing, so those
recomendations are not mine. Happy printing!
Agnius Griskevicius
"I love the smell of the fixer in the morning"
-- Agnius Griskevicius, May 11, 1997
I have read the page on Colour Printers. The direct comparisons with the quality of
photographic prints is well justified, especially in the area of longevity, is well
justified, I think we should be looking upon digital printers rather as a NEW
medium, and judging the results on their own merit. In the early days of
photography the prints were compared very unfavourably with paintings, and early
attempts at photo-mechanical reproductions were poor subtitutes for the originals.
Color Printers
Each has however survived and flourished.
I have been a Commercial Photographer for close to 40 years with a colour print
darkroom where i produce quantity prints as well as enlargements p to 24" wide. I
have been dabbling in digital photography for 2 or 3 years, but have recently
become serious about it. I am using a PC with Photoshop 4.0, an Agfa Arcus II
scanner, and an Epson 600 printer.
My conclusions are that given an original photograph with some imperfections in it
(that could not be corrected at the shooting stage)I would rather correct those
imperfections digitally and accept the resulting print from the printer. With a little
practice and some imagination the resulting print may not look precisely like the
original photograph, but will be very accepatble in it it's own right. With all the
filters, effects and enhancements available the picture can be far more attractive
overall than the unmanipulated version.
Yes, if you look closely you can see tiny dots, though mostly just in the light areas
but then so you can in any glossy magazine photo printed with a 150 line screen.
I have actually reproduced a final image from a fax that I enhanced and printed.
Without any knowledge of its origins it was thought to be very Creative, because it
was judged only on its own merit.
The technology is in its infancy. Let us accept it as a new medium. The weak areas,
such as lack of stability will be overcome. In the mid '40s 35mm. film was
traditionally only 12 or 25 ASA, or it would be too grainy for anything larger than
2"x3" prints. We've come a long way since then.
-- Joseph Levy, June 12, 1997
Concerning the photo quality printer I use an Epson Stylus Photo and I am very
pleased with it. It prints not only photos but also, by the way, standard B/W
documents. It takes time to understand "how it works" in order to define the better
result in term of "output colour accurancy", later on is faster than printing colour
print in your dark room , with or without Cibachrome, don't to mention photo labs .
Obviously PhotoShop, a film scanner and an Apple Power Macintosh are a must !
Using the "Digital Dark Room" it is now easy and funny to have standard print to
use as personal post-card or souvenir or , some time, as "poster" in A4 format.
Recommended !
-- Antonio Petrone, August 20, 1997
Color Printers
I don't agree with Ilfochrome being the best color printing process. In the fine art
circles dye color transfer prints (not to be confused with "thermal dye color
transfer", another name for dye sublimation) are considered to be vastly superior.
-- Quang-Tuan Luong, November 10, 1997
I realize that there are expensive printers out there, but my experience has been
limited to those under $700. I've had several generations of Epson (Stylus II to the
600), as well as a few cannons, but the most fabulous prints I have managed have
come from the Alps MD2300 Photographic printer. Printing an image taken from
this site I had trouble convincing "joe/jane on the street" that it wasn't a real
photograph. The colors are vivid, rich and continuous with a clear overcoat. I've
had a photo hanging in a sun facing window for 6 mo. that looks the same as it's
contol photo in an album. It's a great printer wich doubles as a high qaulity B/W
printer for text (1200dpi). You need special paper and ink carts for photo, but it's
worth it. This printer will aslo print metallic (yellow, cyan, magenta, silver) onto
the photos if you desire. It's been called dated and obsolete compared to the new
inkjets, but as for now I'll take it any day.
-- Danno --, December 25, 1997
Does anyone remember what color prints looked like in the 1950's? The vast
improvement in quality which we are so furtunate to have access to, took many
years to produce. Modern desktop inkjet printers, such as the Epson Stylus series,
use a technology only a few years old, and yet they are capable of producing
outstanding quality.
I can scan a photo with poor color, work on it in Photoshop, and print out a much
improved copy using My Epson Stylus Color II, and premium inkjet paper, which
now only costs about 10 cents per sheet! (glossy is about 70 cents).
Anyone willing to spend the time learning how to properly use these relatively
inexpensive desktop printers can produce excellent photos, and easily redo them in
whichever way suits them.
We don't need to pit film technology against digital; I love being part of the digital
revolution in photography, yet I have no plans to abandon my 35mm equipment.
They both belong, in their own rites.
-- Gary Robertshaw, December 31, 1997
i have seen test-prints of all 3/4 alps-printers such as md 2010=md4000 without 24
Color Printers
bit scanner/md 1000 and md 2300. md 2010 is too grainy for photos. md 1000 is
much better, has wax- type-printer-like pattern but image behind pattern is sharp.
output-for layout or visitcards is quick, around 7 min.2010 takes only 3.5min. md
2300 is really the printer for all photo-freaks. it has no competitors yet. prints have
no grain, shadow- details are good. the ink- printing-system only produces stripes
which can only be seen when light is reflecting the surface. alsp told will introduce
a bigger sized- model for 33x48 cm? size. they are solving a problem concerning
printing 4-times(4 inks) precisely. paper-path-problems. as a panorama-freak i
asked alsp and a supplier- company to reflect about banner type-possibility. md
2300 costs less than 1000 usd.
-- michael przewrocki switzerland, March 12, 1998
For large prints (72" by 1200")I have been getting great results from the 200dpi
Lambda machine. It uses lasers to write onto color photographic paper or
Ilfochrome paper. The output looked way better than making an LVT chrome and
printing that with an enlarger. The 200dpi is continuous-tone, not to be confused
with a halftone like what the Epson Stylus Photo uses. For images up to 20x33, the
Kodak LED photographic printer (over $100,000) is 250dpi and looks excellent.
For smaller prints (up to about 18 inches), the Fujix Pictrography 4000 is best.
-- Robert SIlvers, April 23, 1998
I print from Kodak Photo CD and other sources using the Epson 600. It print
720X1440. I use primarily Epson Matte Finish Photo Quality paper(11 cents a
sheet). I laminate the prints for handling and waterproofness. I have directly
compared the same Adobe photoshop file (18megs for a 8X10 print)printed on my
printer vs a Fujix thermoautochrome or even a C41 print and find no perceptable
difference. I love my cheap little Epson 600.
-- Charles Clemens, April 27, 1998
So far there aren't many "personal" (in the $500 range) printers which can produce
photographic output. Most of the ones that can require special inks and papers
which drive the per-page cost up. While I'm waiting for a printer in my price/
performance range, I'm making display prints from digital images at Kodak Image
Magic Print Stations. You can get a list (with addresses) at the Kodak website.
You'll have to call the stores yourself and ask if they have the "Business Builder
'98" software which allows you to print from floppy. Most places charge between
$7-10 for an 8.5"x11" sheet. When you print the sheet you can decide on any of
several layouts which provide anywhere from 1 8"x10" print to 20 wallet size
prints. If you don't have a nice roll cutter be sure to choose the $10/page place
which will cut your prints for you.
Color Printers
And remember, no matter what your output device, the results will look better with
a nice wide white matte!
-- Ben Jackson, August 6, 1998
Ben,
They do have a printer in your price range that provides excellent quality,
photographic output. The Epson Photo Stylus. You can get one in the $300 and less
range. They even have a new one that prints on 11x17 for $499.
I've seen the in-store displays for this printer which have a picture printed from a
photo-lab and the same picture printed from the Epson side by side and ask you to
tell the difference. You'd be amazed.
Also, this isn't a special printer that requires hard to find inks and materials. The
Photo Stylus supplies are available everywhere from computers stores to office
supply stores.
-- Scott Gant, August 10, 1998
I picked up a Kodak XLS-8600 PS printer a couple months ago for an incredibly
good price (think exponential orders less than it's supposed to be). I believe the
'current' models of this printer are the DS-8650/8670 and they're around $7000.
The printer uses the afore-mentioned Kodak Xtra-life dye-sublimation media which
puts its price per page in at around $2.30.
Quality is exceptional. Much better than the Epson Stylus Color or Color II which I
used to own.
Color matching is difficult possibly because I use a PC rather than a Macintosh and
lack any real color matching software.
Even so, colors are rich and saturated. No apparent dots.
The printer has a SCSI port and a parallel port built in with a network card option.
With the parallel port, prints take about 2 minutes MOST of the time being spent
transferring and processing the image.
Dust control can be a problem as the Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow layers are printed
Color Printers
in sequence so dust may move around the page between layers.
I'll test out the longevity as soon as I get a chance, but I left some prints in my car's
rear window by accident. In the week they were there they were apparently
unaffected. They were also unaffected by some hot coffee I spilled on them..
-- George Pang, August 10, 1998
I looked at the printer market in the $500 and under range about one year ago and
settled on the HP PhotoSmart, which at that time sold for $500.
Today that same printer goes for $400. BUT! there is another HP printer, the
HP720 or HP722 which sells for around $300 and can match the performance of
the PhotoSmart, when using the Glossy Photo HP paper.
The cost of a print is $0.80 for the photo paper and $0.80 for the ink, for 8"x10"
prints on 8.5x11 paper.
The print quality is excellent, difficult to distinguish from a "real" photo at normal
viewing distances for a photo that size. HP does not rate the printer for dot pitch,
since the photo paper reacts with the ink to "meld" the printed pixels as the ink
spreads into the paper coating, it doesn't make sense to speak of dot pitch.
Kodak makes a photo paper that costs about half the HP paper. I have not tried it
yet.
-- Dave Conrad, August 29, 1998
I've had an Epson Photo EX for a few months now. I love it! I do some electronic
art and some more photo retouching. The colors are smooth and it provides good
contrast and excelent sharpness. I've had some digital images transfered to slides
then printed and the results were exactly the same except that I was in control of
the process. I had some initially dissapointing results when I scanned in some black
and white prints for enlarging. There wasn't enough detail in the shadows. This was
a probably a result of my reasonably priced 30 bit flatbed scanner. Some tweaking
in photoshop however rectified the problem. Some of the work I've taken to
framing shops has gotten good comments.
-- Tom Menegatos, September 11, 1998
I have a PowerMacintosh, an Agfa Snapscan 600 scanner and an Epson Stylus
Photo 700 printer. The results? Good, very good for a relatively cheap system. I
Color Printers
scan and print photographs taken with an Yashica FX3 Super 2000 and Contax
50/1.4 lense. Davide (from Italy)
-- Davide Vignati, September 17, 1998
I have a PowerMacintosh, an Agfa Snapscan 600 scanner and an Epson Stylus
Photo 700 printer. The results? Good, very good for a relatively cheap system. I
scan and print photographs taken with an Yashica FX3 Super 2000 and Contax
50/1.4 lense. Davide (from Italy)
-- Davide Vignati, September 17, 1998
just reading all the color printer news & thought I'd add my $.02. I've had my
Epson Stylus Color 400 for nearly a year and am still totally pleased. I do scans for
a magazine and the proofs I give them look better than what shows up in the
magazine. I print at 720 x 1440 on Epson Photo Quality Ink Jet paper ($15/100
sheets) and get about 75 prints (~2" x 4" images) from a set of cartridges ($25 for
black, $30 for color.) I look forward to getting a 6-color unit from Epson soon.
(CMYK + 50%C & 50%M.)
-- brian ashe, October 6, 1998
Not a photographer, but a photographer's daughter, so I'm fairly fussy about
quality. I recently bought an HP PhotoSmart, and I'm pleased with the quality, and,
it was $299.00 at Best Buy, and there's a $120.00 rebate till January 1999. So it's a
very good deal!
-- Sharon Jones, October 14, 1998
I'm a new owner of an Epson Photo EX and one of the reasons I enjoy it is that I
combined it with a Nikon LS-2000 slide/negative scanner and an upgrade to
Photoshop 5.0.
