If you ask ten different photographers to identify the difference between a photograph, a picture, and an image – you’ll likely get ten different answers.  The truth of the matter is that there is no hard and fast answer to define the distinction between these terms.  With that in mind though, here’s a proposed explanation of what the differences are as I see them:

What is an image?

An image (to me) simply refers to a file on a computer somewhere.  It’s ones and zeros in the truest sense of the word.  Whether or not someone is actually viewing it is up for grabs.  There is no purpose or intent to the file yet because you’re not even sure if it was meant to be seen or if it is even seen at all.  Further, how someone sees it (even if it is on display from a web server somewhere) is a function of their own setup, lighting conditions, monitor calibration, etc.  To me, when I refer to images, I am talking about things in the strictest sense – simply the storage file that represents the picture or photo that I hope to produce at some point.  To me, an image is a file.

What is a picture?

A picture encompasses the elements of an image – it still has the characteristics of being stored somewhere, but it also (to me) means that an attempt has been made to share it with others, and that there is purpose or intent to it.  Whether that purpose or intent is to capture a moment in time (say from a journalistic perspective), document  a a trip (I was here on whatever date), or even just some candids from a night out with family and friends, pictures are frozen moments in time.  They have all the characteristics of an image, but also add a layer of meaning, and purpose or intent to them.  To me a picture is documentation.

What is a Photograph?

Building further, a photograph encompasses all that we would expect to include in our craft.  A photograph is an image, a picture, and yet also includes something more.  A photograph to me connotes something artistic.  The photo usually means that we’ve gone beyond the simple act of pressing the shutter to capture a moment in time.  The lighting, subject, or angle of view brings an emotional element to the table that is otherwise not present. To me, a photograph is art.

*****

This does not place any importance or relevance of one semantic over another.  Instead, I am defining the terms by means of their respective purpose: storage, capture, and expression being the key elements of each.  This is, of course, not set in stone either.  What about you?  Are there distinctions between images, pictures and photos?  How would you define or classify these terms?  Does it even matter to make such distinctions?  Sound off in the comments!

The back story behind this most comes from one of the more common questions I get these days about Lightroom.  It comes in the Develop Module and confusion about the difference between the Exposure slider, the Fill Light slider, and the Brightness slider.

It’s easy to see how there could be confusion when you start pushing sliders to their extremes, because at the higher levels, the impact does seem the same.  However, when kept within their intended parameters, these adjustment sliders all impact different areas.  Specifically:

• The Exposure Slider adjusts the brighter tonal portions of an image
• The Fill Light Slider adjusts the shadows or darker tones in an image
• The Brightness adjusts the mid-tones of the image.

To better illustrate, take a look at the images below.  First up is the default in camera settings:

See how the shadow detail is completely lost?  Having exposed for the sky, the camera was unable to capture the shadow detail sufficiently to reveal anything.  When you see this, often the natural inclination is to increase the exposure to try and bring back the detail in the shadows.  So, let’s see what happens…

See how the only area really affected is the part by the setting sun?  I’ve increased the exposure by one half stop.  Since that’s not much of an adjustment let’s take a look when we dial things up a bit more.  Here’s the next image, with the exposure increased by a full stop:

Now it’s just starting to look a little garish, and the appeal of the image is nowhere near even what the defaults were.  I could further prove the point by showing another half stop increase in exposure, but I think you probably get the gist.  So, let’s take a look at the Fill Light slider and how adjustments there affect the image.

Here I’ve increased the Fill Light to +25.  See how the area around the setting sun hasn’t been affected?  We don’t see much of a change yet, but watch what happens when we increase the slider some more.  Here’s the same image at +50.

If you look at the mountain, see how we’re starting to see some separation from the lower one in front and the one behind it?  You can see the tree line now!  This actually (I think) adds some depth to the image that wasn’t there in the original.  This is a great example of how the Fill Light slider is bringing back shadow detail in the image.

So, now that we see difference in the shadow detail, let’s take a look at what the Brightness Slider does.  As I said above, it doesn’t address the lightest tones or the darkest tones in the image, but rather tries to pull out detail from the middle tonal parts of the image.  Let’s take a quick look at that too, just to illustrate the differences here.

It’s worth noting here that by default, Lightroom puts an image at +50 on the Brightness slider, so an increase to 75 here isn’t that much of a change, but we are still seeing some subtle changes in the cloudy part of the sky.  That makes sense as this is where the mid tones are for this image.  It’s even more evident though when we adjust the brightness up another notch to +100.

That sky is starting to look just about perfect for my tastes.  I could take it a notch further but again, hopefully by now you get the gist.  What’s important here to note though, is that there is no single slider adjustment for any given photo that will make it “perfect”.  Instead, it’s almost always a combination of post processing adjustments in not only the exposure, fill light, brightness, and even others that will take your snapshots and make them great shots.  For me, the end result here, is a combination of all three of these sliders, and a dash of some other adjustments to make it what you see below:

Here, I’ve done some adjustments to various sliders.  Can you tell which ones I’ve used and to what degree?  Hopefully after today’s post, it’ll be easier to tell in the final image – and in your own images!  Take some time and play with your own images inside of Lightroom and see what it can do for you!  Have a great weekend, happy shooting, and we’ll see you back here on Monday!

I get this question a lot too.  The problem with any ultimatum, is that it’s going to invite bias and subjectivity.  Whether it’s lenses, cameras, computers, software or even media cards, there is no objective and universal vendor or manufacturer of media cards that is head and shoulders above the others in the field.  What I can tell you is that there are some who are notably superior.  I’ve not ranked these in any specific sort of order, but from my own experiences, these are the vendors that deliver a stable, high quality product with a good focus on QA:

• Lexar
• Sandisk
• Hoodman
• Ridata

If you get your media from them, by and large, you will probably be happy with the results.  I’ve heard stories of amazing success and durability anecdotes ranging from going through the clothes washer, to getting pounded by a 2000 pound vehicle.  One of the most amazing ones I read was someone who took a swim in the ocean, sweated in a sauna, and cooled off at a pool bar before realizing the media card wallet was in his swim trunks pocket – and all survived!  So, you can really pick and choose from the above and likely get quality results.  For my own tastes, I have used all of the above, but will say that I’ve noticed Lexar cards can be found for slightly less, either through promotions or sales for equivalent capacities.  Of course in the interests of full disclosure, they have also contributed to the contest giveaway series here, so that in and of itself could introduce some subjective bias on my part again.

