Ron's Photography Notes (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Will_B

As long as filters have been mentioned (and thank you for the white balance info guys, I did not know that sensors were preset to daylight), Ron should probably buy a Polarizing filter before he takes those car photos, shouldn't he? Especially if the cars are displayed outdoors and are waxed to perfection. The reflections will be a bear unless he buys a polarizing filter. Yes?

This really depends on the shoot. Many car photographers surround the car with very large translucent filters and shoot the lights through them specifically to get specular highlights (reflections) off of the paint. It gives the car a glossy look that could be defeated by a polarizing filter. But again it all depends on the look you are going for.


Doug

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

This really depends on the shoot. Many car photographers surround the car with very large translucent filters and shoot the lights through them specifically to get specular highlights (reflections) off of the paint. It gives the car a glossy look that could be defeated by a polarizing filter. But again it all depends on the look you are going for.

Also, AFAIK, polarizer won't filter out reflections off metallic surfaces anyway although I suppose the car surfaces might not actually be metallic -- or maybe the paint makes a diff there(?).


_Man_

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Just purchased a Nikon SB600 Speedlight today with

a plastic diffuser.


However, from a video I am watching it looks like I
am going to eventually need a cable to move the flash

away from the camera. Also, possibly another tripod

to hold the flash to one particular side. The cable they

sell is about $70 or so which is outrageous.

In any event, I look forward to playing with the speedlight.


I learned already that the two most popular speedlight

settings are TTL and BL. With both active in matrix mode

in the camera the speedlight illuminates most of what is

in the frame very evenly. Using TTL and switching to spot

metering on the camera allows you to hone in on lighting

a particular area of the subject.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong






Also, AFAIK, polarizer won't filter out reflections off metallic surfaces anyway although I suppose the car surfaces might not actually be metallic -- or maybe the paint makes a diff there(?).


_Man_

A polarizer allows you to see through a reflection on a clear surface, i.e. the reflection on window. Light coming from a reflected surface is all the same wavelength. This allows the filter to eliminate reflected light on that specific wavelength, making the reflections fainter.


It does have an effect on metallic surfaces, but that effect is rather small. However on a clear coat paint job, the clear coat acts like the window with a reflection on it. The colored paint below is like the inside of a house looking through that window. The polarizer can cause a reflection to disappear all together. Of course this wouldn't happen with every surface of a car because they aren't all at the same angle.


A polarizer is just a tool that creates a specific effect for specific applications.


Doug

 

[JohnRice]

I realize I talk a lot about photography but virtually never post any photos. I'm not sure how this works, but I put together a very small album on FaceBook, and here is the link it says i can post for public viewing. I have no idea if it actually works or not. The album has stuff ranging from High School to a couple years ago, both paid and done for grins. Let me know if you can see it.


http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=12415&id=1212696158&l=8d136b0f45



There are various reasons I rarely actually show any of my work. Probably no point going into my personal problems, though.

 

[JohnRice]

Douglas, I think you might be a little confused on polarizers. They don't filter based on wavelength, but on the direction the light is vibrating. Two completely different things. You get the maximum reduction of reflections when you are looking at the surface at 30 degrees, as I recall. Now I can't remember if it is the same angle for water and solid objects, like glass. In any case, it is either the same or quite close.


You get maximum reduction of "reflections" (really, light bouncing off particles in the air) in the sky when you are viewing 90 degrees to the sun.

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by JohnRice /forum/thread/302763/ron-s-photography-notes/60#post_3718600

John, thanks for sharing those. I know it wasn't something you relished but I think it helps folks understand a bit where you are coming from.


Can you explain the backstory of the horse shot? You seem to not believe it is worthy of the attention is has attracted.

Also, the 'pyramid' shot, is that from a stage production? It was very small so tough to see the details.


Were the IR shots done with film? I'm not usually big on architectural IR but I love plant life done with that process. Cool stuff!

 

[JohnRice]

Yeah, the horse shot: The reason that one has been published so much (I also learned it is in a book about horses) is because the young horse was born through gender selection. It's something developed here at Colorado State, which is a major Vet school. I believe that was the first horse bred that way. It's somewhat controversial.