The standard scans I have done in the past with my old HP 2C flatbed scanner still
look horrible, even on my new printer, but the scans on the Nikon print out very
well. At a normal viewing distance of even a few inches away, the prints are of
sufficient photo quality to satisfy my needs. My major concern is the longevity of
the prints. Time will tell, but if they fade, I'll print new ones! Another concern is a
documented difficulty scanning Kodachrome (only) slides. The blue tint is so deep
on some scans (but not the slides themselves) it's hard to effectively remove
without damaging the image. Highly recommended, but only in a working
combination of input/output devices! And get a fast machine with a BIG harddrive
and lots of RAM!
Color Printers
-- Larry Becker, October 21, 1998
In June I purchased an HP Photosmart Printer (along with the Photosmart Scanner)
and Adobe Photoshop. I was quite disapointed that my prints fell far short of what I
considered "photo quality." Dots were visable even to the naked eye, and shadow
detail was poor. HP support was fantastic, but unable to resolve the problem. Upon
closer inspection I noticed that HP's sample photos were primarly smooth flesh
tones with little detail.
I decided to return the HP printer and purchased the ALPS MD1300. I have been
quite pleased. While some minor tweeking was required to lighten my prints, the
detail was fantastic and no grain was visiable, even with a lupe.
I get fantasic results at 5x7, and very good results at 8x10. When printing at 8x10,
some imaages show pixalation, but this is a result of my scan, not the printer.
I haven't seen any specs from ALPS on image fading, so I can only comment that I
have not noticed any degradation of my prints in the last 5 months.
I just noticed ALPS is advertising a MD-5000 now, with 2400DPI (on any paper)
and a USB connection. They also claim "fadeproof" - what ever that is. Any one
used one? (specs available at www.alps.com) Mark
-- Mark Scrivener, November 29, 1998
Short comment on the ALPS MD-1300 printer. I have been using mine now for
almost a year. The results are nothing short of excellent. A bit pricey for an 8x10
but worth every penny considering what you can do digitally before making the
print. Subjective opinions have consistently favored the digital print over the
original darkroom print. To test the fade resistance of the dye-sub process, I've
been running a simple environmental exposure test for the past few months. First,
the print was exposed to direct sunlight for up to 2 hours per day for two months.
Next, I placed the print 2 inches from a 40w flourescent light fixture for 12 hrs per
day. So far, no visible deterioration.
One more thing - my first MD-1300 started making ugly grinding noises, failed to
grab the paper, etc. ALPS replaced it within a week - can't beat that for service.
-- John Bartucci, February 2, 1999
Color Printers
This is a correction to a regrettable error in my previous comment. The problem I
was experiencing with printing the color blue was not a fault of the ALPS MD1300 printer!
The problem was that I did not understand how to use PhotoShop properly. For
comparison, the simpler program PhotoDeleuxe 2.0 does not cause any color
mangling problems with the ALPS printer!
The ALPS MD-1300 and the PhotoDeluxe 2.0 program which comes with it
perform very well together. This combination reads and prints PhotoCD images
and produce a better color balance than those produced normally by PhotoShop 4
from Photo CDs.
All of the following comments apply to a Wintel PhotoShop 4.01 system. They
probably apply to a Wintel PhotoShop 5 system. They are probably less relevant
for MAC users.
The PhotoShop / Kodak-CMS conversion of the PCD image to either LAB or RGB
mode within PhotoShop is flawed, in my opinion. The simpler ADOBE
PhotoDeluxe program produces a notably better RGB image than PhotoShop! Now
I regularly use PhotoDeluxe 2.0 to convert and save images from PhotoCDs onto
the fixed drive.
When there is something which only PhotoShop can do, I edit the PhotoDeluxe file
with Photoshop, and never perform a mode change. Then I save a PhotoShop file of
the image on the fixed disk. These procedural precautions happily produce
"unmangled" image files.
I can print the above images from either PhotoDeluxe 2.0 or from PhotoShop.
However, there is an additional complication with PhotoShop. Photoshop doesn't
come with a "Printing Ink" selection to match dye-sub printers! Read that sentence
again. Dye-sub printers have a CMY color space, not a CMYK color space. Also,
the offset press concept of dot gain has little relevance for dye-sub printers.
So if you want to correctly print from PhotoShop to a dye-sub printer like the ALP
MD-1300, you have to create a specific "printing ink" profile for it. I am still
experimenting with this. The ALPS printer driver for the MD-1300 in dye sub
mode uses a specific Windows color management file which is available for
download from the ALPS WEB site. If you are doing things correctly, the ALPS
printer should need relatively "help" from PhotoShop. "No help" is very much
preferable to the wrong help.
Color Printers
My only complaint with ALPS is that while they promote their printers for
photographic quality prints, their technical support seems limited to "Are you sure
it is plugged in?" type responses.
The ALPS MD-1300 printer is an excellent 600 dpi printer for home darkroom use,
but ALL of the books and comments I have seen so far fail to solve either the
KODAK PhotoCD to PhotoShop color-mangling issue or the PhotoShop to dye-sub
color-mangling issue. By the way, I did download and install all of the
recommended KODAK CMS stuff, months ago.
By the way, PhotoShop is a wonderful program which I truly love. But the
remendous flexibility and precision of Photoshop requires rational inputs at all
stages.
Am I the only one dreaming that somewhere there should exist a PhotoShop
"printing ink" profile suited for dye sub printers like the ALPS AND OTHERS?
Does anyone know what PhotoShop profile is used for the KODAK desktop dyesub printers or any others?
-- Charles D. Miller, February 13, 1999
---Please see my RETRACTION of this below.
I've been using an ALPS MD-1300 for about six months, and it is very impressive
except with deeply saturated blues, which it prints as slightly green cobalt blue or
else purplish. Light blue and most all other colors are pretty. I agree with the
generally very positive comments on this printer, except that after months of
tweaking, I can't get a decent rendition of royal blue or a darker blue IN THE
SAME IMAGE with other natural colors. If there is a fix for this, this is a really
nice printer for photographers, IMO. If there is not a fix, it is my opinion that
photographers should not buy an MD-1300 as part of a digital darkroom.
But, am I missing something here, folks?
---Please see my RETRACTION of this below.
I've recently been looking into ALPS vs. Epson options. Several comments.
1) It does appear that ALPS has solved the fade problem that plagues ink jets like
Epson. The thermal transfer process behind dye sub printing produces extremely
Color Printers
stable results -- particularly when used in conjunction with their "overcoat".
2) The dye sub feature is standard on the MD-1300, which claims 1200 dpi. It is an
upgrade option on the MD-5000, which claims 2400 dpi. With dye sub, I can't tell
the difference between the two densities. Given that the 1300 is available for $300+
and the 5000 with dye sub for $500+, I don't think the 5000 makes sense for most
people.
3) The one exception to the cost benefit of the 1300 is for users who print lots of
stuff that's primarily monotone. The 1300 has one cartridge for black ink and a
single one for all other colors. So when one color is done, you have to throw the
whole cartridge out. Still, the $200 price difference will cover a lot of cartridges.
4) The ALPS line will print A size paper (8.5x11). Nothing larger in photo quality.
The Epson will give you B size prints (11x17) for a comparable initial cost, and
much cheaper operating costs. True, the dye sub process has much less intrinsic
grain than the Epson dot print, and the Epson inks are water based and will fade in
time (3-5 years in light, according to Epson). But if you can live with the dot
quality of the Epson, you may find it more effective to reprint your CD every 3
years. You won't get dye sub quality, but you will get larger prints.
The obvious answer is either for Epson to deliver archival inks or for ALPS to give
us a larger format. Any marketing guys out there who can deliver?
For those who want more technical info on archival materials and print longevity,
check out the info at www.wilhelm-research.com
-- Julian Svedosh, February 17, 1999
Here is yet another correction to my previous comments about ADOBE PhotoShop
and the ALPS MD-1300 printer.
The PhotoShop File > Color Settings > Printing Inks menu allows the selection of
"Tektronix Phaser II PX/PXi" .
It turns out that the Tektronix Phaser II is also a dye sub printer, and that this
setting works very well indeed for the ALPS MD-1300 in the dye-sub mode.
Too bad, but neither ADOBE nor ALPS came anywhere near helping me with this
problem.
Color Printers
I have a HP720 inkjet printer w/ PhotoRETII. It's basically a inkjet that works with
a color layering system that improves halftones. Using HP Deluxe Photo paper, I
could fool almost everyone. Its output is comparable to Kodak ImageMagic, and at
a fraction of the cost. The printer itself is cheap, around $250 in the US, and the
paper costs around $.80 per letter-sized sheet. Definitely a good solution for the
average man. Also it's a fairly versatile printer, so you wouldn't commit your bucks
on a photo-only printer. The only drawback: it's a PPA printer - that means it works
with specialized HP drivers, that are only available to Windows and Mac OS Linux guys will have to settle for a nonsupported driver that only produces blackand-white output.
-- George Gaspari, April 24, 1999
Regarding the HP720 inkjet printer w/ PhotoRETII using HP Deluxe Photo paper
SOLUTION (!). The results have nothing to do with photo quality printing. I really
can t understand how one can fool anybody with these printers. Same comment for
HP 890C w/ Kodak Image Enhancements
-- Dan Georgescu, May 8, 1999
I've had both the HP 722 and the Epson Stylus Photo EX. The Epson easily handles
halftones better then the HP. It is most noticable (in my experience) in pictures of
the sky during sunset. The Epson is as close to Photgraphic quality as I've seen
from an ink jet.
Apparently the Fujix 4000 has the best digital output, but I haven't seen the output
myself ro form an opinion.
-- David Kim, May 31, 1999
Let me tell you the Epson 740 color stylus is the best printer I have experience. Dye
printer sucks to me, they do give out good quality photos but come on who is going
to spend $3000 bucks for a printer when the print are not archival. I print all my
prints at 1440 dpi and they come out with photographic quality prints they look as
close a looking at a picture they have this technology called Micro Piezo which is
awesome when it comes to printing at 1440 dpi. Believe me I will give a few more
years for Epson to come up with a ink jet printer that will print as good as a dye or
even better.
-- Tony Torres, June 25, 1999
I have been playing around with an Epson Stylus Photo 700 for the last few days at
Color Printers
work (we're between projects right now). It has been a royal pain to get something
printed that matches the image on the monitor. Yes, I did calibrate my gamma, and
the original image was scanned into Photoshop at 270 dpi.
There were two problems. First, you have to tweak the outputcolors in the
``Advanced Settings'' part of the Printer Setup.(See this link for more information.)
Even after doing this, however, I didn't get anthing close to what I wanted. Too
much magenta, no yellow. The problem was that I had to reset the printer nozzles
by pressing a particular button on the printer. This wasn't very intuitive, but after
doing this and tweaking the color output in the driver settings, I finally got a nice
looking print.
You *can* distinguish the output from a conventional printup close. However, at
normal viewing distances, it really is hard to tell.
-- Mani Varadarajan, July 26, 1999
I have recently purchased an EPSON 1200 wide carriage injet printer, results are
fantastic. Continious tone, great detail & no pixels. Good speed & large size output
are great features of this unit. I had used the Epson Stylus II before which I was
pleased with but the 1200 blows it away. I used a test file I shot with a Kodak 265
among many other printing methods, various inkjets, dyesubs, laser prints & digital
slide. The best was from the Epson 1200. Once I saw this print I immediately
orderd the 1200. I use glossy paper which I purchase at $.30/sheet.