So, there you have it!  On On Monday I looked at capacity considerations in Megabytes vs Megapixels, then later an article looked at speed transfer rates in How Fast Can You Shoot, and today, the last in this series of articles – the vendor portion of the equation.  There are, of course, other factors that could go into any buying decision, but this wasn’t about being exhaustive, rather being informative and sharing my own thoughts, insights, and experiences with media cards in photography.

Just a couple final reminders as we go into the weekend:

First up, the LDP Contest Series is underway, and I’ve added a 70-200 Special Edition from the folks at Photojojo to the giveaway.  Expect a review forthcoming shortly!  Make sure you enter for your chance to win.  Already in the prize list is a license for Photo Rescue software.  Enter here!

A new newsletter is forthcoming shortly, as is a new eBook!  This time it’s free, but only going to subscribers, so be sure to get signed up before that is released!  Special promos and discounts may also be in the newsletter for other products too, so if not signed up, you can get in on the action here.

Have a great weekend everyone, happy shooting, and we’ll catch up again next week….”on the flip side”!

On initial glance from the title, one might think this blog is segueing into a dialog from the Top Shot show over on the History Channel (very cool show btw), but I’m actually referring to the notion of speed often associated with shooting digital.  Sports shooters, action shooters and the like often will get the fastest cameras, the fastest cards they can get, with the fastest processors, and go to all sorts of degrees to eliminate bottlenecks in their capacity to shoot fast and on the go.  To an extent, their efforts are justified, but how fast does your card need to be?

As you may recall on Monday, I talked about how the real meaning of memory in media cards.  We talked about Megapixels and Megabytes, and I gave some real world number ranges for what you could expect a media card to handle.  So, today, we’re going to follow up on that topic of discussion and take a look at speed ratings for cards.  As always, there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye, primarily because there are lots of numbers bandied about when speaking about card transfer rates.  Before we wade hip dip into this, one brief note here is to give serious props to Rob Galbraith for compiling a pretty extensive database on his website of data transfer rates for a whole slew of cards with a whole slew of cameras.  If you really want to dig into the minutia of how fast cards really are, be sure to check it out!  Just one note though, that this database has not been updated since 2008 so cameras made since then will not be found with any reliable information.

With that in mind, today it’s probably more helpful to walk through the various points that can contribute to data transfer rates for cards.  The natural first stopping point is in the camera itself, in what is commonly known as fps, or “Frames Per Second”.

Frames Per Second

Quite simply this refers to the number of actuations a given shutter in a camera can cycle through in exactly one second.  As indicated above, the abbreviation for this is typically fps, and is easily culled from the spec sheet for pretty much any camera on the market today.  For those of you that want to see a compilation though, here you are (I should note that I grabbed all this data from the vendor websites on claimed fps for the highest resolution image settings.  If you set your file size to sRaw, or jpg and add compression, your max frame rate may increase…:

The bottom line here though is that with most DSLR’s on the market, if you expect more than 10 fps, that’s probably not going to happen (assuming also you are shooting continuous and on the highest resolution setting.)

So, even the camera you have can cause bottlenecks in write speeds…if your camera can’t write data that fast, it really doesn’t matter how fast your card can write data if it doesn’t have the data to write.  Now granted, each camera will have different MP counts so the Canon 5D (for instance) will of course have a slower fps rate because it’s a larger file, and it’s a full frame camera, so will naturally be slower than the 7D by comparison simply because it has to be.  So what we really need to be measuring is the amount of data that is being transferred per second (see now why I did that article first? )  So, we’ve reached the second point of bottleneck now in talking about transfer speeds and that’s the buffer.

Buffer

The best analogy I have is that the buffer in a camera is very much like the RAM in your computer.  It’s a sort of staging area, where data is stored before it gets actually sent to the processor and then saved to the card. Without the buffer in place, fps rates would drop dramatically because there would be no place for the camera to temporarily hold data before writing.  The buffer is what allows you to keep shooting.  So, this brings up two important questions:

1.  How can you increase the buffer?  (You can’t really…)

2. How can I tell how much of a buffer my camera has?  (As of this writing, I am not sure if this metric is reported consistently by vendors, except when reviewers say “an increased buffer size improves performance”…which is still relatively meaningless.)

Since it’s not something we can really measure, nor change without buying into a whole new camera, here it’s just sufficient to say that this is the second bottleneck point, and is usually where you will run into moments of pause.  Why? Because cards are usually transferring data that fills up the buffer, and at that point the camera can’t take in any more data. When this happens your camera won’t let you take any pictures.

The other factor that comes in to play though ties more to the card itself and not the camera, which is the speed factor.

Speed Class Rating

Media card vendors like Lexar, Sandisk and others like to use terms to define their speed.  Catch words like Extreme, Pro, Extreme Pro, 300x, 600X and all sorts of fancy jargon is used for marketing purposes.  Notice the various cards on the market – the more buzz words, usually the faster the transfer rate claim, and of course, the more expensive the card! 

So, rather than pour over all the various vendor semantics, I figured it’d probably be better to stay on what is a more neutral metric – speed class ratings.  While we could also introduce variances between the CF and the SD format in terms of write speeds, since most devices are moving to the SD format and it’s smaller cousins (mini SD and Micro SD), these are likely the ones we’ll see more often in the future, so the speed class ratings here are most relevant.

To that end, there are 5 different ratings or grades given to SD cards.  These are 2, 4, 6, 10, and 1 respectively.  The last rating (1) is reserved for the SDHC and SDXC card types, and has a special designation as UHS, for Ultra High Speed…while the lower ratings all have transfer rates classified as normal and high speed.  A full chart is viewable on it here.  In a nutshell, the higher the number, the faster the card can transfer data, so keep that in mind as you shop for media.  The ultimate barometer really though is not how fast you need to capture, but more what you need to capture, and as the chart indicates, video needs faster transfer rates than stills, so naturally the higher ratings are intended primarily for videographers.

If you really wanna geek out on data transfer rates, a better place to go for that is the Rob Galbraith database I mentioned upthread.  Again, it’s not been updated since 2008, but the general trends are probably consistent with the current market of vendors we have to choose from.

One final note on data transfer rates…card technologies have changed substantially in recent years, enough that there are now cards referred to as UDMA cards.  While the current generations of cameras from both Canon and Nikon support this mode of reading and writing data to media cards, older cards may not and will read the card at the slower rate. So, if you have an older camera, you may want to check for UDMA compatibility before getting a newer UDMA style card.