The pyramid is actually a statue. Loveland Colorado, which is about 15 miles away, is well known for bronze artwork.


I've always gotten a kick out of IR. The FCHS shot done in 1983 was Kodak High Speed IR on 35mm. The later FCHS shot, the other building and actually the "Bowl and Pitcher" shots were all done with Konica 750nm 120. A less extreme, fine grain IR film I absolutely loved. Talk about getting exotic, I used to develop it in a Pyro developer called PMK. Highly toxic stuff made from oak seeds (I think they are called fronds). You have to wear latex gloves because the stuff soaks right through your skin. You can still pour it down the drain though, because it breaks down quickly. Anyone wanting to learn more about PMK can search for "PMK" and "Gordon Hutchings". I think I spelled that name right. Anyway, with that developer and that film, you got an ISO of about 6. Yes, 6. The two building shots were on a 4x5 view camera with either a 6x7 or 6x9 roll film back. The "Bowl and Pitcher" was on a Bronica SQ-A (6x6) with a 250mm lens.


I post the more commercial shots small, because people just steal them and use them for their own profit. I've even come across my stuff that another photographer had the gall to put their own "copyright" on. I could spend my entire life suing people for ripping me off. If I was paid for all the stuff people stole from me, I might still be doing photography. Probably not...

 

[JohnRice]

Oh yeah, the church shot is also Konica IR. I sure shot a lot of that stuff. Shot on a view camera as well.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Yup. Thanks, John. Just awesome. Really terrific.

The shot of the church in the Rockies really speaks to me.

 

[JohnRice]

Thanks Mike. That church shot is very popular. I made a whole stack of 16x20s of it, all a little different, since I was playing with extensive dodging and burning. I've given away several through the years. The abstract has always been a personal favorite, though people get upset over me always having it "upside down". It just works better, to me, that way. All in all, the "Bowl and Pitcher" is probably my favorite, but it doesn't come across well so small. Fortunately, it blows up great and the film is almost grainless.


I'm not sure what difference it makes, but I want to point out that only one of those shots was cropped at all. The "Fashion" shot was taken with a Rolleiflex TLR, which is 6x6, so the original image was square. It was only cropped to make it horizontal, but it is still full frame for side to side.

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by JohnRice

The reason that one has been published so much (I also learned it is in a book about horses) is because the young horse was born through gender selection... I believe that was the first horse bred that way. It's somewhat controversial.


The pyramid is actually a statue. Loveland Colorado, which is about 15 miles away, is well known for bronze artwork.


I post the more commercial shots small, because people just steal them and use them for their own profit. I've even come across my stuff that another photographer had the gall to put their own "copyright" on. I could spend my entire life suing people for ripping me off. If I was paid for all the stuff people stole from me, I might still be doing photography. Probably not...

Very cool on the Horse and Statue, thanks for the added info!


And I'm with you on the 'theft' stuff.... I give away 100% of my work to anyone who might possibly enjoy it, although I do attach a 'no commercial use' cc license to it. And even a poor shlub like me still finds people ripping off their stuff. Most notably my pictures of The Jonas Brothers were ripped and had fan pages put their own watermarks on them. I sent em polite emails and they fixed it, but still bugged me. A few of my NYC pictures have had sites use them questionably too, especially my pictures of Saint Vincent's Hospital, which is scheduled to close (or already has). And those are only the ones I know about =) But the way I feel about it is you can either lock this stuff in a box and not share it with anyone or you can put up sane protections and live with the consequences. I've personally chosen the latter but I've given a lot of thoughts to how those who are more protective about these things can survive in the future and still make a $. Someone will come up with something that doesn't suck as bad as the DRM of today does, but it could take decades...

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Thanks for sharing both your photos and some of the background on them, John. I really love the B&W shots, as I've always loved that type of photography, but have felt too intimidated to try myself yet. I also enjoyed the shot from Glacier N.P. -- not only for the great composition, but it's a park that I really enjoyed visiting, and I am partial to waterfall shots (I'm always seeking out waterfalls to photograph when we travel). My wife and I are considering a return visit there next year for our summer vacation.