-- Leo Macdonald, September 4, 1999
Regarding the Hewlett-Packard "Photo Smart" printers, they have now been
discontinued and are being offered at very low close out prices, usually through
Office Depot or others at about $100.00. The quality of prints is very high, but
there are two things to consider: 1) as the unit is obsolete, supplies may soon be
hard to find, particularly ink cartridges, and 2) its a rather large, heavy unit by
today's standards so you need a fairly large, strong surface to put it on. But, for top
quality at lowest dollar, its hard to beat!
-- Fred Emmert, September 22, 1999
I just got a new Alps MD-1300. To test it, I printed out one of my wildlife photos at
8x10 (max. size) in dye sub mode on Alps photographic paper. I followed a
suggestion from somebody in this discussion group and set the ink calibration in
Photoshop similar to Textronix II. Printing at 300 dpi took ~25 min. The outcome
was very good. No pixels visible, no streaks, great colors. Unlike many people in
Color Printers
this group, I was especially impressed by how close the printed colors were to those
on the monitor (I only had to fiddle a little bit with the brightness, reducing it in
Photoshop by 15 points). By the way, I was using a Power Mac G3. I think Macs
are usually better in color reproduction on the monitor than PC's...
-- Victor Grubsky, October 6, 1999
I've been using the HP Photosmart printer for over a year with excellent results, but
lately I've grown frustrated with its maximum 8 1/2 X 11 inch size. I've avoided
Epson printers because their inks are not as lightfast as HP's. But I've recently
learned that several independent vendors are supplying inks, some pigment-based,
for the $499 Epson Stylus Photo 1200 printer, which prints up to 13 X 19 inches-large enough for my scanned 35mm images. Some relevant websites:
http://www.mediastreet.com/
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/archival_inks.html#fotonic
http://www.weink.com/scart/inkjets/epson/endura/specinks.htm
I'm considering buying the Epson 1200, and I would appreciate comments from
anyone with experience with these new inks. How do they look? What are the color
management issues (colors are apparently somewhat different from standard Epson
inks)? Are there any problems with ink jet clogging? What kinds of paper work
best? Have any good articles been published?
These new inks could be a really important breakthrough, and deserve urgent
attention.
-- Norman Koren
-- Norman Koren, October 24, 1999
I've owned an Epson Stylus Photo 1200 for a little over a month, working with
negatives and slides scanned with a Minolta QuickScan 35 Plus. The prints I've
made so far (up to 11x17"; haven't tried 13x19" yet) have been mightily impressive
- I had planned to use the 1200 principally for portfolio and work prints (no regular
access to a darkroom - raise your hand if you're in a similar situation), but I
wouldn't be ashamed to use the printer for a need-to-be-quick-about-it presentation
or small exhibit. The two minor caveats I would raise to prospective buyers of the
1200 are: 1) On account of the 1200 being so recently brought to market, archivalquality color inks aren't yet available for it. Several companies - including Epson
itself - are working on such inks (Quadtone inks are already available for the 1200,
I've been told); 2) Generally speaking, the bigger the file size, the better the print,
Color Printers
especially if we're talking 13x19". Whether you scan your own or use an outside
service, those image files add up - even a 6gb drive starts to shrink precipitously
after an enthusiastic weekend of work. Thinking ahead, I went out and bought a CD
burner the same day I bought the Epson. A reasonably fast computer also helps,
since printing out large image files takes a little while, even for a PIII or G4.
As far as paper goes - there's so much out there, and so much more coming to
market, that I can't say which is the greatest, which is positively awful, etc. Aside
from Epson's own Photo paper, I've tried Luminos' Gallery Gloss 11x17 paper with
excellent results. A colleague, who also owns an Epson 1200, is quite enthusiastic
about Pictorico's papers and films.
All in all, a hearty thumbs-up for the Epson 1200.
-- Barrett Benton, November 9, 1999
I have been following this page with considerable interest. For the past couple of
months I have been experimenting with an HP PhotoSmart scanner and the Epson
1200 and Photo EX. I have also been working with a colleague using a similar
setup, each of us racing to test out new ideas, papers, techniques. The colleague is
printing multi-exposure images, with an eye toward getting the most expressive
colors; I've been after the most photographic (in distinction from "photo-realistic)
results.
First, I will echo the comments that many other have made regarding how far inkjet
printing has come. Moreover, having done a fairly extensive survey of material on
the Web (the best of it is on or linked through Singapore Digital Darkroom, http://
www.magix.com.sg/Users2/kltham/), there seems to be overwhelming testimony
from both enthusiastic amateurs to seasoned pros on the excellent quality of the
Epson printer. There can be, however, a very steep learning curve toward getting
the great results some people claim. Not the least significant aspect is gaining
facility in PhotoShop, the tool of choice for most digital darkroom applications.
Another is the vexing array of color management, device synchronization (making
sure the scanner, monitor, and printer are all, more or less "in tune), driver, and
software configuration issues. I would say that from my reading and discussion
thus far, these problems are so ubiquitous as to overshadow most of the others. For
some folks, the path toward what they claim to be excellent and photographic
results without a traditional darkroom is straightforward and smooth; others seem
lost is spirals of endless tweaking and non-linear results. Most working with this
technology/method acknowledge that most aspects from software to technique are
evolving. Encouraging is the degree of interest and willingness to collaborate and
share results (the Internet is an indispensable resource, especially in light of the
Color Printers
poor-to-mediocre documentation of both the scanner and printer and the lack of
good material dedicated to producing photographic results using PhotoShop in
conjunction with an Epson printer and consumer-level scanner).
Disappointing is the lack well-documented workflow from software and hardware
vendors as well as comparisons among the users of these products whose
experiences, using seemingly identical equipment and settings, vary widely. In
short, the controls to establish a base-line from which one can make reliable
experiments simply aren't there. One has to read widely and experiment with setup,
configuration, and workflow. Just as an example, one enthusiast says to use
(applicable to Window 98) the Color Management setting in the Epson driver;
another says use ICM (when I use ICM, and follow all of his other suggestions, I
get a color shift and generally darkening of the image). The HP scanner doesn t
have an ICM profile. This means that the scanner is not calibrated to the monitor
and printer.
My goal has been simple: work with a small number of images (color negative,
slide, and black and white negative ) and try to produce a print from each that
approaches or is equal or superior to the silver print (or slide original) of each. I
have standardized on the Epson Photo Paper media, though I have tried the Epson
film and some Lumijet paper as well (my colleague has tried a wide variety of
papers - some quite beautiful). I have configured PhotoShop 5.02 RGB to use
Adobe 1998 color space, gamma 2.2 (I'm using Windows), and I use the same RGB
space for the profile. The Epson driver uses Custom Settings, Color Adjustment
with Automatic selected. I have the paper set to Photo Paper, 1440 dpi. All other
settings are defaultMy workflow is as follows: 1) scan the image using the Import
command in PhotoShop (this launches the HP software); 2) using the histogram, I
adjust the levels to shift out of range pixels into the scanner s tonal range (this takes
some trial and error to strike a balance between satisfying the histogram and
keeping the image looking reasonable good); 3) once the scanned image appears in
PhotoShop, I adjust the levels to bring them within the highlight and shadow
ranges; 4) I check the histogram in PhotoShop, then go back into levels and fine
tune; 5) I then make some small adjustments so the image looks "right" on the
monitor; 6) I retouch the image using the "rubber stamp" tool; 7) I use the "unsharp
mask" (usually with a threshold of 2-4 with the amount set to about 120%; 8) I
resize the image and set resolution to a number which is a multiple of 1440 (ex:
240, 360, etc); I then print the image.
I have also scanned using a product called VueScan (Hamrick software). This
produces a considerably different scan from the HP software and offers a wider
range of pre-scan controls, but no preview of the image, so all tweaking must be
done post-scan (not the best method for optimizing image quality). This software
also allows for batch scanning, which may be convenient if you have a lot of
Color Printers
images to digitize. Some observations: I have yet to produce an image that matches
in general image quality any of the inexpensive but reasonably good quality color
prints that I have (mostly minilab 4x6s). Not to say the inkjet is poor - it's not. In
fact, when I ve gotten the color right it s usually more accurate than the minilab
print.
But there are a number of telltale signs that the inkjet images are not photographs.
The most obvious are in the dynamic range of the print in general: low values tend
to go dark and blotchy, high key areas tend to go paper white and do so in clusters
so that they appear broken up. This can be controlled to some degree and,
admittedly, some of this may be due to the HP PhotoSmart scanner, which, I hear
(because HP doesn't publish this spec) has a dynamic range of 2.8 or so.
The most troubling characteristic are the transitions from shadow to mid-range
tones. Often, there are noticeable printer artifacts in these regions, namely the
appearance of less closely spaced together dots with concentrations of color that
differ from either the darker or lighter main areas. For example, on fleshtones that
are partly in shadow and partly in brighter light, one can see concentrations of dots
near and at the transitional areas. These dots resemble the grain of film except that
they are of somewhat different color form the adjacent areas.
There are also color shifts in the prints. For example, a relatively well balanced
print with slightly warm fleshtones in the midrange area can also have a slight
greenish tinge in the shadow areas. I've seen this is a number of prints of my
different test images and this is very difficult if not impossible to correct.
Also, darker areas of the print seem to be physically thicker (which they are, since
more ink has been applied there) and give the impression to these areas of the print
of greater spatial dimensionality a kind of 3D effect. This is perhaps the most
telling giveaway of the inkjet technology. I have experimented in a limited way
with black and white printing, and I have not tried the quadtone inks - mostly
because I don't want to dedicate a printer to these inks (cleaning the printer head to
go from one to another, I'm told, is dicey). I've gotten some nice results using the
black and white produced by the color and black cartridges. For some reason, black
and white images don't have as obvious digital artifacts as the color. But, the prints
all have a color cast. For example, those done on some Adorama 11x17 paper have
a very ugly greenish cast (avocado green comes to mind).
Yet, some of the black and white prints have a very beautiful quality. They can
look subtly sepia-toned, and the dimensionality of the dark areas gives them a
certain richness which is hard to describe but is, I believe, unique to the inkjet
process. Black and white printing may turn out to be the most practical use of this
Color Printers
technology for those seeking the closest match to photographic results.
I have to say that overall, I'm disappointed with my digital printing experience
though it has been extremely interesting and quite fun at times to be engaged in so
experimental a process. Unfortunately, my results to date have not persuaded me to
continue with - at least color - digital printing. Based on what I've heard and read
from others, my relative lack of success could be due to some aspect of my system
or software (I have a current PII with 128 MB RAM, PhotoShop 5.5, and the most
up-to-date Epson and HP scanner drivers), though I strongly doubt this, or the
limitation of the HP scanner (the images on screen do look very good - and the
discrepancy between those, in terms of shadow and highlight detail and photorealism - and the Epson prints points elsewhere). Or, perhaps my criteria is
different from those who are very happy with the results. Those with whom I've
corresponded have made various suggestions, and most, I m afraid, would disagree
strongly with my conclusions. One is struck by the range of opinion and
experiences. One recommendation was to use the Kodak PhotoCD as my source for
digital printing (though I've heard that these scans are not well color balanced);
another was to try a higher end scanner such as the Nikon CoolScan or Polaroid
Sprint Scan 4000 - or better yet, take the leap to an Imacon.
I would like to balance the previous comment with the observation that inkjet
printing seems to offer up a distinct aesthetic from silver printing that for many
coexists happily along with a silver-based aesthetic. I have seen some very lovely
inkjet prints done on older Epson printers, such as the Stylus 600, for example.
While the prints had very evident dots and weren't close to photographic they
nevertheless had a very appealing, one might say, pointillistic quality and very nice
color.