 Conclusion

So, what’s the takeaway from all this?  Hopefully three things:

1.  Transfer Speeds are not just a function of your media card, fps rates and buffer rates in cameras are factors too.

2.  Paying more for a faster media card might not be needed if you are not shooting video.

3.  If you are shooting video, or need the extra oompfh of speedy cards, make sure you are using the right speed class, and with the best camera you can.  As the old adage says: it’s a poor craftsman that blames his tools…

Happy shooting and we’ll see you tomorrow to wrap our discussion of Media Cards with a look at the various vendors!

Step two was to set up the lighting, the tripod, and the “wood art” in a scene where i could adjust the aperture and keep everything else constant.  With my own little studio set here in the house, that was accomplished easily enough.  I set the focal point on the nearest nail, and dialed in the exposure I wanted.  Then, I switched to manual focus so as to not bump or have the camera try to shift it for me and dialed through the various f-stops.

Step three – simple post production:  camera calibration, white balance, and lens correction.  I also applied a 75 value to the sharpening slider from the detail panel, but did so universally.  So, with everything but aperture constant, here’s the results:

So, at this point you should have enlarged the photos above, and scrolled through the entire gallery so you can see exactly what is sharp at f2.8 all the way through f16.  By the time you get to the end, so much has changed and often gradually, it’s hard to see the difference.  But if you look at the f2.8 and f16 shots side-by-side – they are worlds apart compositionally speaking.  Now I grant you, nails hammered into a 2×4 piece of lumber 2″ apart is not the most artistic piece ever shot, but it hopefully illustrates what can happen to a photo simply by changing the aperture and keeping everything else constant!

WHere do you think creatively adjusting your depth of field would work?  Try to think outside the box here too.  A few ideas for starters:

• A flower from close up…
• A portrait shot, with background blurred
• Macro photography – bugs and insects, computer chips and parts

There’s a whole world out there with plenty of opportunities to create gorgeous photos with only your creativity to limit you.  Where do you want to go today?

• Sigma 8-16mm
• Sigma 4.5mm Circular Fisheye
• Sigma 50mm f1.4
• Sigma 10-20mm
• Sigma 18-250mm
• Sigma 70mm Macro

Having compiled quite the list of review lenses, I am happy to announce the latest addition to this review series (some day I hope to have reviewed every lens Sigma has! ) I give you the Sigma 70-200 f.28…

This lens is the comparable one to the Canon 70-200 f2.8, and while I’ve not had a chance to test the Canon equivalent, there are some optical similarities.  I won’t go so far as to compare it to my own Canon 70-200 f4.0 simply because there are enough differences that it would be an apples to oranges comparison.  So, here I’ll just share my own thoughts and shots on and from the lens for everyone to consider.  Here is everything from soup to nuts:

The (Alphabet) Soup

This is the 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM lens – quite a mouthful, but all of these features are important.  The EX signifies that this lens has benefitted from the now signature finish of Sigma lenses.  It’s smooth but rugged, and hard to really explain, but denotes quality and professionalism while being also understated – it means business.  I’ve raved about the finish that Sigma puts on their lenses and this one is no exception.  Top Notch!  The DG?  That means it’s optimized for Digital use.  To quote Sigma,

“These are large-aperture lenses with wide angles and short minimum focusing distances. With an abundance of peripheral illumination, they are ideal lenses for Digital SLR Cameras whilst retaining suitability for traditional 35mm SLRs.”

In other words, the f2.8 means the aperture is designed for the width and opening, optimizing the amount of light that comes in, and minimizing barrel distortion.  The end result of all this means you spend less time in post fixing things.  A definite plus in my book!

OS is the now easily recognizable label of optical stabilization.  These lenses have built in mechanisms that counter your movement to allow for shooting at slower shutter speeds.  Slower shutter speeds, wide open apertures all means you can shoot and get quality results in lower light!  I’ll go into more details on their OS features later though.

HSM refers to the Hyper Sonic Motor, which means nearly whisper quiet movement as the lens picks up on the AF points.  Less noise means less distraction.  This is good regardless of whether you are shooting portraits, wildlife, or street photography.  Remember, it’s not about the photographer, it’s about the photo, and the HSM is an added bonus to help achieve that end goal!

The Nuts

All the acronyms in the world won’t tell you a thing about lens performance though, and neither will my blathering about this or that, so let’s just get to the nuts.  I went out with the lens to take some test shots and basically get a feel for the optical quality throughout the lens.  I took some at short range (70mm), some in the middle (ranging from 120-150mm), and some at the long end (200mm).  Shot groups also were mixed between simple test shots (a street) to portraits, and landscapes to get an idea of the focal range.  Here’s said shots!

The 70mm shots

70mm Portrait

70mm Roadway

70mm Landscape

Dog Portrait @ 70mm

Mid-range Shots

Mid-Range Roadway

Mid-Range Landscape

Mid-Range Park

Long Range Shots

200mm Portrait

Long Range Landscape

Long Range Landscape (180mm)

Here, you can get an idea of both the optical quality and range of the optics as well as an idea of how it would perform in a variety of functions.  I should also note that I have done literally no post production work in these at all.  The only sharpening that was applied was on output sharpening from Lightroom, and that was set “For Screen” by default on all my images.  In other words, nothing has been tweaked.  Having said that, let’s take a look at some of the pros and cons of the optics overall.

Pros ~

I absolutely love the bokeh on this lens at long range.  It compresses subjects nicely for portraiture, and throws the background nicely out of focus with some great treatment due to the optics.  These shots were taken in afternoon light, and the sun was coming in and out of the scene – which could change the settings quickly.  We were shooting on a monopod, and with IS on so the minor changes in shutter speed (these were aperture priority shots) didn’t really affect us.  The f2.8 end came out nicely too, which was as expected though – that’s the whole reason for the f2.8  My excitement was primarily lent toward the bokeh at the long end which came out to about f4.5  Not too shabby!

I also was a huge fan of the OS – optical stabilization.  It had two settings…OS 1 for shooting handheld, which counters both vertical and horizontal axis movement, and if you are shooting on a monopod (which is common with heavier glass), you can switch to OS 2, which turns off the one axis (horizontal I think).  This allowed me to take some pretty decent shots at a hockey game a few weeks ago.  You may recall seeing a gallery of those shots here on the blog.  I was toggling between the OS1 and OS2 for that series so some shots did come out better than others – the ones with OS2 were the sharper in the set!

Another advantage here is that the collar for tripod or monopod mounting is included.  I had to shell out an additional $50 for my Canon when I bought the f4, so seeing it included here was a happy surprise.   I hate to go on and on here, but there was one other feature that bears mentioning and that is the smooth rotation I was getting from the lens as I worked it through the focal range.  Either this was brand new, or had just been serviced because it was about the smoothest glass I’d seen from Sigma yet…and given the laundry list up top, that’s saying something!