Viewing work from real professionals always provides perspective and reminds me of how much I have yet to learn.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Love the old Livermore church photo -- that would probably be my fave of the set although I guess I might change my mind if I could see them all at their intended viewing sizes.


I think I also prefer your earlier photo of FCHS (w/ the tree in foreground sorta partially framing it). I've found myself liking that kind of composition pretty early on in my interest in photography although it probably breaks all sorts of rules to have the tree partially obscure the top of the building like that.


I couldn't quite make out the abstract well enough to appreciate it though it sorta reminds me of this primitive one I tried (of a leafless tree) back when I was using the Canon G3 (considering I couldn't make out much of any details in your abstract of course):





_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield

Thanks for sharing both your photos and some of the background on them, John. I really love the B&W shots, as I've always loved that type of photography, but have felt too intimidated to try myself yet. I also enjoyed the shot from Glacier N.P. -- not only for the great composition, but it's a park that I really enjoyed visiting, and I am partial to waterfall shots (I'm always seeking out waterfalls to photograph when we travel). My wife and I are considering a return visit there next year for our summer vacation.


Viewing work from real professionals always provides perspective and reminds me of how much I have yet to learn.

Scott, I'm actually planning (maybe I should say hoping, since I keep thinking I will do something, then lose the motivation) to start doing some B&W, on 120 roll film using my Bronica SQ-A outfit, and maybe even with the view camera if I get really motivated. The Bronica stuff is dirt cheap these days, and it is great equipment. I've gotten three "new" lenses in the last couple weeks. I had 40mm, 80mm, 150mm and 250mm, which leaves some big gaps, especially in the wide end. I've added a 50mm, 65mm and 200mm for a grand total of $300. At their peak, each of those lenses went for $1,000-1,500 each. Hopefully I will add a 110mm Macro and maybe a 500mm. KEH actually had a 500mm a few days ago for about $350, but somebody bought it. I want to shoot and develop the film, but then scan it for printing. Printing paper is just too expensive, but B&W 120 is still about $4.00 a roll, give or take. I miss the formality of taking time with photography. Everything has to be fast anymore. So, you end up with lots of high resolution crap. Besides, you want an amazing digital shot? If I shoot 6x9 on a good B&W film and scan it at 3,000 dpi, that is a 75 megapixel image. Shoot 4x5 and it is a 150 megapixel image. Sure it takes longer, but how many thousand images do you need? The point of knowing what you are doing is not having to trip the shutter a hundred times to get one decent image.


Anyway, I want to do something new. Maybe some Environmental Portraits, which I really have never done. I might even get a small generator so I can take my monolights wherever I want to and do some interesting outdoor lighting. The Bronica has leaf shutters, so I can sync flash at any shutter speed. Of course, view camera lenses do too, but shooting people with a view camera is almost absurdly difficult.


Man, I like the last shot you posted. You have a lot of nice compositions. Nice use of tone too. What exposure, focus and flash mode was that taken in? Just kidding.


I know what you mean about the two different FCHS shots. The 1983 one is an 18 year old kid being flashy with IR and his new 20mm, which was a truly exotic lens at that time, but it is more lively than the other one. Still, I don't think the composition is breaking any rules. In fact, it follows a couple essential ones, like framing part of the image with the tree, though it takes that a little further than normal. It is a solid example of Rule of Thirds, which is THE best compositional guideline there is. The later one makes a very impressive enlargement. It's also the most iconic building in town, as you might guess, though it isn't a High School anymore. The great thing is, it is now the CSU School for the Performing Arts, which I am very glad to see.

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by JohnRice

What Doug pointed out is also correct, but not exactly what I was talking about. What I am trying to say is that if your light source deviates very much from "Daylight", the only way to genuinely correct for it and retain full color fidelity and saturation and keep noise to a minimum is to correct (at least most of the way) for the color shift before the light ever hits the sensor. The improvement is not subtle at all. That's why it amazes me people don't seem to see it.

True I'm sure, and for those who are pros there is no substitution for masking light sources with gels and using on lens filters, but for me personally that's too much like work =) Especially as someone with multiple kinds of color vision deficiencies (aka I am red/green and blue/brown color 'blind' tho that is a misnomer) I don't know that I could get predictable results using gels and filters.