I would very much like to see the best results that various people have obtained
with the Epson and a consumer grade film scanner. I also would much like to hear
from those who have had less than stellar results from the Epson printer as well as
to learn about the techniques of those who feel pleased with the results, particular
for portraiture. I know that people have quite wide-ranging criteria about what
constitutes a "good" print let alone a good picture. For the purposes of trying out
digital printing my goal to reiterate - has been to try to match, as closely as
possible, the fidelity of the original, insofar as it is represented by reasonable good,
but not custom, silver print or - better yet - a slide. I have not come very close, but I
can say that in some instances the results are fairly pleasing and, if not viewed too
closely, reasonably photo-realistic - but emphatically not photographic. As stated,
this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but for me it is shows the limitations of digital
consumer printing technology at this stage of its evolution, if the goal is to match
silver-based printing. I want to emphasize that in my experience inkjet printing can
work stunningly well for non-realistic subject matter - such as abstract or highly
Color Printers
color-intensive originals with which the photographer is seeking interesting design
qualities or expressive color rendition, rather than photographic fidelity. I ve seen
some striking results with this kind of work. It's also very promising for black and
white - and I'm eager to try the quadtone inks for this reason.
PS: I have used the new HP PhotoSmart 1100 printer (they're claiming 2400 dpi)
and the resolution is excellent, but the results are a tad washed out. Unlike Epson,
HP is trying to obtain photo quality from a 4 color cartridge. Nevertheless, this is a
nice machine - very quiet, fast, and sturdy seeming.
Joshua Daniels [email protected]
-- Joshua Daniels, December 2, 1999
Forget Inkjet printers, NOT waterproof, will not stand the test of time. In a recent
experiment at my company we printed 4 pages on photo quality paper. One from a
HP color laser, one from an epson injet, another from an HP inkjet lastly from an
ALPS MD 5000P. Hands down the ALPS dye sub printer is the quality (under a
jewelers loop) winner, also the prints are water proof, real photo quality, and after 4
months in a sunny window, little or no fading. The laser and injets faded, the
inkjets were almost completly faded, gone after 4 months.
-- Allyn Phillips, December 9, 1999
One issue that I don't see discussed regarding inkjet printing is what would seem to
be the excessive cost of inks, when using any of the under 500 dollar machines like
the Epson 700 series and the 1200. I'm satisfied the issue of fading isn't what it
used to be with the availability of acid-free papers and archival inks for the Epsons
from a number of manufacturers. The favorable comments about the 1200 had me
on the verge of getting one, but reading the comments about archival MIS inks on
the tssphoto site gave me cause to wonder. They stated that you could get six full
resolution 8.5 by 11 prints out of the Epson ink cartridges. With the MIS cartridges
for the Epson printers going at 42 dollars or so - I don't know what the Epson
cartridges go for but I would assume 25 to 30 dollars - this would seem to work out
to the appalling amount of 5-7 dollars in ink per print. The cost of good glossy
photo paper, just over a dollar, then becomes irrelevant. Is this figure of six prints
per cartridge grossly under-rating the ink capacity? It seems hard to believe no one
would have mentioned this if it was really that bad. I'm looking for maximum
photo quality here, so I realize you could get many more using lesser settings. What
is the experience of other people with photo prints-to-ink cartridge ratios for the
Epson printers?
-- George Hurchalla, December 15, 1999
Color Printers
We are currently printing images on an Epson Photo EX using the MIS archival
inks, the previous poster seems to have gotten some bad information. It's not quite
as expensive as some believe, we are currently printing a run of 11x15 full color
images (actual image size 9 3/4 x 13 1/2)and getting 25-30 prints from each
cartidge. We probably average $2 per page in ink cost, most of our images are
approximately 30 mb scans and we are using 140 lb. Arches hot press for the
current work. The artists we have worked with have been pleased with the work
both on Arches and Concorde Rag (note the Concorde costs 3x as much). While not
scientific I have had one of the images printed in June '99 hanging in my window
(Houston, TX) and no signs of fading yet.
-- Jeff Measamer, January 18, 2000
Just to be contrary, how often do you care about the archival quality of a printed
color image?
I'd care a *lot* about the lifetime of the media on which image file is recorded
(what is the lifetime of a CD, CD-R or CD-RW?). But for the printed image - well I
can always print out another copy later - possibly on a better printer :).
Clearly if you are going posting your image on an outside wall in the sun, you have
an issue. On the other hand some of our local fast-food joints appear to be selling
blue food...
-- Preston Bannister, April 17, 2000
I have read several of the comments here and I find all of the different points of
view interesting. The one thing I do think is very exciting is the fact that Digital
Photography is evolving into a very "respectable" format to express your art... or
use as an alternative in your commercial applications... or just to show off the kids
to friends and family. I think it is worth reminding folks how far "Photo Quality"
prints have come in just a few years. Especially in the low end market.
I realize that most of the people who leave comments here and debate the
usability and quality of today's printers are Pro or Simi-Pro, and that they are
comparing the printers to high quality photography film and printing processes.
There are a few things that I would like to throw out there for your consideration.
●
First - That the quality of the printed image has, in a large part, more to do
with the quality of the digital image source than does the printer. For
example, the digital camera used to take the original image can have a
Color Printers
bigger effect on the final print than... a poor quality lens, bad film choice
and mediocre processing all combined in film photography. A poor quality
camera can not be overcome with a good printer any more than in reverse. I
think that people are often looking for a printer to "perform miracles".
●
●
●
Second - Price...!!! I personally have a very good camera (Olympus C2000z) and I have been waiting for my budget to afford me a HP
PhotoSmart 1100. Recently I bought an "El-Cheep-O" "Photo Quality"
printer at (of all places) Wal-Mart. I choose a Lexmark Z11 because I read
good reviews and.. well... it was CHEEP.... $69.95 I was HOPING that it
would hold me over. BOY WAS I SURPRISED!!! I made several prints, up
to 8"x10" and EVERYONE that I have shown them to can not believe that it
came off of a printer... much less one that was so inexpensive. Oh yeah, and
as for cost of print, as best as I can figure, one 8"x10" sheet of print on the
high quality setting (1200 DPI) cost aprox. $2.25. Including the Premium
Glossy Photo Paper from HP. Now, for MOST people that is less than they
can have an "8"x10" print made at the local Photo-Mart. For an example,
you get one 8"x10" off of the "photo machine" at wal-mart for $6.95. And
in addition to the cost, they can have one in a matter of minutes without
having to leave their house.
Third - Archival...? OK, so the print from an Inkjet doesn't last for 20
years. SO WHAT. The DIGITAL image file on a CD-ROM lasts for over
100 years. It does not fade, crack, bleed, rip, tear or just disappear from
sight. Now that is a true archival photograph.
Finally - What are the uses people are putting these printers to? In other
words, why are people using "digital images" today? I think most would
agree that the "Pro" photographer looks at final quality with a MUCH more
discriminating eye than the average Joe... I believe that the photos printed
on today's printers are considered by the average consumer as being just as
good as anything they get from developing film.... At least that is the
response I personally have seen. Let's not forget that, thanks to APS (or
Advantix) film, the standard for what is accepted as high quality has come
way down from when 35mm set the standard.
The new age of "Digital Photography" is giving photography a bit of a "rebirth".
For those of you who are old enough to remember, photography as a hobby used to
have larger following than it does today. It started to die out about 12-15 years ago
Color Printers
and now, just try to find someone that know where to buy Developer or Fixer...
much less know what it's used for (present company excluded I'm sure). Thanks to
the internet, photography as a hobby is alive and well, and getting bigger all the
time. And thanks to the new generation of inkjet printers, people are able to share
their new found joy with friends and family that don't have a computer connected
to the net.
-- Bart Baldwin, April 18, 2000
The Rochester Institute of Technology School of photography has been using a
combination of a digital printer that is RA4 process its almost like the Fuji
Pictrography. But this is run on a Kreonite machine its called the Sphera Printer. It
uses photographic paper RA4 paper and exposes the paper on three color laser then
the paper exposed is cut off automatically and then the person feeds it into the
Kreonite machine and walla you have a print that was fix and edited on photoshop
and then process on real photographic paper RA4 no more this iris crap or whatever
output there is for digital media now you have an RA4 print that was done digitally
and now it is back on normal color paper. Tony Torres from the Rochester Institute
of Technology if you ever want to see this ingenious machine stop by the RIT
campus and head to building 7B and ask for the ISM lab that is where I work. Hope
you're eyes start to see that film and normal process paper will not be obsolite in
photography.
Image:bull.jpg
-- Tony Torres, April 24, 2000
The Epson 1270 and 870 printers seem to be another significant level up in the
quality available to home, or inexpensive commerical, digial printing. Many people
seem to feel that these printers are better than some of the lower end dye-sub
printers out there.
I've seen the output, and it seems awfully impressive to me. I'd love to see
comments about them, though, from people who really have extensive experience
with digital printing at higher price ponts, and with more than the occassional
traditional chemical/optical custom enlargement, away from the mini-labs.
With these new models, and their fade resistance (10-23 years depending upon
paper choice), Epson seems to be getting there. The pull of being able to return to
"darkroom work", but with color rather than black and white, and in a much more
space and time efficient manner, is strong.
Color Printers
I'd also love it if Phil could revisit this area. He seems to have been otherwise
occupied for some time -- you know, those pesky bits about advancing your career
and all that, I imagine. But a whole lot seems to have evolved since he last
contributed very much of his very valuable insight and perspective to digital
photography. Especially on the home/low end commercial output side, things seem
to be getting WAY better.
-- Doug Johnson, May 28, 2000
I just received a call from Hardwarebuyline. My Epson Stylus Photo 2000P has an
ETA of July 23, 2000. ($755.00) I am currently using a HP Photo Smart 1100P.
($464.00) I was about to purchase the Epson 1270 when I luckily found out about
the Epson 2000P. Although I was quite satisfied with the HP's quality, like most
people, I was looking for something better. My only concern now,is should I have
waited for yet another better photo printer to come out. ;>) I will test the Epson and
Hp side by side and post the results.
-- Tom DeMita, July 14, 2000
Like many things Phil seems to be getting a bit out of touch, or perhaps, as with
some things, he never was quite in touch. In the case of ink-jets anyway they have
certainly moved on a lot, even since the original Stylus Photo. I currently have an
Epson 750 and I would have to say that 9 times out of ten I can get a better print/
photograph out of a scanned negative/transparency that I could ever have done
using traditional photographic methods.
Inkjets these days, especially Epson ones may be in both the 'small and cheap'
category and 'big and expensive'. But in either case the certainly do provide a big
bang for your buck.
With printers now such as the Epson 870/1270 producing photographic quality
prints with a 10-25 year lifespan, and the new 2000P with a possible 200 year, or at
least 100+ independently tested lifespan, I think the question of what equipment
you use to produce photographic output is now becoming something of a mute
point.
-- Brent Whiteman, August 5, 2000
 Hello all, I'm not a photography expert, but I am interested in the
field and and came across this page. My first exposure to this was two years ago,
when I got to use a Kodak DC210+ digital camera (~$500 in 1998) with an Epson
Stylus Color 740 photo printer (~$200 in 1998). I have since been fascinated by the
Color Printers
ability to print photos, and to edit photos. Two important points to
consider about color photo printers are: <blockquote>1. Since you've either used a
digital camera or scanner to get the pictures into your computer, you'll always have
them. So even if the printing technology isn't quite as good as you'd like right now,
it's getting better all the time, and you can make prints later down the road.
 2. Since you can buy a 20 gigabyte hard drive for $125 or less as of
today (October 2000), and a recordable CDrom drive for around $150, the storage
for your photos on a computer is not even a consideration anymore. The space is
there, and it's cheap. </blockquote> -Anthony <a href="http://
NoDivisions.com" onMouseOver="window.status='Anthony\'s website';return
true" onMouseOut="window.status=' ';return true">NoDivisions.com</a>
-- Anthony D, October 30, 2000
I have the Alps MD-5000 with Dye-Sublimation upgrade, and the Epson 1270. DO
NOT BUY THE ALPS! It is a waste of money. I am much happier with the 1270.