And finally, the last big notch in favor of it, is – of course – the price.  Coming it at $1700 this lens is certainly not cheap.  However the savings is still there as it offers a s$200 over the Canon equivalent which comes in at at $1900!  For the cost conscious (and who isn’t these days), that $200 can go toward many other accouterments in your shopping cart!  And from what I can tell, the image quality is pretty darn good.  (I got my prices from B&H Photo – the Sigma one is here and the Canon one is here)

Cons ~

This was much heavier and bigger than I anticipated.  It was longer than my own 70-200 from Canon.  Now I grant you my own is only an f4.0 and does not have the OS (or IS if you prefer – for the strict Canonistas out there).  But I was a little surprised.  I think that’s why my initial shots were a little oof – out of focus – because my arms just weren’t used to carrying the weight around.  Lesson learned though – when moving into the fast glass category, at least shoot with a monopod, arm strain is greatly reduced!

The other big con was battery drain.  All the time I could hear the OS kicking on and off as it would sense movement, even as I walked around.  This caused some noticeable drain on my battery and I found myself swapping out after about 3 hours of shooting.  Maybe this is typical of optically stabilized lenses and I am just not used to it, but the drain was something else that I had to take into account.  I did have a spare with me, so it wasn’t that big a deal – but I certainly could not have shot all day on only two batteries with this lens.

While the collar was included, I don’t believe the lens hood is.  Now the test unit I had did include a nice lens hood with the butterflies to avoid as much vignetting as possible, but that would likely add to the cost.  Based on prices seen on B&H though, that’s only in the neighborhood of $25 (Direct link to Sigma marketplace here).

The Decision:

I would loved to have held onto this lens a while longer, and truth be told, will probably end up buying it.  The Canon 70-200f4 may be working its last days in my bag, just because the faster glass and features are sure to see much more use from me.  Coming up tomorrow, the results of the October contest giveaway – and announcing the November giveaway…make sure you stop in for that!  Happy shooting and we’ll see you then!

The TEN stop filter project

A common problem with shooting landscape photos is that we are limited by the hours of available shoot times.  We all know that the best times to shoot are morning and evening for the best light.  The overhead light in the middle of the day just does not allow you to drop your shutter speeds much to get flowing water, or a sense of motion in clouds without assistance.  Another possible use could be a kissing engagement couple with some blurred motion behind them (like a train, the clouds, or whatever – suggesting a really long kiss!)

The only way to address that is through stacking MANY neutral density filters (ND).  They are made in various stops (defined by the stops of light they block), and stacking can get pretty costly.  There are some though that you can get that address multiple stops of light in one filter, like the Lee 10-stop filter.  Problem?  Cost!  (It’s $160 at B&H).  I learned a while ago about a way to make one yourself for as little as $20.00 though.  Here’s the process I used (let me also apologize for the image quality – some of these were taken with the Droid in low light and studio level shots wasn’t where my attention was…but you can hopefully get the gist from these):

Step One – Find a cheap filter at your local camera store.  These can be found for a dollar or so.  The one I used was found at a camera store for 50 cents.  A Hoya 85B orange filter (77mm).

Step Two – Place it on a paper towel, and wrap a second one over the top (this is for your protection and easier cleanup)

Step Three – Get your favorite hammer out…

Step Four – Do not just go to town….whacking away crazily is not needed.  Just a couple firm taps until you hear the glass give way…

Step Five – Once the glass is broken, a few strategic taps around the edges should pop most of the glass out of the filter ring:

Step Six – Wrap up paper towels of broken glass and discard.  Then check the filter ring and make sure it  is free of any glass shards (I used canned air)…

Step Seven – Buy a welder’s replacement lens from your local hardware/tool store, or perhaps a local welder shop.  If you prefer, there are online retailers that sell this stuff too.  The problem there is that the cost of shipping quickly ratchets up the price.  I found some Hobart #9 at a local store for under $2.50 per pack and some Lincoln Electric #10 at Lowe’s for $5 a piece.

Steps 8a – I tried first to mark a circle with tape and use a Dremel with a regular cutting wheel to slowly cut to the ring dimension.  It resulted in a pretty bad crack through the center of the glass, rendering it unusable, so I had to start over.

Step 8b – I tried a second piece of glass with a scoring hand tool.  Since the welding glass is about 1/4” thick, it takes several score to make it weak enough at this breakage point to snip off cleanly.  My efforts did not result in clean snips, and ultimately, the glass cracked from my impatience (so, add patience to the list of materials needed!).

Step 8c- I went to purchase a 3rd piece of the cheap stuff.  This time, I called around and found a place willing to try to cut the glass (everyone will ask and believe the glass is tempered, when in my case – neither was).  I took a sheet of the cheap stuff into them and explained what I was trying to do, then asked what size they could cut to.  They had a 2 1/2” hole saw and a 3” whole saw with diamond tips for glass cutting.  We did the calculations and realized that 77mm is almost 3 inches exactly.  He warned me that the saw itself would take a portion out.  Thinking there was a lip on the interior of the filter, I said go ahead (after all, it’s only $2.50 here right? )

He was able to cut it into a nice circle.  I knew it would be close so thanked him and asked how much I owed.  He smiled and said “No charge – give me a plug or a print if it works out!”.  Since I am happy to either way, the name of the place is CNC Glassworks in Arvada CO! Super nice folks and great attitude toward customer service!  I am sad to admit though that the hole he cut out was just a shade too small.  I may possibly attempt to sand this down to the next filter size in my gear bag  glass and on testing, but it did prove to be too small.

Step 9 – I now knew that I needed to either find a diamond-tipped hole saw and cut it myself, or find someone that had a 3 1/2” hole saw that would be willing to use it on my glass.  A little bit of Google research showed that Bosh makes a Diamond Hole Saw in the 3 1/8” size.  Problem?  None, if you want to pay $60 or more for the tool itself  (the cheapest I found was around $60 at Ohio Power Tool, and locally through a company called Tool King for $70).  Even if it was half this price, the DIY cost saving approach is quickly ratcheting up.  So, a little more in-depth research was required.

Step 10 – Sure enough, after I did some more research via telephone and email, I found a manufacturer  online (THK Diamond Tools) that sold the equipment.  I was able to purchase the diamond coated hole saw bit for $10 (+ $10 shipping).  Since I don’t own a table drill, a quick trip back to CNC Glassworks with a 4th piece of the cheap stuff resulted in in a good cut.  I have a piece of the good welder’s glass (the #10 Hobart one for $5 at Lowe’s), but wanted to test the results first.  The end result of the cut now fit perfectly into the filter ring!

