Photography
Camera:
Olympus E-510 with Zuiko 12-60mm, C-8080, Canon SD400, (formerly Olympus C-4000)
Dream Camera: Olympus E3 I guess.
Photographing since: As long as I can remember.
I remember Disc film.
Digital since: Experimented with a Toshiba pocket
digital in 1999, Officially in March 2003 with the
purchase of the Olympus C-4000 compact camera.
Photoshop since: Version 3
Favorite subject: Surprisingly not waterfalls,
but family.
Best Photo: This changes often. Most recently
it's a panoramic photo of Glacier Point in
Yosemite National Park. It's a technical achievement
for me. A near 180o shot. Foreground,
background, people, all in focus and well exposed and
with plenty of detail. It really illustrates what it was
like to be there. The shot is huge and because it was
shot at an extreme wide angle, stitching it together was
challenge that took days to complete. The final image is
over 22 megapixels large.

Another favorite is the Yellow Rose (shown in the
gallery above). That was one of the first shots taken
when I first got a digital camera and started taking
photography seriously. It was also the first time I
intentionally used Photoshop to alter the mood of an
image. That's an old image and people always say they
like it.
Favorite Location: I could move
to the Sierra Nevada Mountains and photograph Yosemite
National Park for the rest of my life. But I can't now.
Right now my local favorites are Watkins Glen and
Letchworth State Park.
Favorite Photographers:
Jim Zuckerman,
Galen Rowell,
Christopher Hauth
Comments on Photography:
Ansell and Black and White
I have trouble admiring Ansell Adams as the awesome
photographer most people do. Although his work is great,
I feel he often benefited from being a pioneer
photographing locations such as Yosemite Valley. It's
tough to take a horrible photograph of such beautiful
scenery. He mastered black-and-white photography but
greatly struggled with color. In fact his color
photographs are average at best. I have seen many
current photographers eclipse his past photos with new
digital techniques and superb color imagery. He
did, developed a lot of techniques are fundamentals of
the photographic process. That I respect and
admire him for. In fact, I don't really see his photos
being aesthetically beautiful as much as they are
technically beautiful.
On the topic of black-and-white
photography, I have a highly controversial take. I don't
like it. Well... I don't like how it's being used recently. A
lot of people nowadays will take a sub par photograph, desaturated so it's grayscale, and call it a work of
art. A lot of people nowadays see black-and-white
imagery and think "art." Black-and-white tones are now
used as a cliché to show that it image is on a higher
artistic level than it actually is. All too often do I see people
on Flickr take a mediocre color shot converted to
grayscale and all of a sudden people to start gawking
over how great and artistic it looks. It's not like the
photographer originally composed for black-and-white. No, they took it with their digital camera. It
look like shit when they copied over to the computer, so
the took all the color out of it and all of a sudden it
looks like they're an art student working these photos
out of a lab at the local college. It doesn't surprise
me that most people, when creating black-and-white
photography, desaturate color images. They don't even
know how to do it right. They know nothing about color
blocking filters or channel mixing technique pros use to
create a tonally balanced black-and-white image.
Take some time and learn how to do it right and you'll
get fantastic results.
You see directors now filming movies
and black-and-white to set the tone of the film or two
emphasized the time period which the film takes place.
Despite what directors may think, people didn't see the
world in black-and-white back then. They were able to
see color with their eyes, just like we can today. The
only reason why we associate black-and-white with those
periods of time is because at that time they lack the
technology to create proper color images, so our records
of the time are in black-and-white. The whole world was
not a black-and-white in 1945. I guess if you're trying
to re-create the look of a film made or picture taken in
that era, you can justify it, but not if you're trying
to accurately re-create that era. Otherwise why not have
an artist paint all he scenes for any movie made about
the renaissance. It’s a director’s trick into making
their film looks artsy.
In the age of film, photographers would
use black-and-white photography because that's all they
could afford to do in their own labs. In the early 1900s
black-and-white photography was limitation of the
photographic medium and was the only method cost
feasible early in the history of photography.
With black-and-white white photography
all you have to do is tame and capture tone. With color
photography not only do you have to consider tone, but
the mood and color accuracy. It's a dimension totally
beyond black-and-white photography, and in my opinion
it's a step above and requires far more skill. That's
not say there aren't great black-and-white photographs
being taken right now. New inks and dies and new
metallic tinted paper, allow for some fine looking
black-and-white images in today's age. And a lot of
people still shoot specifically for black-and-white
output. But they don't just desaturate their color
images. They spent a lot of effort composing, exposing,
filtering and fighting for good black-and-white results.
Black-and-white photography is a great way to practice
getting the tone of images correct. Once you learn that,
start working with color.
Even a color photographer must learn
how to master the tone of black and white images. With
Photoshop one must think Black and White and then use
color techniques to achieve Ansel Adam's-like results
from their color photos.
Compacts and
SLRs
I recently began shooting with an SLR.
A lot of pros, or people that think they are pros
shun anyone that doesn't use and SLR. I can say although
an SLR is nice, other than the lens-swapping capability,
it's a step backward for myself, who has grown
accustomed to a compact enclosed system.
With non-SLR, compact cameras there are no interchangeable lenses or prism optics.
These are the cameras people use primarily to point and
shoot. Although my secondary camera actually offers a lot
of pro level features, it is still considered for and
marketed towards the amateur crowd. But I wouldn't shrug
it off as somethign a pro wouldn't use. The compact cameras not only offer
the versatility of being compact, nearly half the size
of the similar-featured SLR, but the superior wide-angle
capacities, completely enclosed system, and lack of
prism shutter are ideal for the type of work I do.
Hiking and climbing upstream with dirt and sand
everywhere, it's great to carry along a compact,
enclosed system that I can rely on.
When shooting waterfalls or any other
scenery with long shutter speeds, having a camera that
doesn't flip a mirror on the exposure keeps my photos
sharp. Having a positional live preview, also allows me
to shoot from various angles I wouldn't be able to shoot
from with a digital SLR. Luckily today's digital SLR's
are becoming more like advanced compact cameras. They
usually come with a standard lens. New features, such as
the live preview offered in new Olympus models, bring
them only closer to compact cameras.
|