Suffice it to say that the Alp's superior specs (on the face) don't matter when you
look at other problems (color matching, banding, reliability, media and ink
availability, etc.) Email for details.
-- Mike Morgan, November 28, 2000
I was given an Alps MD-2100 several months ago, and have been printing using a
Powerbook 180c, a 520c, and a Lombard. Source images from an Agfa SmartScan
(300 dpi, a closeout), and from various picture-on-floppy and picture-on-CD-andNet scans obtained with slide and print developing.
My comparisons are a QMS color laser at work and various Epson inkjets among
friends and neighbors. So I am a novice at this -- the Alps came because I'd done
some repairs for nonprofits via a friend and somewhere someone got a lot of new
gear and this one floated my way.
I really like it. The colors can be saturated (there's a Photo setting) or not; it does
plain black or grayscale so I can save ink. It's still expensive to run; I keep an
original Deskjet for text and middle-aged DeskJet inkjet for transient color work.
Main thing about the Alps is, the ink really does seem to stay on the page and keeps
its color, particularly on the dedicated paper which isn't too pricey.
It's a SCSI printer, which is handy in a variety of ways. And of course by now it's a
dinosaur, replaced by newer models, but they seem to keep the supplies available at
Alps online. The 'ink' is something like the old Selectric film 'ribbons' for this
Color Printers
model, 3 colors plus black, separately replaceable.
It's better than "home computer print" quality, and for friends and family purposes
or any business use I'd come up with, I can use the output without worrying about it
lasting or looking bad in a year or two. I'd call it well worth watching for. Looking
at the history of the past few years, I'm amazed the Alps line was unheard of in my
experience -- they had this model out while the Epson and HP printers were still
making blotchy short lived color prints! Maybe they didn't send them to reviewers.
-- hank roberts, December 20, 2000
Re: Joshua Daniels, December 2, 1999 posting:
I found your detailed post of 12/2/99 interesting, and thought my experiences might
shed some light on (some of?) your issues with Epson inkjets.
I've been shooting for about 20 years now, and have been scanning negatives for
only about 4 years. Only got my first digital camera 5 months ago... I use a
Microtek 35T film scanner (1828dpi optical), Photoshop 5.5, and currently print
using (only!) a 1st generation Epson Stylus Photo printer (740dpi, 6-ink), and use
Epson Matte Heavyweight Photo paper. System is Mac OS9.
I am now very, very happy with the results I'm getting, after quite a bit (read:
years...) of Photoshop self-learning, via many good books out there. Initially, my
results were essentially as you described: color shifts, lack of fidelity to the
original, etc. In the last year or so I've finally been getting the results I wanted; that
is, prints that can easily go on a wall under glass, and look just as good as a 'wet'
print. Using (only!) a 3-4 year old 1st generation photo printer, I must add that this
is true only as long as you don't view the print from closer than about 4-5 inches
(which, typically, you wouldn't). Luckily, an Epson 1270 is in my future, and that
will all but get rid of this lingering resolution and tonality issue.
Firstly, using my PowerMac 8500, an AppleVision 1710 monitor, (horrible)
Microtek scanning drivers/software, Adobe Photoshop 5.5, the Epson Stylus Photo
printer, and, more importantly, the ColorSync software that is integrated into all
modern Mac operating systems, I've had virtually identical output from screen to
printer, with very little fussing about. There is a reason, I believe, that professional
graphics users rely on the Mac for their work. Apple has gone to great lengths to
ensure the color-matching integrity of input/output devices, and I think it works.
Yes, I have indeed used both platforms extensively, although I don't know too
much about the PC's built-in color management software (although I have heard
from pros that it's more difficult to easily get consistently accurate output).
Color Printers
Secondly, monitor quality can be *very* important to this process. In addition to
simply using Photoshop's gamma control to 'calibrate' the monitor, ideally you
should be able to calibrate the monitor for different ambient light settings
(adjusting for different 'white point' settings, essentially). If you've ever had the
opportunity to do this on a monitor that supports it (read: a more expensive
monitor), you know how important this aspect is. Depending on the monitor type, a
little silverish card (or other implement) is held up to the monitor to match colors
on the card to the screen. When you do this for sunny daylight vs. cloudy daylight
vs. night incandescent or fluorescent desk lighting, you see just how much the
apparent color shift of the monitor is with different ambient light sources. Change
to the 'wrong' setting, and you'll see what I mean.
In any event, a couple of things came to mind that were absent in your discussion
of relevant info to your process. First of all, if you have obvious color casts,
something is *very* wrong with the scan (I'm sure you know this). I've found that
the most difficult part of the entire process is getting a good scan; as you noted,
scanner software and documentation is lacking, to say the least. Try, try again, the
result you want is out there (assuming your scanner has the density range to capture
your image properly; this is an important, and expensive, aspect).
Now, assuming that you have a good scan, one aspect of Photoshop that wasn't
mentioned was hue/saturation control. Obviously a good scan shouldn't need too
much fussing with hue (color casts aside...), however I've found the saturation
control to be invaluable to matching color to originals (referring to transparencies
here, as 'color matching to originals' doesn't strictly apply to color negatives, only
to color prints from negatives, which are subject to their own initial interpretation).
You obviously have a pretty good grasp of Photoshop and how to correct an image;
my recent 'discovery' of the power of the saturation control compels me to include
it, since you didn't mention it.
A couple of quickie notations to your post:
*Don't* use a Kodak PhotoCD; PhotoCD and color fidelity are mutually exclusive
(there are several websites that discuss this in detail)!!!
If you have the money for a Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000, Microtek Artixscan 4000,
or one of the just-announced high-res Nikon film scanners, buy one!
Lastly, Shutterbug magazine's 'Digital Help: Q&A for Digital Photography' section
by David Brooks has been an *excellent* source of cutting edge digital
photography and printing information, especially for those interested in producing
'fine art' quality prints.
Color Printers
I agree with you that the technology still has somewhere to go to get to true
photographic quality, but most people don't view their prints through a lupe
(although it may be fun to do so). It is all moving very fast, and the Epson 1270
printer in the hands of a knowledgeable user can print wonders...
-- Jeff Warner, January 27, 2001
I just bought a refurbished EPSON Stylus 1270 direct from Epson for $252. And
while it was in transit my FUJI DS-300 broke ! Now I'm looking for a new digital
camera.
-- Doug Dolde, May 16, 2001
The long and the short of it: Yeah, the ALPS MD-5000 has great resolution, and
the dye-sub is very impressive, but the colors are usually off.
Click here for my amateur review of the ALPS MD-5000 with the dye sublimation
upgrade.
-- Mike Morgan, August 22, 2001
I've had an HP photosmart 1100 for the past two years for printing photos
(Olympus 500 and 620 and now Canon D30). Using PIE Studio ( http://www.
picmeta.com ) to control printing and printing on HP matte photopaper (~85cents/
page) I've had great luck with color consistency, image brightness, "photographic"
quality on 8x10 prints. One must manually select the type of paper (HP matte
photographic or whatever) in the printer setup before printing and the print speed is
not quick but the quality is very good. And it has CF and SmartMedia slots.
-- Jeff Mallory, January 31, 2002
I have recently purchased an Epson Stylus photo 1290 having viewed competition
from Canon and HP. My purchase decision was based on the need to produce good
quality A3 sized landscape and macro prints for framing and sale. My choice of the
Epson over the other two considered was purely on price, there being little
difference between them to percieve on printouts of the same couple of photos from
my perspective, and with unaided eyesight.
I am pleased with the output, am happy to report that installation was a doddle
using Windows XP, and output very fast using the USB connection (I needed to
retain my old Lexmark printer for general letter and proof printing)
Color Printers
The Epson is a large unit, and takes up a lot of desk space. Cartridges are only 2/3
the price of the Lexmark, but I do not suspect that they will last overly long. The
bundled 'quality images' are a waste of space, and if you like Adobe photoshop
elements, you can have my copy! For a serious printer, I would have thought it
would have had something a little more heavyweight, but that is just my opinion.
If you expect to install it straight out of the box you will be very disappointed....No
USB, or other cable supplied with mine, and none stated as supplied in the
instructions...worse still, absence of same not mentioned on the box so far as I can
see.
Well, there it is, for what it is worth.....It prints off some very nice images,
exceedingly well, and quickly in A3 size at max resolution...I didnt time them, but
it was quicker than my Lexmark doing the same print in the smaller A4 size.....
Check out the competition, as these A3 printers are becoming more readily
available at a reasonably affordable price....I paid £349 UK in March 2002, from
PC World, but know I could have bought it cheaper over the web. I just like the
ease of solving any problems, for which I'm prepared to pay that little extra. Happy
hunting and Printing... Graeme Pettit
-- Graeme Pettit, April 29, 2002
I recently went to a demonstration of the Epson Stylus Pro 7600 (24") and the 9600
(44"). You can now get fine art, large print quality on a reasonably priced machine.
The quality of a 16x20 from a 35mm scan was unbeleivable! The only
improvements to be made in the coming years will be speed. These machines
output 16sqft / hour for photographic quality - that's approx 10 min for a 16x20.
The prints are also archival to 100 yrs.. I print fine art prints up to 40x50" from 4x5
transparencies and would never have considered printing digitally till now. I could
write for days on the subject but you can get more precise info @ Epson's site.
Tangentially to this forum: Also, check out the Imacon Flextight Precision II & III
scanners - still around $10K but scanning the quality of some drum scanners that
cost 3 times as much!
-- John Hanses, August 25, 2002
The new Giclee printers are phenominal. If you have an opportunity to print
selected digitized images using the Giclee process, it is well worth it.
-- Fab Mastronardi, September 22, 2002
Color Printers
Hi I have bought an Epson 950 and I'm very pleased with it. I use a Minolta
Dimage Dual II scanner and allways scan with highest resulotion, I have make
parts of 35 mm film on the 210.. roll paper in panoramic size with a size of 650mm
loong, with a very good result. I am often little sad that I did not by the 2100 to
have the A3 size. The only problem I have had is the printer sw Epson Photo
Quicker that in the beginnig was very good, but now often stop after non to two
prints and say it can not fint the file to print from, even when ith files stillis within
the programe and is still possible to open within it. i have reinstaled the printer SW
and the Photo Quicker, but still is the problem there. Regards Hans Andersson
-- Hans Andersson, October 24, 2002
Before buying an ink jet printer make sure that camera and printer are compatible.
Inparticular check out HP printer site as there is a list of compatibilities and non
such.
-- Rodney Williams, December 25, 2002
The latest in inkjet printers, the Epson 2200, has finally made available a high
quality printer to the masses. No longer do I have to send out for large prints. With
quality papers and the archiaval dyes the 2200 meets or exceeds most
photographers' requirements in a photo printer. It can go up to 13x44 inches. I
highly recommend this printer,--currently priced at about US$700.
-- Dan Lindsay, January 11, 2003
I just purchased an Epson 2100 (Asian version of the 2200) and have been
documenting my experiences with it. http://karavshin.org/blogs/black-coffee/
archive/cat_epson_2100.html
-- Michael Slater, March 15, 2003
I just successfully printed an 8" x 60" panoramic image on my Epson 785EPX
printer. Because the process required some shenanigans, I thought I'd document it
for posterity. Many of the Epson photo printers support roll paper. (Mine
supposedly only supports 4" wide paper, but the holder for the paper had places to
hold an 8.3 inch roll, and it worked!) According to the Epson web site, under
Windows 2000 or XP, the print driver supports printing a document up to 129"
long. On the same web page it also says the driver supports user defined paper sizes
up to 44" long. The two statements, while seemingly contradictory, are compatible:
You can, if your image is less than 44" wide, setup the paper length in the print
driver to match the width of your print. You can then print the image in one step.