Step 11 – Now, I just took a little clear silicon glue applied to the inner circle of the filter ring and snugged the new “filter” into place.  After letting it dry for about a day, it is now ready to shoot!  (Unfortunately, my tripod is still pending repairs, so the final results will have to wait a while longer – but the project is officially complete!

Supplies/Tools Used:

• Filter Ring ($1-$10 depending on where you get them)
• Welder’s Replacement Glass (ranges in price from $2.50 – $5 depending on market – ymmv)
• Paper Towels (50 cents)
• Hammer (??? had this forever)
• Safety Glasses (required for any DIYer – but $3 from Lowes if you dont own a pair)
• Safety gloves (again, required for any DIYer – but $3-$5 from Lowes if you dont own a pair)
• Glass Cutter ($3)
• *Dremel with cutting bit (ETA – if you have the time and $, get the diamond cutting bit – you may have more success than I did… and sanding bit)
• Strong glue (to hold glass in filter ring after completion – $5)
• Masking tape ($2)
• *If you want to go the more “professional route” and have a table drill, or know someone who does, the cost for the$20 for the diamond tipped 3″ bit from THK is $20.)

*You don’t need both of these, but you should have either one or the other.

Project Time Frame – 1-4 hours total work time, 2-4 days total project time.

So, in totaling all the costs of the project, I probably invested $40.  This did involve multiple test cuts which you can avoid though, and if your area has a glass cutting shop with a 3″ diamond tipped bit, then another $20 can be saved.  This could drop your cost to less than $20 if you only need one cut and already have the materials.  Either way, considering the cost of a Lee 10 stop $160 filter, I’ve saved $120 in my project by going the DIY Route!!

Keep in mind that these filters will leave a green tint, so you’ll have to do a little bit of post processing, but if I spend ten minutes in post, that’s worth the savings to me – especially since this is an extremely unusual type of use piece of glass, and hard to justify that kind of expense.  Give it a whirl and share your own shots in the LDP Flickr pool!  Happy shooting and we’ll see you here again tomorrow!

It doesn’t matter whether you are a seasoned veteran or new to the field, the purchase of a tripod  is something that we all consider and eventually make the plunge with in the field of photography.  Let’s face it, we get sharper shots, are forced to plan composition more carefully, and in general, a tripod will improve your photography ten-fold over not using one.  Having said that, there are degrees of effectiveness in a tripod, and as in most things – you typically get what you pay for.While we all can recognize that a $40 tripod will likely not deliver the same degree of durability, stability, and reliability as a $400 set – who’s to say that a $200 set is half as good as a $400 set?  Or a $150 set is 37% as good?  It’s not as hard and fast a science as that, and (surprise surprise), it depends on what kind of photography you are shooting, and what your budget is, because after all, we all have different needs and budgets.

Setting aside the budget factor for a moment, let’s take a look at some of the criteria to take into account when getting your first (or next) tripod.  It really can be a situation where too much information can lead to paralysis, but if you compartmentalize things out, the elements can be much easier to manage one step at a time…

*Point of order*  When I started writing this article, I was going to talk about the entire tripod purchase, but it got pretty extensive as a tripod generally refers to two different items – the legs and the head (or camera mount).  So, in the interests of brevity, I’ve decided to split this into two separate pieces.  Today, we’ll be looking at the factors that go into purchasing a good set of legs for your tripod setup.

1.  Composition (weight)

Of probably utmost consideration these days is weight.  No longer are we encumbered by the heavy aluminum tripods of yesteryear and the days of yore – carbon fiber has made its way to the masses, and we can now get super light tripods that offer rock solid durability.  The problem of course is price here, and as always, there is a trade-off.  Naturally, the more money you have to throw at a set of legs, the lighter your set will be, but there are other considerations to take into account when considering what type of legs to get.

For instance, if you are going to be doing a lot of hiking, or toting around of your gear, weight can be a critical component.  However, if you are in a studio all day every day, the weight factor may not be as big a concern since it will likely either be stationary or move very little.  Putting aside genres such as street photography and photo-journalism that usually go sans tripod, landscape artists, architecture photographers, and even portrait specialists will all have different needs depending on their shooting location.

Consider also the weather and elements of your shooting location and conditions.  Light carbon fiber on a windy beach might not be a good idea.  A strong gust of wind could take the tripod, camera, and whip the entire set 50 yards away before upending the whole rig and smashing your camera on the driftwood (rendering the camera itself driftwood in some cases).

2.  Segments

Another element to consider besides Aluminum and carbon is that of leg segments.  Many vendors are starting to offer both 3-segment and 4-segment legs.  The factors to consider here are portability and height.  With more segments, you can benefit from having a more compact tripod when collapsed down, which makes for easier porting to and from various locations (especially for travel photographers).  now if you don’t travel a lot, or do not do much outside your studio, then segments might not be a consideration, but let’s not forget the factor of height in this equation as well. Finally, when it comes to segments, you may want to consider the latch system versus the twisting mechanisms offered by various vendors.  Some find the twist-lock mechanism easier to manipulate when extending and closing their legs, while others prefer the latch-lock system.  Whatever your preference, it’s just another part of the equation to calculate before making a purchasing decision.

3.  Height

Standing at 6’1″ myself, I have learned from experience that hunching over those 3-6 inches to the top of my tripod can be straining on the back.  For shorter folks, this may not be as much of a consideration, but the extra 3-6 inches of a longer set of legs can be the difference between paying $100 to a massage therapist or not after a long day of hiking, and shooting.  Typically longer legs are also associated with the 4-segment pieces.

4.  Accessory Features

I know – how many accessory features can a tripod have, right?  You’d be surprised!  You can pimp out a set of legs with foot spikes, horizontal bubble levels, vertical bubble levels, dual bubble levels, and even tripod bags for transport.  Some legs come with built-in bubbles, others feature them as add-ons for an extra $5-$25.  The same goes for the foot spikes and the bags – add-ons can increase the price to a degree, so make sure you keep these in mind when purchasing.

