Off-Site RSS Feeds

"Modern Rails" by D. Travis North

Black & White Photographs are among my favorite style – both to observe and to create.  Shooting for black & white is challenging.  You immediately eliminate one of your building blocks of design:  Color.  That’s one less tool that you have to compose with.  But working in black & white can be quite rewarding as well.  Personally, I am drawn to the beauty that is created by black & white.  If done well, it can help the viewer to focus on textures and shapes as opposed to symbols.  There is great beauty in black & white photography, but to do it right…you need to account for a few key elements:

• Exposure – Exposure is always important, even in color.  But when it comes to black & white, it’s even more important.  In a photo devoid of color, there is a very narrow margin for error.
• Contrast – A good black and white photo should have absolute whites, and there should be absolute blacks.  Don’t get discouraged if you don’t get it right in camera.  So long as your exposure is correct, you can tighten up the contrast in post-processing.  TIP:  Shooting in natural light?  Circular Polarizer and Neutral Density Filters help you to get great contrast between colors.
• Dynamic Range – In other words…there should be some gray tones as well.  The more grays you can work into the photo, the better.  This is where your color filters (either physical filters or photoshop both work well) will help you to separate colors from each other.  TIP:  Unless you’ve got a lot of experience with film, there’s very little reason for new photographers to use physical color filters.  You have more control in post-processing with your editing software.
  
• Composition – Color is obviously eliminated, but you still have five building blocks to work with.  Each carries more weight in the final composition now.  Texture, especially, becomes magnified without color.  Don’t let this be a hindrance, use this to your advantage.
• Patience – If you’re not used to shooting black & white, expect to make some mistakes.  You will need to get the knack for seeing a color scene as if it were black & white.  You’ll need to learn how some colors will appear in black & white, and the only way to learn is through practice.  For practice purposes, if your camera has a black & white mode – use it.  I don’t recommend using that mode for production as you eliminate a lot of the control you would have at post-processing.  But it’s a good way to learn how to visualize a scene – just check it on your camera’s screen.

I have to keep an eye on the @party Facebook page more often. I just noticed this little present:

Big thanks to NA-scene transplant Forcer/Hellcore^Mosaic!

"Evening Backyard Walk" by Sue Thompson

If you haven’t yet been inspired by Sue Thompson’s work, then you haven’t been a part of our Shutter Photo @ Flickr Group.  Sue is a perennial of the Flickr Group, and we’ve spotlighted her work a few times here at Shutter Photo.  From a statistical point of view, Sue has contributed the most photos to the group, and could very well have left the most comments.  I will admit a bit of a biased opinion:  I love so much of Sue’s works that I could probably spotlight something here every week.  But to be fair, I try to avoid that.  But when Sue started brandishing her brand new D-SLR, the quality of her work skipped up several notches – not because of the camera, mind you, but because she clearly outgrew her old point-and-shoot camera.  Sue used her old camera to the absolute threshold of its abilities.  And now that she has a better camera with better lenses, we can see what she can really do. And so I introduce you to one of her recent works, Evening Backyard Walk, shown here.

This is a classic macro shot of a flower.  Focusing is so close – almost to the point of abstraction – that we can see detail reflected and distorted through the lens created by each water drop.  A shot like this is possibly influenced by the works of Georgia O’Keeffe.  O’Keeffe worked in paints, but many photographers are inspired by the close-crops of her flower paintings.  Her work transcends the medium into the world of photography quite often.

When dealing with such a close shot, even with a focal length of 55mm, you’re dealing with such a narrow depth of field.  If you imagine this flower at natural size, you can visualize just how small this depth of field is.  We’re talking milimeters, no more.  And that is why it’s important to focus manually, as Sue did in this case.  Manual focus is the key to close-up and macro photography.  I know very little about Sue’s old camera, but I can imagine she’s quite happy to have a smooth focusing ring on her lens with all the close-up and macro photography that she shoots.

Here’s where the shiny new camera really shows it’s mark:  The light.  Her old camera, A Canon Powershot S5, was a pretty decent point and shoot.  But it had a relatively small fixed lens.  The maximum aperture was nowhere close to the capabilities of her new camera and lens.  This is a big deal with Macro, because light is scarce when dealing with such a small area of focus.  Having a nice wide-open lens gets the light in there to help you get your shot.  And judging by the EXIF information, it would appear as though this shot could have been taken hand-held at those speeds.

The last thing I want to discuss about Sue’s work today is simply practice.  As I mentioned, Sue recently changed cameras, but I don’t feel that the quality of her work, even the early shots with her new camera, have suffered in any way.  She shot macro so many times and so often (literally hundreds upon hundreds of shots each month), that the equipment doesn’t matter.  I am inspired by Sue’s work mostly because of the consistency of her growth and the fact that equipment really truly does matter little.  I would put up much of her work against someone with better equipment – better lenses, better filters, fancy tripods and accessories – yet I believe that Sue would create a better photo.  Why?  Because she has an inner vision and a skill that only comes with practice.  The work she was able to do with her Powershot S5 was proof of that concept.  Her recent upgrade to a Rebel XSi has simply made her job easier with a better technical quality.  But technical quality is only a fraction of the finished product.  The bulk of it is composition and vision – and that is clearly not a stumbling block for our dear friend.  And the best part:  She does it with the innocence of a child.  She admitted to me once that she doesn’t often think each composition through before snapping the shutter.  But as I’ve preached many times before: The rules aren’t a guide to creating great photos, they are simply a way for the uninspired to understand art.