Color Printers
If the image is wider than 44", you need to break it up into smaller pieces and print
all the pieces as a single job. I did it by putting vertical guides in my image at 11"
intervals and saving the chunks as separate files. Using Adobe Acrobat, I then
created a 6 page document in landscape format. I then sent the whole doument to
the printer, which had been setup with an 11" paper length, no margins, banner
mode, and save paper. The pages were output with no intervening whitespace.
Cost: I figure about $7.00 for the paper (Epson Premium Luster) and $3.00 for the
(dye) ink. I priced the job at Boston Photo & Imaging, and it would have cost about
$350 (but I could have gotten 5 prints, so the cost per print would only have been
$70.00.)
I'm very pleased with the results. The printer cost $119.00.
--Skip
Image:Indian Lake.jpg
-- Skip Gaede, May 2, 2003
Dye-Subs ARE back !
There are a new , low cost dye -subs from Sony and Canon.
I just got Canon CP-200 for 180$. It produce phot lab qualty 6X4 and even put
protective layer. cartrige of 36 cost $20-25 depending on store. Well, it is small and
only 300dpi, but ,yes looks like real photo . No dithering of ink-jets, no worry
about finger prints. cool.
I wish cost for printing be cheaper then ~60 cents as well as boosting resolution to
600 dpi and size to Letter can probbaly make it absolute winer.
So far 4X6 is what I normaly print and I use ink jet for bigger images, that is fine :
when image is big it is framed and looked from distance ( no aparent ditehirng ),
while 4X6 normaly observed closly.
-- V S, October 31, 2003
Well.. this article has been around a while but I thought I'd add a VERY worthy
inkjet printer to the listing here. Teh Canon i9900 (up to 13 x 19 full bleed) is one
fantastic printer.
I originally purchased it as a backup for emergency prints and planned on
Color Printers
continuing to send my shots out to the lab. However, the print quality was so great
that I do all my printings now myself.
-- Joe Orsak, June 2, 2005
Add a comment
Related Links
●
●
ALPS Electric- alps printers (contributed by julienne hastings)
digital darkroom @ singapore- Lots of info about Printing with Epson
printers and Adobe photoshop. (contributed by james galletto)
●
Epson Website- Epson Website (contributed by Randy Weber)
●
Cone Editions- Interesting stuff for Epson users:archival papers, inks, etc.
(contributed by John Holcomb)
●
●
●
Linux Printing HOWTO- The ultimate source for Linux printing info.
Believe it or not, you can get excellent results printing in Linux. Some
printers actually perform better under Linux than Mac or Windows, because
better drivers have been written. Others are not as good, or don't work at all.
This site helps you find out which is which. (contributed by Matt O'Toole)
Webwinds Photoshop Links- Several hundred links to Adobe Photoshop
related sites and resources (contributed by Tracy Marks)
International Color Consortium- Standards organisation for the ICC "Profile
Connection Space" technique for color standardisation used by many
equipment vendors. Includes interesting technical background articles
(contributed by Hugh de Lacy)
●
●
Extreme Sport Photos on Epson 2000P- Gravity Art is a site dedicated to
promoting extreme sport phtographers from around the world. We print all
of our images on the Epson 2000P and I'd be happy to talk to or show
anyone the terrific results. - Genevieve (contributed by Genevieve Watson)
Digital Imaging- Photoshop tips, reviews (contributed by Seamus Gallagher)
Color Printers
●
Epson 2100- Running commentary on my experiences with the Epson 2100
(the Asian version of the 2200) and Photoshop (contributed by Michael
Slater)
Add a link
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Tripods and Tripod Heads
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
You
by Philip Greenspun
can judge how good a bunch of
photographers are by what they are talking
about.
Really bad photographers debate the merits of
the Nikon F4 and the Canon EOS-1.
Somewhat better photographers debate the
merits of the Yashica T4 and the Contax T2.
The best photographers, though, talk tripods, tripod heads, and quick releases.
A tripod is at once a photographer's best friend and worst encumbrance. It
somehow seems that one is forever lugging tripods around and adjusting them and
yet never has the right one when needed. Most serious photographers own several
tripods and heads.
Articles
●
●
●
●
Legset, ballhead, Q/R overviewby Philip Greenspun.
Keeping a 600/4 steady by Tom Davis
Perhaps you have two too many legs
Cheap and Compact by Ross Alford
When to use Camera Support
http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/ (1 of 5)7/3/2005 2:20:55 AM
Rule 1: when it is getting dark.
Rule 2 (the standard): you need to use a tripod when your
shutter speed is slower than 1/focal-length of the lens.
Thus with a standard 50mm lens, you should not attempt
to handhold shutter speeds slower than 1/60th and with a
500mm telephoto lens, you will have to keep the shutter
speed at 1/500th or faster. Rationale? Longer lenses
magnify the subject but they also magnify any vibration
of the camera.
Rule 3 (for big enlargements): you need to use a tripod
all the time. The standard rule is designed for 35mm cameras and presupposes a
certain degree of enlargement and viewing distance from the final print. If you're
going to make big enlargements and let people get close to the prints, then you
need to be more careful about lots of stuff including camera shake.
Rule 4 (for big cameras): you might be able to handhold a slower shutter speed
because the final image won't be enlarged as much (since the negative is larger).
On the other hand, medium- and large-format cameras are so big and heavy that
most photographers prefer to use them on a tripod if only to avoid muscle fatigue.
Sports photographers often use a monopod so that they don't have to support the
weight of a 300/2.8 or 600/4 lens through an entire football game.
Where to Buy
You can find a selection of tripods and heads stocked by Adorama. Adorama is a
retailer that pays photo.net a referral fee for each customer, which helps keep this
site in operation. For additional retailer information, see our recommended retailers
page and the user recommendations section
Gratuitous Examples
Why? Because my friend Kathy at Advanced Digital Imaging scanned them for me.
These come out the back of a Rollei 6008 and hence can only be scanned on a
ProPhotoCD machine.
Top photo copyright 1992 Philip Greenspun, and is a six hour exposure thoroughly
explained in my star streak tutorial.
"Tripod Statue" photo from my collaborative guide to Italy.
permission.
Agent | Privacy
Sponsor: DigitalAdvisor.com - Excellent reviews of cell phones
Tripods
photo.net
Search
● Classifieds
●
Shop
●
Travel
●
Learn
●
Equipment
●
Forums
●
Gallery
●
Community
Tripod Overview
by Philip Greenspun
The Legset
This is the least important decision you have to make.
Don't let anyone tell you that you are a girlie-man if you
buy Bogen instead of Gitzo. The fact of the matter is that
if you were really serious, you'd be using a Ries wooden
tripod. "Wood absorbs vibration and metal transmits/
reflects it," is how the view camera perfectionists put it.
However, the user interface and flexibility of wood
tripods is so poor that only a few diehards are able to
resist the charms of metal legsets.
Make sure that whatever you get, it is tall enough that
you can use it comfortably without extending the center
column. Think about it: if you raise the center column,
your camera is flapping around in the breeze supported by only one tube. If you
push it down, you get your camera supported by three legs as advertised.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/philg (1 of 53)7/3/2005 2:21:12 AM
Tripods
Two companies make the vast majority of legsets used by
professionals, Gitzo and Bogen (Manfrotto outside the U.
S.). Gitzo is made in France and reflects Continental
Rationalism. If you don't carefully adhere to the correct
method of loosening and tightening the leg locks, it will
take you an annoying minute or two to sort everything
back out. Bogen is made in Italy by Manfrotto and
reflects Mediterranean chaos. The leg locks are
marvelous little spring-loaded flick levers (or wing-type
screws on some of the smallest ones) and you can lock or
unlock them in any order. Both brands offer adjustable
leg angle, which is nice for uneven ground, slopes, and
resting a leg on an overlook barrier. Both also offer
reversible center columns, for hanging the camera inches from the ground.
Gitzo is more expensive but has the
advantage that there are no little parts to lose
or wear out. The legs are made of
heavyweight aluminum or carbon fiber. I fell
in love with Gitzo's wonderfully light (weighs
3 lbs, supports 15) carbon fiber Mountaineer
tripod ($500) during five weeks in Italy. It is
dead, dead, dead. Dead. I'm six feet tall and
expected that the lack of height (52 inches or
61 with the center column up) would be annoying, but somehow I hardly noticed
bending down a bit. [An Inter-Pro Studex version is coming out in September 1996
that will be about 30% lighter than the aluminum alloy counterpart, but will rise to
the same height (61 inches or 76 inches with center column; should weigh about
4.2 lbs and sell for about $750).]
Tripods
The standard Bogen legset is the
3021 ($85), which comes with
the spring-loaded flip locks. It
weighs about 6 lbs, rises up to a
comfortable working height for
tall people (with no center
column extension), and will
support everything from heavy
35mm through lightweight 4x5.
If you go into the wilderness,
plan to carry the supplied plastic
wrench for adjusting the leg
locks should they loosen up.
Kirk Enterprises (107 Lange
Lane, Angola, IN 46703, (800)
626-5074) will modify the 3021
somehow so that one can get
even closer to the ground, but I haven't tried this. A lot of folks prefer using a
Bogen Superclamp attached to a tripod leg, with a small ballhead at the end of the
clamp.
[If you get a Bogen, make sure you get the nifty strap that screws into the top and
wraps around the legs. You might also consider paying the extra $13 to get the
black anodized finish; the bright silver legs can turn into annoying reflections if
you are doing close-ups of shiny objects.]
I've always liked the idea of the floppy Benbo tripods but have never been able to
lock them down enough to get rigidity at a low camera angle. I think the Gitzos and
Bogens have enough flexibility that Benbo need not be investigated. If you really
want to do something weird, you might be better off with a Bogen Magic Arm.
The Head
If you are doing architecture, you want a
three-way panhead in which each axis is
separately controlled. Otherwise, you'll
probably find a ballhead vastly more
convenient.
With a really good ballhead, you can
smoothly follow an animal with a 300/2.8
lens and take your hands off the lens without having it flop towards the ground.
Tripods
Of the ballheads that I've personally used, my favorite for feel and function is the
ARCA Swiss B1. This is the head that almost every serious photographer seems to
end up with and my only source of sorrow is that I blew about $330 on a FOBA
Superball before I found out about it. The ARCA is half the weight of the FOBA,
able to support more weight, and has a very interesting patented feature:
progressive resistance. That means when you've adjusted the tension for a 300/2.8
that is approximately level, the ARCA automatically increases the tensions as the
lens is pointed down a bit (so that the lens doesn't flop down catastrophically).
Whatever you get, if you spend $400 for a head, make sure you protect it from
knocks. I wasn't super careful with my FOBA and it became useless. Sinar Bron
does not stand behind the product and I would have been out of luck except that
Jeff Hirsch at Fotocare in NY (see where to buy) bailed me out.
If you really want to save money
and yet not get something that is
complete junk, try the Bogen
3038 ($150 at B&H) which
comes with an integral hex plate
Q/R. In fact, the quick release
has a really nice locking feature
that I've not seen on other Bogen
products. If you intend to leave
your camera on the tripod and
carry the assemblage around for
awhile, this would tend to inspire
confidence. In any case, the 3038
is about the same size and weight
as the FOBA and is strong
enough to take a 4x5 or
supertele. It is hard to describe
why the overall experience with the 3038 isn't as good as with the FOBA but it
clearly isn't. I think it comes down to smoothness and the use of a lubricant on the
3038, which I've played with but never used extensively.