5.  Manufacturer

Last but not least is manufacturer.  Note here that I am referring to who makes the legs, not who sells them.  There are several competitive manufacturers out there that offer similar products in the tripod family, and while tastes may vary, there are some notables in the crowd that do seem to be the cream of the crop in stability circles.  Whether you go through B&H Photo (my preferred vendor), Adorama, Amazon, or anyone else, there are some preferred manufacturers to keep at the top of your selection list.  While I’ve not rank ordered these, they are probably the most respected names in the industry when it comes to tripod legs, tripod heads, and complete sets.  So, take a look at:

****

Lots to consider when purchasing or upgrading your legs.  I’ve got a lot to think about myself, as I alluded to yesterday in my post about maintenance.  The legs are clearly an important part of helping us capture the images we see, so be smart and research things before jumping in legs-first – you want your first purchase to be the right one!

–

Blog Maintenance Note:  Some folks have been reporting to me problems with the feed through iTunes.  While I think things are fixed, make sure you re-subscribe to the podcast with the new feed at some point.  It can be manually added with this URL: http://www.canonblogger.com/feed/pocast

Stanley Lake

Let’s take a quick run through some of the settings:

On starting the application, you will be presented with several tabs, Project Assistant, Source Images, Control Points, Exposure/HDR, Preview, and Create Panorama.  I only really used the 1st, 4th, and last tabs to process this image, but that’s primarily because PTGui was able to align everything for me.  If everything wasn’t decently aligned during capture, you’d likely have to add control points to the program to account for variations.  So, getting it right in camera does still count!

Tab 1 – Project Assistant

Step 1: Here’s where you import your images – the cool part is that PTGui can take raw files so you don’t need to lose any image quality by running through another program first…(look for a post on how to export to PTGui from Lightroom some time next week).

Project Assistant Tab

It’s pretty straightforward here – simply click the button to load images and your file browser will open…navigate to the folder your raw files are in and select the ones needed for the pano.  The program will likely detect your lens used from the exif data, but if your lens does not look correct, simply uncheck the “Automatic” box and enter the correct information (this was taken with the Sigma 8-15mm, so I changed mine – sorry no screen capture there).

EXIF Data Settings

The next part is the fun part – if you are bracketing your exposures correctly, PTGui will detect that and ask you an important question when you align the images in Step 2.

Step 2: Align Images – If you are not shooting HDR, this step is a lot simpler, but for those that enjoy HDR (even subtle HDR), this is of particular interest:

HDR Options

So, the deal here is that if you are shooting your bracketing handheld, you do not want to link to the original images.  I’m not sure what the distinction is, but according to PTGui instructions, that’s the best course of action.  Naturally, the converse holds true as well…if you are using a tripod, I guess it’s safe to link to the original images.  So, use the one best suited to your needs, and proceed with the alignment – PTGui will analyze and align everything for you (this is the stitching portion):

Aligning Images in PTGui

One the images are aligned, the Panorama Editor window will open – here it shows you how everything is overlaid to create the pano – use this as a reference point, and if things look good (they should, I’ve not experienced a scenario yet where I’ve had to deal with control points), you can close this editor:

Pano Editor

Tab 4:  Exposure/HDR Settings

Step 3: Now, move to the Exposure/HDR tab.  Here is where you’ll enter the tone mapping settings to define how the HDR image will look once flattened and saved so you can view it in a regular program.  You can choose from a True HDR option (which is the one I used) or Exposure Fusion.  Give both a whirl so you can see how things differ…as I said, I like the True HDR version myself, but your mileage may vary:

HDR/Fusion Tone Mapping

The options for adjusting your tone mapping has a basic and advanced tab.  I leave it on the basic tab and just tweak the slider settings for compression, brightness, radius, saturation and contrast to taste.

HDR Options

Click OK to go back to the main window, and move to the last tab in the program – Create Panorama.

Tab 6: Create Panorama

Name Your File: You’ll want to give it a descriptive name so you can find it easily because once this is done a final step will be needed to crop your image so it looks right.  Also, if you want to have access to the HDR reference file, make sure in the output options, you check off both tone mapped and HDR panorama.

You are all set, it will now warp and render the final files for you.  Warning:  This is a pretty resource intensive task as up until now we’ve been using thumbnail views to define our parameters – now it has to use the original files and both stitch and render the HDR reference file.  If you are using your computer for other tasks as well, things may slow down a lot!

Once the final output jpg is created, go into your favorite image editor and crop off the black areas to finalize the panorama image for either print or web.

PTGui panorama

So, there’s the process.  I know, there’s many other pano processing programs out there, and all have their pros and cons.  What struck me as the biggest advantage is the ability to process both panorama and HDR image stacking at the same time.  For those interested in learning more about PTGui – they have a free trial download, and the program itself is very cost effective considering what it can do for you and your work flow.  There’s a personal license for $109 US and a Pro license for $206.  I’d recommend the Pro version.  Check it out here:  PTGui

Got your own personal panorama software preferences?  Share your thoughts on the pros and cons in the comments area – would love to hear what others are using and what their work flow looks like.  Enjoy the post and we’ll see you back here tomorrow!  Happy Shooting!

Marketing Mojo:

12 Ways to Land Your Next Magazine Assignment

Here she looks at things to do and not to do when trying to stay current in the ever-demanding world of “publish or perish” in periodicals and online print circles.  The entire article I would classify as a “must read”, but for here, the bullet points suffice.  Enjoy!

1. Stay Current on World Events
2. Pursue Your Own Projects
3. Don’t become a prisoner of your style
4. Look the Other Way
5. Let the Freedom Begin
6. Stay Positive in Slow TImes
7. Stay Fresh, New, Vital
8. Shake off the Doldrums
9. Focus on Stories Close to You
10. Learn How Editors Want Material Submitted
11. Be Interactive and Engaging With Clients
12. Plan Ahead

As you can tell, there’s more here than just the bullet points, and thankfully, Rangefinder also keeps current issues available online for easy viewing, so head on over there to enjoy the full length article.  Surely though, there’s more content out there that others know about too, so feel free to share links to either your own work, or other articles of interest in the comments.  What magazines do you like?  Any particularly useful articles?  Sound off to spread the word!  Thanks for stopping in and we’ll see you back here again tomorrow!

In all things technology-related, there is a principle called Moore’s Law which states that technology will advance at a rate of re-doubling roughly every two years.  While this principle was developed primarily for computers, we can draw similar analogies for digital photography too, with the sensor being analogous to the transistor.  The rate of increase has not quite been on par with re-doubling every 2 years, but the increases can be noted pretty impressively going from a mere 4 in 2001 to a current rate of  21 MP per frame for DSLR cameras (I am only looking at the Canon line-up here:

• Canon 1Ds Mark III = 21MP (2007), Retail
• Canon 1Ds Mark II = 16 MP (2004)
• Canon 1Ds = 11MP (2002)
• Canon 1D = 4 (2001)

Lenses aren’t like that though – focal lengths don’t change that much.  Instead, technology has allowed lenses to become faster at the longer end of the given focal lengths.  We’ve also seen the introduction of image-stabilization technologies.  The addition of new technologies in lenses does not necessarily deprecate previous generations – it merely antiquates them!  This means your lens may not have the bells and whistles of future generations, but it should work indefinitely if treated properly.