I personally have a real problem correcting skin tones 'by eye' on the computer and often have to get second opinions from people I trust. FUN! not.


Anyway, for those who haven't seen the latitude that shooting in raw allows, this video might be a good short course on it:

http://ajwood.com/tiptues0810


As John notes tho, even this extreme example only has a single incorrect light source to fix. Mixing light sources and types can result in wild swings. Take a look at this one example:




Mostly right foreground elements (could be off by a few degrees), but horribly off background elements.

Sam

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by JohnRice

Douglas, I think you might be a little confused on polarizers. They don't filter based on wavelength, but on the direction the light is vibrating. Two completely different things. You get the maximum reduction of reflections when you are looking at the surface at 30 degrees, as I recall. Now I can't remember if it is the same angle for water and solid objects, like glass. In any case, it is either the same or quite close.


You get maximum reduction of "reflections" (really, light bouncing off particles in the air) in the sky when you are viewing 90 degrees to the sun.

John,


You're right in that I used the wrong term when I said "wavelength", however a polarizer worked because light is a waveform, oscillating in an arbitrary direction perpendicular to its direction of motion. A polarizer filter only allows to pass that component of the oscillation, directed in the polarizing direction of the filter. So only the waves that are oscillating in the polarizing direction can pass the filter


Which is why I said that it wouldn't have an effect on all the reflections on a car because not all of the surfaces of a car are pointed in the same direction.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

John,


Very nice shots. Your work is beautiful.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Here is an example of creative white balance. I wanted to give the impression that these photographs were taken at night, in spite of being taken in a hanger at mid day. Only my key light strobe is filtered to tungsten color temp (3,200 K). The back and fill strobes were left at their native daylight rated color temp of 5,600 K to match the light filtering in from outside. I then white balanced my camera to my key light (allowing it to be slightly warmer than normal.)


Doug

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by JohnRice




Scott, I'm actually planning (maybe I should say hoping, since I keep thinking I will do something, then lose the motivation) to start doing some B&W, on 120 roll film using my Bronica SQ-A outfit, and maybe even with the view camera if I get really motivated. The Bronica stuff is dirt cheap these days, and it is great equipment. I've gotten three "new" lenses in the last couple weeks. I had 40mm, 80mm, 150mm and 250mm, which leaves some big gaps, especially in the wide end. I've added a 50mm, 65mm and 200mm for a grand total of $300. At their peak, each of those lenses went for $1,000-1,500 each. Hopefully I will add a 110mm Macro and maybe a 500mm. KEH actually had a 500mm a few days ago for about $350, but somebody bought it. I want to shoot and develop the film, but then scan it for printing. Printing paper is just too expensive, but B&W 120 is still about $4.00 a roll, give or take. I miss the formality of taking time with photography. Everything has to be fast anymore. So, you end up with lots of high resolution crap. Besides, you want an amazing digital shot? If I shoot 6x9 on a good B&W film and scan it at 3,000 dpi, that is a 75 megapixel image. Shoot 4x5 and it is a 150 megapixel image. Sure it takes longer, but how many thousand images do you need? The point of knowing what you are doing is not having to trip the shutter a hundred times to get one decent image.

John, that sounds like quite an interesting endeavor. One of the things I regret never learning was developing my own film in a darkroom. As a youngster, my 35mm rolls were just sent to the local lab for standard processing.


I completely understand where you are coming from on taking more time and fewer images. It is a balance that I struggle with a lot, since much of my photography is during travel, when I am trying to balance taking my time to get the shot I envision versus trying to fit in all the things we want to do & see while on vacation. My wife, bless her, is quite patient with me, but there are times I still feel rushed and it's easier to just take three quicker shots at different exposures or compositions than take more time for a single shot. Unfortunately, the quicker method sometimes results in missed opportunities, as I'll wish I'd tried something different (and probably would have saw it if I had taken more time) when I get home and sort through the shots.


Speaking of traveling, here are a couple from our recent visit to Watkins Glen. The lighting was a struggle in the gorge.