An interesting design that I haven't tried is the NPC pseudo-ballhead. This has an
innovative design that locks the center of the ball rather than standard method of
pushing the ball into the socket (this changes your composition slightly, somewhat
irritating with a big lens especially). The head is reasonably priced ($225) and
apparently well made, but allegedly is a pan/tilt head that is not really a suitable
substitute for a traditional ballhead design (this is a paraphrase of some vitriolic
comments by ex-users).
Tripods
If you aren't planning to use a medium format camera, a super-tele, or a 4x5, you
might want to investigate smaller ballheads. Even if you can afford the
aforementioned heads, you won't enjoy carrying the weight. The FOBA mini super
ball ($200) looks great, but I've never owned one and Sinar Bron's attitude is
discouraging. I've tried the really cheap Bogen 3262QR ($40) and it works OK but
the lack of tension means that you risk "dumping" the camera/lens combination.
Plus, the unit seems to depend on grease for smoothness and your hands get kind of
filthy if you aren't careful about where you touch your gear. I wasn't sorry when it
was stolen.
Quick Release
All I know is that I have to have a quick release. I have to
be able to mate and unmate my camera quickly or the
whole tripod is too much of a hassle to use and carry.
The gold standard in quick release is the "ARCA Swissstyle". Bryan Geyer, the owner of Really Right Stuff
(http://www.reallyrightstuff.com; P.O. Box 6531, Los
Osos, CA 93412, (805) 528-6321), makes the biggest
selection of plates (137 in June 1995) in this style so I
asked him to articulate his devotion to it. "The problem
with the Sachtler, Bogen, and Linhof releases is that they
have a fixed cavity size. You should be able to use a big
plate for a big item like a 600/4 lens and a small plate for a small item like a body.
Our plates range in size from 1.4 inches to 7.3 inches long.
Another thing that is wrong with the Sachtler,
Bogen, and Linhof approach is that their
plates are all flat-topped and therefore free to
twist or pivot on whatever equipment they are
attached to. Even if your lens lets you rotate
the body without tilting the tripod head, you
still might want to shoulder the tripod and not
have the plate twist. Each of our plates has a
flange of channel that keeps the lens or body
from twisting.
"A final consideration is that it is really ugly to have a big plate poking out from
under your camera. ARCA Swiss-style plates conform to the size and shape of the
equipment."
Tripods
I used to be a Bogen hex plate user but Bryan Geyer persuaded me with his
reasoning and his superbly machined products. I leave his plates on my cameras all
the time and they never get in the way. I miss the positive "snap-in" that I got with
the Bogen system, but not as much as I thought I would. If you want to get into the
ARCA Swiss-style system you have to either buy a ballhead that comes with it or
get a whole setup from Bryan.
If you want something cheap that works, Bogen sells a range of Q/R systems, the
biggest of which is their old hex plate system. It is big enough to carry a 4x5 view
camera with ease ($30 plus $12 for extra plates). There are a bunch of more
expensive ($70-130) systems out there that look potentially better than the Bogen,
but I'm not yet convinced that any are. The Linhof one looks nice. When I was
looking for something lightweight, I've tried cheap systems such as the Cullman,
but they are inadequately rigid.
References
The Really Right Stuff catalog (available from P.O. Box 6531, Los Osos, CA
93412, (805) 528-6321) contains a fairly comprehensive comparative test of
ballheads. The short story is that the ARCA Swiss B1 crushes the competition.
Reader's Comments
I wrote to you once before to tell you that the head, camera and tripod should be
tested as a complete unit before a purchasing decision is made. It has been my
experience that this is the only way to prove the utility of the tripod and head with
the actual camera being used. I think you would be surprised that some systems
that you think are "solid" with one camera system, are wobbly with another. It is
only my experience talking, but I've tested many combinations over the last 8 years
with no real bulletproof way to predict the optimum results in advance.
-- mel dorin, December 17, 1996
Regarding the quick release plates - if you go with an Arca Swiss style quick
release and you are shooting with a Canon set up, don't waste your money on the
Arca Swiss quick release plates. Buy your quick release plates from Really Right
Stuff. The RRS plates are far superior to the Arca Swiss plates in terms of their
ease of use and lack of wiggle when properly installed.
The only reason to buy the Arca plates is "instant gratification." If you absolutely
have to have a plate on the same day as the ball head arrives, and if you don't mind
wasting $60, go ahead and get the Arca plate.
Tripods
You have to wait to get your plates from RRS because they won't take an order
over the phone, and they won't take credit cards. Aside from this aggravation, their
plates really do function better than the manufacturer's official plates. One other
thing about RRS plates. You have to have a 5/32" allen wrench to install and
remove them. You can order a special tool from RRS, or you can just buy the
standard 5/32" allen wrench from the hardware store for around $.40.
The Arca Swiss B1 is definitely a wonderful piece of gear, and the RRS mounting
plates allow it to reach its full potential.
-- Glen Johnson, January 15, 1997
Subject: WIMBERLEY TRIPOD HEAD for long lenses. I appreciate your
comments and recommendations on tripods and heads. I was happy with my gitzo
320 while using it with my studioball and a nikon 200~400, but found the setup
inadequate for a 600 f4. I purchased a gitzo 410 which helped tremendously,but
after using a new head designed especially for long lenses, I will never use a ball
head again for my telephoto work. This new head is called the Wimberley Tripod
Head, and because of its radical design, true balance can be achieved. It will never
flop over on you and you can leave all of the adjustments loose so panning along
with your subject is effortless. The price of the head and shipping seems a bit steep
at $402 but after using it with my 600 F4, I could never do without it. Wimberley
Design can be contacted at 974 Baker Lane, Winchester, Va. 22603. Tel. (540) 6652744. They are a small family operated business and I know they will do well.
-- Brian P. Bower, February 16, 1997
I recently discovered that you can make an excellent tripod head for 35mm and
medium format photography by attaching the Bogen #3229 QR Swivel Head (http://
www.manfrotto.com/en/products/monopods.html), which was designed for
monopods, to the #3160 XL Fluid Head (http://www.manfrotto.com/en/products/
videoheads.html), which was designed for video, by means of a #3157A QR plate.
The resulting combination has the pan-and-tilt smoothness of a video head but also
allows the photographer to turn the camera 90 degrees for portrait or landscape
(actually -90 to +45 degrees). This combination head stands 15 cm (= 6 in) high,
weighs 0.9 kg (= 2 lbs), and costs about $90.- (B&H or CWO). I find it to be a real
pleasure to use: very stable and much easier to adjust than three-axis heads which
are specifically designed for still photography (e.g Bogen 3025, 3028, 3029, 3030,
3047), especially when it comes to the fine pan-and-tilt operations that most
photographers (or at least I) constantly need to do to frame an image. I also prefer it
to any ball head I have ever used. No more fooling around with levers or knobs
which clamp the ball in place while changing the position of the frame from what
Tripods
you intended. In any event, "good" ball heads seem to come in three flavors:
expensive, ridiculously expensive and obscenely expensive (e.g. Arca).
The #3229 is rated to support 2.5 kg (= 5.6 lb) and comes with a relatively long
(6.3 cm=2.5") QR plate which works fine for me. If you have a heavy zoom or
fixed focal-length lens with a rotating collar you can remove the whole #3229 in a
matter of seconds and attach your lens directly to the #3160 video head with a QR
plate for the total zen tripod experience. You'll find yourself gratuitously panning
and tilting just for the pleasure of being able to position that heavy lens to exactly
the right microdegree. The #3160 is rated to support 4.5 kg (= 10 lb).
Conclusion: for the price of one and a half QR plates for an Arca, you can put
together a fine -- I would say superior -- tripod head for still and video
photography.
-- Tom Holton, March 4, 1997
I use a very heavy ballhead from linhof (profi ballhead 3)! rock solid! Just as good
as arca (maybe better?!)!But it hasn't a quick release so a searched for a good
professional quick release system! I found the novoflex miniconnect!It's small, fast
(much faster than arca(need to screw it) ! and rock,rock,rock solid! It works with a
round metal plate that you can CLICK in the groundplate.that's it!super fast!And it
can support all major big lenses!easely 600mm!It is quit new! and i don't know if it
is available in america! But if so, it is worth testing and to try it out! I use all heavy
stuff and it is just excellent!!!i don't understand the fuss about that arca stuff!It is
very slow in comparison with the mini conect! You can easely use it with mid
format or larger camara's! You can operate it with one!!!!hand and has a big release
handle!It is just super!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! People who work with novoflex equipment
are aware of the very good quility!
-- Harry Stadman, March 14, 1997
Just tried out the Bogen 3055 ball-head and was not terribly impressed. There are
two variants of this head -- one has a black, plasticky looking ball and the other has
a silver metal one. The plastic one bound up often when panning, and the lens
would jerk from one position to the next. The metal one was much smoother.
There are two locking mechanisms on these heads -- one to tension the ball and the
other to lock the horizontal panning pivot. The horizontal pivot lock works fine, but
the ball tension adjustment was useless. When I rotated the front of the lens to my
left, the tensioning handle would loosen and the head would dump the lens as soon
as I let go of it.
Tripods
I also tried the 3047 tilt-pan head. Despite the fact it isn't a ball-head, I found it
much easier to use for tracking than the 3055 (take this in context because I've
never used a "good" ball-head like the Arca). If you must have an inexpensive (less
than $100), yet solid head, I'd recommend looking at the 3047 and avoiding the
3055.
-- Don Atzberger, March 29, 1997
My legs are Bogen 3021 with a circular spirit level (< $5) glued over the center
column axis. When I plan on panning, I take a few seconds to adjust the lens to
keep the pan plane parallel to the horizon. With this platform, my Bogen 3047 (I
don't use the left/right tilt or the built-in spirit levels) and a Bogen 3063 fluid video
head always give me tracking ability and stay horizontal. I no longer own a 3055
ball-head as I found it too prone to vibration and not ergonomically freindly.
I have inproved my Bogen hex-plates in two ways:
* I have sawed off and smoothed the each of the 6 corners
* I have added a second screw to secure my lens' tripod collar to a flat (#3041) hexplate.
-- Dave Herzstein, July 10, 1997
The "religion" around Arca ballheads is really not appropriate to the many of us
that don't use very large cameras or long lenses. I rarely shoot, even in medium
format, with anything over two pounds, so my issue isn't absolute stability of heavy
equipment but rigidity during long exposures and the ability to very carefully
compose. I have found that the Linhof Model 1, just as an example, is an excellent
ballhead for my purposes and costs just slightly over $100. There are probably
other ballheads in this price range that would meet the needs of a lot of us that are
not into huge lenses or large format.
Also, regarding Benbo - there are some issues with how well the "bent bolt" works,
but I have found times when it is indispensable. I recently went on a tour of a ghost
town (photos will be at www.hyperreal.org/~jeffs/) by next week in which I wanted
to work against a steep railroad embankment with mud down below. It was very
easy to use the embankment for one leg with the other two just above the mud line.
I happened to notice that other photographers had to work on the railroad tracks,
getting a very different perspective.
One tip on buying a Bogen/Manfrotto: Mr. Greenspun suggested buying with the
Tripods
black anodized legs for $13, but I just used black cloth tape which cost around $2.
-- Jeff (www.spirer.com), July 29, 1997
When I bought my Bogen 3221, I also bought a Bogen 3262QR ball head. This was
my first ball head, and I was delighted with it - plus the whole deal cost me only
about $140. After a while I began to realize that the lack of smoothness in the 3262
head was annoying me more and more as I set up pictures. However, I really wasn't
prepared to spend $400-600 for an Arca ball head and matching QR. A couple of
places on the 'net (I really don't remember where), I found people recommending
the Canon Professional Ball Head, a head one hardly ever hears about. Since it was
only $60 (at Adorama), I bit, and for another $30 bought the Bogen hexagonal QR
plate to go with it. Since I've never used an Arca head, I can't compare the Canon
head with that, but I've found the Canon head to be just super for everything I've
done with it. I have to assume that Arca heads are even better, but with the Canon
head I feel that maybe I've reached the point of diminishing returns, with respect to
quality versus cost. And, since I'm a Nikon camera user, this is high praise indeed
for the Canon head!