Keep in mind though that there is a distinction between full frame and crop sensor cameras here though, because Canon has two lens lines, the EF line and the EF-S line.  The EF-S line is intended for the crop sensor cameras and cannot be used on the full frame mounts – if you try to use an EF-S lens on a full frame body, the mirror could slap down and shatter the back element of the glass, so avoid this scenario if at all possible!  (There are some converters on the market that will extend the gap between the mirror and the element to avoid this, but I’ve not used them.)

Lenses are also different from camera bodies because there are no moving parts that can fail.  Well, that’s not entirely true because zooms do have moving parts when you rotate the lens, and these can fail. * However, because the lens is always a closed item, the susceptibility of a lens to parts failure is not as high as it is for camera components.  Shutters, for instance, have a certain lifespan for which they are rated, (usually somewhere between 50,000-150,000 actuations).  Lenses don’t fail after a certain number of focal adjustments (assuming you are handling the lens correctly), and in the case of fixed focal length lenses (primes), this is even less the case.

So, a lens can literally last for as long as the vendor makes a body that will accept the mounting mechanism, and in the case of most vendors, I don’t see that changing any time soon.  I’ve had my kit lens from Canon when I got my first Rebel XT back in 2004 and it still works great on my 40D – it may not be in the lineup anymore (neither is my 40D either, but I digress…), but any EOS body will accept this lens and the image quality has not deteriorated at all over time!  Lenses can last forever!

How long have you kept your lenses?  Do you have any “go-to” lenses in your bag that you anticipate will always be there?  Let me know your favorites!

On a blog administrative note, don’t forget that there’s still a little time left in the Flickr Giveaway thread for December, so if you have any shots (the holidays are good times to capture those “Giving” themed photos), make sure to get one in for a chance to win that $400= prize package!  Happy Shooting and we’ll see you back here again tomorrow!

*ETA:  Special thanks to Marco for pointing out in the comments that there are quite a few moving parts in even fixed focal length lenses.  In addition to the focusing ring, there is also the diaphragm that moves which closes down the aperture to the correct setting for every actuation of the shutter, so there are moving parts in any lens, including fixed focal lengths.)

Mexican Wall Art

While recently listening to This Week in Tech (a great podcast, and I highly recommend it), the show host, Leo Laporte, made an interesting observation about the advancement of technology.  He was musing about the changes that have happened in audio consumption.  We listen to much of our music in iPods and portable music players, when not too long ago, we were confined to a certain space.  To that end, he noted that the technology of audio in those days revolved around things like the number of amps, tweeters and woofers, quadraphonics, decibels, and much of that technical information.  We jam-packed our houses with stereo components, our cars with subwoofers, and on and on.  To get truly high quality audio you needed to have resources (a.k.a. money), and the producers of that audio content was restrictive because of the costs.

Not today – these days you can plug a $5 microphone into a USB port on a $400 computer, say or sing anything you want, and almost instantly have beautiful high quality digital recordings of whatever you like. This is a good thing though – because even though more people are recording audio, what matters is what the message of that audio is saying.  I can’t just go on the podcast and talk about nothing because no one would listen…although sometimes it feels like I am blathering on and on!    As the old saying goes, “content is king“!  Leo’s observation was that in the audio world, it’s a wonderful thing because anyone can produce audio, and there are now more voices for creativity.  With the lower cost of entry to producing high end audio, two questions came about.  The first is “What does that content say (what is the point, or message)?”  The second is “How do you want to consume that media?” (With the options being whether you want it on a CD in your car, on your iPod at the gym, on your computer as you work, or where ever.)

It was a very astute observation, and that description applies to other media as well.  I am, of course, thinking about photography.  Think about the analogy for a minute.  For the longest time we had the film world, and as ASA speeds got better, grain got finer, the size and quality of image development improved as technology permitted.  With the movement to the digital world, and the subsequent “Megapixel Wars”, capturing high quality detail in your photography was no longer such an arduous process.  I believe we are at a crossroad now in digital photography, where the technology has expanded to a quality level that anyone is able to produce excellent quality images, in terms of technical details. The portability factor for audiophiles doesn’t really apply as much to photography though as the medium is more portable by definition.  You are also looking at the image rather than listening to it.

The advances in the technology of photography has also introduced a creative outlet for many where it previously did not exist.  The decreasing costs of production have allowed many to find their “photography voice”.  With the holidays upon us, many are likely to get a shiny new camera with lots of bells and whistles, and for some out there, this will be an opportunity to “sing”!  It’s an exciting time to be a part of the chorus because with so many voices, there are lots of melodies and harmonies to be heard and enjoyed.

This will undoubtedly lead many to ask “So, how do I make my pictures sing?”  It’s a great question, and one that I have been tackling in some way, shape, or form for some time now from various points of view, including technical, compositional, and subtle intangibles that are all part of this larger question of how to better express yourself photographically.  There’s more to come on that, and I’ll be sharing more thoughts on this in the weeks to come.  But it is a good exercise, so I would like to throw it to the reading and listening audiences.  As we take a blogging break over the holidays, ask yourself (and post your thoughts here in the blog)  the following two questions:

1. Can pictures really “sing”?  Why, or why not?
2. If so, what does it take to make your pictures sing?

Share your thoughts in the comments below!  As a reminder, you can also now embed photos in your comments by using the link to attach a URL.  Happy shooting, Merry Christmas, and we’ll see you back here next week!

P.S.  Don’t forget – next week is the last week to add your “Giving” themed photos to the December Giveaway!  Should be lots of opportunities to capture some photos with that theme over the weekend!  There’s over $400 in prizes will go to one lucky person, so post your best photo to the Flickr thread here.  The guidelines are posted there, so be sure to check those to make sure your entry is counted…Happy Shooting and good luck to all!

“Okay, I’m done.”

“That’s it? You’ve only been shooting for ten minutes!”

“Yep, got about 50 shots, I should have 4-6 proofs for you from that bunch.”

“So we’re done?”

“Pretty much…I mean I can keep shooting, but there’s really no point, it’ll just be duplicates of the same stuff.”