-- Jack Kennealy, August 6, 1997
Over the years I have tried a variety of tripods and heads, from cheapo to pricey
kind. I traded cash for" experience," having sold most at a discount to other
photographers. My recollections: - Bogen 3047- OK, but large and awkward to use,
still a good value for the buck if you enjoy pan/ tilt style versus ball head. - Bogen
3055 ball head- not smooth enough in action or machining. Good price though and
is usable. - Slik Ball heads ( from professional with triangular lever to small) OK,
but no adjustment for tensioning. Good value. - Foba Superball, w/ quick release:
Good ball head and fully adjustable, but large, heavy, and expensive. Still have it
and use it. Bought for 175.00 at auction. Not my first choice or recommendation
now that I have an Arca B-1 head. - Arca Swiss. Worth the money because of the
precision. A unique product,- a lifetime investment. - Bogen Swivel Tilt Headgreat for monopods, a bargain at under 20.00, for certain uses. - Bogen mini fluid
head. Also a great bargain for video and maybe binocular astronomy - Really Right
Stuff Plates. A value for their quality and individuality. - Really right stuff arca
clamp adapters. An excellent compromise to retrofit other heads.
-- Gerry Siegel (Honolulu), September 9, 1997
I use the Gitzo 1228 mountaineer for the legset and a Lindhof profil 2 ballhead w/
Rollei quick release (my 6x6 is the only thing I use on this tripod). The Lindhof
head is very solid and smooth, a perfect match for the series-2 gitzo. For the series
4, I'd go w/ the larger profil 3. The profil 2 is only about $215 in Tokyo. Just try not
Tripods
to think about the fact that the legset, head, and quickrelease cost nearly $1000. I
also have a bogen 3021S (compact). I only use it for low-level macro shots since
the legs open more than those of the gitzo. It's too heavy for me (4.75 lbs for the
legs, whereas my gitzo carbon w/ Lindhof head is about 4.25 lbs complete and
extends higher AND carries a heavier load).
-- Jim Chow, October 16, 1997
Regarding tripods I've switched from Bogen & avoided Gitzo after trying many
friends pods and helping those in workshops and had SLIK PRO tripods
recommended to me by a friend and found them to be my best solution. Best
features are: good price, superb craftmanship, solid, big leg collars, LEGS CANT
ROTATE WHEN OPENING OR CLOSING, no binding or loosening in legs or
collars. The Slik Pro 'Grand Master Sport Black' is direct competition in size and
weight but better features than the small Gitzo Mountaineer and about 1/4 to 1/3
the price. Best of all the legs don't turn when opening or closing them in any order.
This tripod is not sold in the USA but is availible in Canada. Call Jim at Camtech
403-244-0333 and he'll send it mail order. Before you buy another tripod or
monopod, check out the SLIK PRO line, their amateur line is not great.
-- Alec Pytlowany, November 17, 1997
While I trust my Gitzo 300 and my huge Davis & Sanford above all else, I recently
picked up a set of Culliman Titan legs, and I've been impressed with the
combination of speed, lightness and stiffness; the legs seem to be as solid as a
Bogen 3050, but the speed of setting leg length makes these really conveneient. I've
been using these legs with a Bogen ball head for some nighttime train photography,
and it's a very handy package. For $100 in mint condition it's worked out very well
for me.
-- Michael Edelman, December 11, 1997
After moving up thru Bogen's 3025,3055,3047,3038 & then the StudioBall (Arca
QR), I found the Arca B1 and loved it 'til winter, & found my huge gloved hands
could not grasp the knobs & I was fumbling a lot. Then I bought the Foba &
remembered why I first liked the Bogen 3038 (not smooth at all): The big bidirectional handle!! It is so quick!
One problem I experienced: Sometimes in very cold weather it does not clamp
firmly & feels "mushy". Any others have this problem? A solution would be
appreciated.
-- Max Grogan, January 16, 1998
Tripods
I'm using the Bogen/Manfrotto 3221 tripod with the Bogen 3265 grip-action ball
head. It is hefty, well made, and I like it. My only caution is that the grip action
head is fairly tall, and the camera sits about six (6) inches above the ball. When you
tilt your camera to the side for a vertical frame, the center of gravity moves 6
inches off center. This decreases the stability of the whole thing, forcing you to
extend the legs on one side... depending on the weight of your camera and lens.
-- Albert E. Anderson, January 25, 1998
Despite the comments of some quoted above, I picked up an NPC "pseudo
ballhead" when it was offered to me by a local shop for $75- with the Arca style
quick release and two plates!
Yes, it doesn't use a ball, but it has the same degrees of freedom and the axis all
share a common center, so functionally it acts just like a ballhead. It has a nice
indexed rotating base, too. I just finished using it for a setup that took a couple of
evenings to complete and it was a pleasure to use.
-- Michael Edelman, January 29, 1998
Maybe Gitzo, Manfrotto and Benbo are the most many-sided tripods but they are
heavy e.g. at mountain walks. I have found out the LPL splits tripod is a very good
all-round choice. The weight is 1850 grams and can carry a 35 mm- or a roll film
camera. (I have used it for cameras up to 2000 grams.) The quality is high and this
tripod is used by the Swedish army to carry IR-sights. The best with this tripod is
its ability to do the splits, the low weight and the good carry handle. One can buy it
at the Swedish Photax (http://www.photax.se) or other LPL sellers.
-- Harald Gaunitz, February 12, 1998
As an alternative type of head for architecture, some people might want to consider
the Manfrotto 410 three-axis geared head. As its name suggests, the main feature of
this head is that it provides geared adjustments in the three axes. I find this
particularly invaluable for applying fine "tweaks" in one axis without upsetting
other axes (as can happen with a ball head), and also removes the possibility of
movement while locking off on a pan-and-tilt head (although this shouldn't much
happen unless you're using a particularly cheap head).
By rotating a lock ring around each knob, the gearing mechanism is disengaged
providing for rapid alignment. Just be careful not to disengage the clutch around
the wrong axis, or your entire ensemble could suddenly flop over!
Tripods
The head comes with a spirit level and an integral quick-release plate operated by a
large lever. The lever has a secondary safety catch to prevent inadvertant release.
As for supported weight, although Manfrotto suggest its use is mainly for 35mm or
medium format kit, I've used this head sucessfully with a Horseman LX-C
monorail 5x4" studio camera (over 7kg sans lens), and use it for outdoor
photography with a Cambo SCN-II (over 4kg sans lens).
A few random disadvantages: - While the geared adjustments are very good, it is
possible to back-drive them by applying too large a torque to the camera. This
doesn't cause me problems when using my 35mm kit unless I'm particularly hamfisted, but can cause unintentional movement if I don't handle my 5x4" kit carefully
when inserting film holders (which I should do carefully anyway, but there you go),
possibly due to the longer moment arm.
- adjustment in the pitch axis is -90/+30 degrees, which may not be enough if you
want to point the camera upwards.
- the mechanism is lubricated with grease, which when the head is new can give
some unpleasant surprises if you're not careful of where you touch it. These
problems lessen with use as the grease is gradually worn off.
-it can take a while to get used to which knob controls which axis, particularly
when composing looking through the camera and feeling for the controls.
-- Mark A. Brown, March 8, 1998
Hi folks,
I use a Pentax 6 x 7. It is notorious for camera vibration at shutter speeds of 1/30 to
1/2 sec. I also have arthritis of the hands and back. And so I have been on a quest
for a tripod/head that is lighter, stronger, and less vibration prone.
Solution: 1- Swiss Arca Monoball B-1. Nothing works as well. Period.
2- Velbon Carmagne 640 Carbon Fiber tripod. The tripod weighs in at 2.9 lbs. It is
made of magnesium and carbon fiber and it is loaded with features. Best of all, it is
rock solid - yes, even at 2.9 pounds. If it gets windy, the tripod comes with a "stone
bag" which clips onto the three legs. Turn your 2 pound tripod into a 20 pounder
right in the field! It works too. And it will fit into most back packs or airline bags.
It is small and doesn't seem like it would work. My testing showed it to have less
vibration than my Bogen 3021! Surprise! And it is almost 4 pounds lighter.
Tripods
B&H sells the tripod for $440 and the head for $380. You will need a quick release.
See above comments from others.
Steve
-- Steve Bingham (www.dustylens.com), March 30, 1998
i think that the days of the arca "crushing" it's competition are over. i have been
using the kirk ballhead for about a year and it is a great head. one comment about
really right stuff- i called to place an order and the person i spoke to was so rude
and unhelpful i ended up buying somewhere else. i hope my experience was
untypical. what a jerk!
-- Greg Rothschild, April 4, 1998
Regarding RRS, when I ask a supplier or manufacturer a product related technical
question, I appreciate a straight, no BS, technical answer. When I ask the RRS
people a technical question, this is exactly what I get, and I appreciate it.
Regarding the Kirk Model BH-1 ball head. The price is certainly lower than that of
the Arca-Swiss B-1. The question is, does it work properly under field conditions
and is it reliable? Regarding the current version of the Kirk product, in my opinion
the jury is still out.
Tom
-- Charles T. (Tom) Hoskinson --, April 7, 1998
I'm a pan/tilt kind of guy right now, shooting mostly landscapes and macro work. I
appreciate the fine degree of adjustment the Bogen 3275 (410) geared head gives
me. My only regret is that us pan/tilt users are left out in the cold when it comes to
quick-release plates.
Conversations with Bryan Geyer at RRS left me with nothing but frustration, until I
accepted the fact that he is serving a highly specialized market niche, and that niche
is NOT pan tilt heads. It's too bad that those of us who do not use Arca-style
clamps cannot take advantage of RRS products, for all their advantages would
work for us too. The non-twist feature of the RRS plates is highly desirable but
unattainable for anyone but Arca-style devotees.
Arca and other ballheads are great. RRS is great. But there are other types of heads
Tripods
out there and this religion about heads is like any other- tolerance is required for the
diverse group of users out there. No one size fits all, though I freely admit that
there are some sizes that fit most.
Maybe someone more handy than myself will read this and figure out a way to
machine a decent QR system for Bogen clamp heads to adapt the Arca-style clamp
to these heads.
-- Joe Hewes, May 4, 1998
No way I would use anything but Gitzo products, they are really nice, and above
all, sturdy, user friendly, and reliable. I have a 1376 ball head, which is a beauty,
and the QR works a charm and provides confidence, so that I never fear my gear
might get unreleased all of a sudden and fall to the ground.
It is expensive, but a tripod and its head are an investment that will last you
(almost) for life.
-- Paulo Bizarro, May 8, 1998
I will just make a comment on the 3038 since Phillip Greenspun recomended it as a
way to 'save money and not get complete junk'.
I just got one. It is very heavy, seems to leek grease out of every orifice, but worse
still the ball is quite stiff which makes it difficult to make fine adjustments. This is
in contast to its separate pan free

photo.net Learn Photography

Transcription

Similar documents

Creating HDR with Photomatix and Photoshop - Wide-format

Kiosks And photo Labs. With The METAZA

The Wish List

The author has no financial interest to disclose. How Many of your

`N FOCUS - Cleburne Camera Club

Untitled - oceanside photographers

wedding brochure - Woldumar Nature Center

brooks ver~vvi de i do

Historic Camera

File