This was the dialog I had with a co-worker a  short fair time ago when I went to take pictures of her son for her. It is indicative of a mentality that exists in society…not only is size king, but so is quantity. If you were to take two photographers and set them side by side, who would you think is a better photographer: the one who took 40 shots or the one who took 400? Many of the general public would probably respond by saying the latter, without giving it much thought.

Yeah, I took 50 instead of 40, because I have not been a pro shooter for 20 years, so I gave myself a little bit more of a margin for error. Having checked ISO, white balance and histogram settings though, I was pretty confidant that all that was left was composition – so I went with my instinct for what would make a good composition, took 3 or 4 different angles and was done.  Ten shots of each pose was enough.  I have photographer friends who still take 25 shots of each pose with only negligible differences in lighting or facial expression.  Can you see it when blowing up to 200%?  Sure, but who looks at pictures that close?

Nevertheless,  photographers fall victim to this mentality of delivering a massive quantity of images. I know of several studios that just inundate their clients with hundreds of shots to choose from. They can’t understand why these clients never get any prints or very few prints from the studio. They think that people like to have a choice, and that the more choices you give them, the better. While the idea is not without merit, (because choice is a good thing) it can go to an extreme… and I think that’s where it’s going. The reason why they’re not getting prints done is because too many choices can also be paralyzing. If presented with 4 options, it is very easy to pick out which one you like best, whether it’s cars, cameras, televisions or photos. Presented with 400 cars, cameras, televisions or photos, the choice becomes more difficult and time consuming, primarily because you become concerned over picking the “wrong one”.

My perspective, in contrast, is to deliver just a select few shots. It makes the choices easier for the client. In a world where time is an increasingly valuable commodity, getting bogged down in sorting through hundreds of images trying to find one or two to print and hang can be more frustrating and lead to inaction. In essence it’s like you are transferring the process of elimination part of the work flow from your hands to the client. This has several downsides with minimal upsides. The one upside is that “Hey, the client chose this, not me.” can absolve you of responsibility for getting a bad shot framed. I would venture to ask though: why was a bad shot among the choices?

As I told a friend via email recently, it also comes to one of work flow management. Which would you rather deal with as a photographer – a work flow where you process 50 images or 500 images? The argument that “it’s digital, so what’s the big deal?” always seems to get under my skin a little bit. For me, the big deal is that some are going out there and not putting much time or thought into capturing the essence of a scene. They just lift the camera, point in the general direction of what they want and just fire away. I’ve actually heard the term “spray and pray” used for such shooters. The idea of slowing down and taking your time to both enjoy the moment and to really take into consideration all the nuances of things like lighting, shadows, and minimizing distractions has benefits. For me, the benefits far outweigh the downsides. Firstly, it is a much more enjoyable situation to be in. Not only do you have fewer images to process, but you can really take your time, pay attention to the detail, and get every nuance of the image pegged!

Secondly, you will probably find that you are less stressed yourself. You’re not worried about missing the shot because you didn’t have time to consider all the aspects – primarily because you are considering the nuances. Third, and most importantly, when you relax and aren’t stressed, your clients aren’t stressed either…a photographer and their subject often feed off each other. I have so much fun when taking pictures of subjects, I often forget that I am there for a specific reason – we’re enjoying the moment.

That’s right…we are enjoying the moment – client and photographer! We’re laughing, and having fun, and I just happen to have a camera in hand recording it. Yeah, the first shots are often always a little awkward for them, but once they see my mug grinning over the camera at them and laughing and joking around, the stress level decreases by a factor of ten! When your client is less stressed, they photograph better! They are more willing to strike goofy (in their eyes) poses! You can capture the shot!

So, that’s pretty much it: taking fewer shots will do three things for you:

1. Cut down on post processing (both for quantity and quality)
2. You stress less, and thus, your client stresses less.
3. You increase your keeper percentage!

Having said this, I realize that there are some situations where you have to mass produce images. Another friend of mine talked about a basketball or softball tournament where they had to take pics of every person on every team over the course of a weekend. With 50 players per team and upwards of 30-40 teams, that is 2000 shots to process – and that’s a small regional event even if it’s only one shot per person. Take it on to a national event, and it just ratchets up another notch. While the quantity is there, it’s also a different shot every frame. This is also not a fine art or a studio environment. This is a very fast-moving, fast-paced environment and is not applicable to the type of photography I am talking about here.

I would venture to guess though that most of us do not fall in that category…we’re shooting far less than this on average, so the quality versus quantity rule does apply in most scenarios. Now, if only I could take that principle and apply it to the writing here on the blog!

Before signing off today, just a couple closing thoughts to share that are non-related to this article:

1. Some link-love from two friends who are doing some cool 365/blogs (a picture a day for a year: very creative minds at work and so inspiring!
   • - Rob Weiher (whom I’ve interviewed before here on the blog)
   • – Peter (GrfxGuru)
2. Don’t forget the Numbers Contest – only 4 days to go for your chance to win a $500 software package:  Flickr Thread for submissions

Happy shooting all, and watch those apertures!

Grab the Feed

Well, I completely lost track of the week and did not get the weekly podcast recorded in time for publication today.  So, while I could have gone with the alliterative “Forgetful Friday” blog title, I figured that would have been a little too on the nose.  So, instead, I’ll share the exciting news that the latest issue of PhotographyBB magazine has been published.  Dave Seeram, editor-in-chief, announced it a few days ago on the website, so do stop over and download the latest article now. Make sure you take a peek at the article Photography Food for Thought (pgs 19-22), it was the contribution of yours truly to this months issue!  Of course the rest of the magazine is a worthwhile read too.  I particularly enjoyed Dave’s article on Photoshop Retouching.  He’s got a unique balance of technical expertise and translating that skill to the written word. Thanks go out to Dave and the entire publishing crew over at PhotographyBB for another opportunity to share an article with a wider audience than is here at CB!

That’s it for this week.  Happy shooting, have a great weekend, and we’ll see you back here Monday with the belated podcast!

About all I could muddle out was “Well..uuh, I am writing an article for a free online magazine…would that work?”  Again, I was floored when he said that’d be great!  You could have knocked me over with a feather!  So, my post for today is actually to say thanks to Rob for the vote of confidence!  The scariest part of it all though, is not having to deal with my bantering, but he asked for a pic too!  So, here’s your chance to see my mug on the other side of the lens.  Go check out Towner Jones Photography today.  Make sure you tell him thanks for me too!

I’ll return next week with a new edition of Thursday Thoughts…let’s see, who can I ask for an interview?  Any ideas?   thanks again go out to Rob, and remember, it’s all about the photo, so get out there and get ya some!  Happy shooting everyone and we’ll see you back here tomorrow!