So pop on over to Evening Backyard Walk on Flickr, leave a few comments and then head on over to her photo stream to browse some more.  You will quickly learn why we here at Shutter Photo love Sue’s work so much.

If you attended @party 2010, we want your feedback. We hope to hold another @party next year, and your response will help us determine what’s most important to partygoers.

tinyurl.com/atpartysurvey

We are also accepting donations to help make next year’s party possible.

tinyurl.com/atpartykickstart

Shot on film - what can you learn from this shot? Not as much as you could learn from a digital photo.

In the days before digital photography, it was difficult to learn from other people’s works.  First and foremost, you had to find the work.  You had to go out of your way to browse galleries museums or even craft shows to find good examples of photography.  As you’re learning photography, you did what you could to afford yourself such opportunities.  But there was only so much you could do.  In many cases, the works were so far above your skill level that you had no concept of how a specific shot might have been taken.  For that matter, you spent so much time finding such works, the little bits of inspiration that could be garnered were often lost.

I was one such young photographer.  Early on, I shot with a dated camera with few automatic features and only in natural light (no flash).  I bought books for learning, books for inspiration and I visited as many galleries and museums as I could.  I was fortunate enough to have a very good museum nearby that focused only on local artists – a great source of inspiration in those early years.  But at my skill level, I couldn’t learn very much without asking questions of artists that weren’t interested in returning my calls.  I essentially had two options:  1)  Pursue a career in photography and become an apprentice or 2) Just keep shooting and learn through failure.  Obviously, I ended up choosing the second option as photography was not my primary career interest.  It was a long and rocky road, and my growth was slow.  But again, that was all before digital.

Possibly the most obvious benefit to digital photography is the ease in which our work, and the work of others, gets shared.  Sites like Flickr and DeviantArt exist for this purpose.  I joined DeviantArt many years ago.  On the surface, sites like it are a great place to find inspiration – the works of others that give you great ideas for your next session.  But once I started posting my own photographs, I learned another source of inspiration – those who comment on your works.  If you can learn to take constructive criticism, there is plenty to be learned from what people say about your works.  I’ve learned countless new techniques through such comments.  Better yet, getting noticed inspires you to do more and shoot more and challenge yourself.  The more that you post, the more feedback you get and the more you learn.  It’s a circle, and it helps you grow tremendously.

Almost every digital photo has EXIF data attached to it – information that will tell you details about shutter speed, aperture, whether a flash fired and so on.  This is only technical data, and many would argue that it’s only scratching the surface.  After all, such data does not tell you about the design intent.  But knowing such information might clue you in to the intent.  Or if not, it will at least help you to understand how the shot was composed.  Either way, it’s information you wouldn’t have observing an analog photo or a photo in print.  So it gives you a leg up on trying to understand a shot.  Knowing that a flash wasn’t fired, for example, will inform you that there was an alternative light source.  Is it natural light?  Perhaps an incandescent?  These things can’t explicitly be determined through EXIF data, but you can arrive at a conclusion through process of elimination.

In the days before digital, professionals learned from other professionals.  This was their collective – their hive, if you will.  By right, professionals of today still learn a great deal from professionals and there are many trade secrets that are passed down from one photographer to another.  But never underestimate the power of experimentation – and hobbyists will always experiment.  When one hobbyist tries to mimic the style of a professional photographer, they will uncover a few techniques that have helped them to do so.  These may not necessarily be the same techniques the professional used; but if they work, it doesn’t matter.  Well, that person will share his newly acquired wisdom with his own hive – the other hobbyists who are also working towards a similar goal.  Some of the people within the hive will experiment some more and add to the overall technique, possibly making it better or easier.  This sort of collaborative learning is often referred to as hive learning.  It has many benefits, but the most important benefit is that we learn best by doing.  Our experimentation as a hive has helped us to uncover some incredible techniques – some that even professionals have benefited from.  The online communities that surround Flickr, DeviantArt, ImageKind and so on have made the hive much more accessible to everyone.  We have all learned a great deal from the works (and failures) of others – all through communities that have sprung up primarily due to digital media.

The official winner of the Lowepro Passport Sling giveaway is:

Tara O’Brien

Tara got back to us fairly quickly, and it sounds like she’s pretty excited to have won.  We’ll be shipping the bag out to her as soon as possible.  Maybe we’ll check in in a few weeks to see what she thinks.  Of course she’ll love it.

Again, if you missed the review, you can read it here:  Lowepro Passport Sling Review

This is now our second giveaway, and we had a pretty good turnout.  We hope to continue to do these giveaways, so keep an eye on the site. Thanks again to all who entered, and thanks for getting the word out about Shutter Photo.

Just a quick note to let everyone know that the original winner of the Lowepro Passport Sling did not respond to my message.  As is dictated in the rules, we will now select a random winner.  Once we get in touch with that winner, we will make a formal announcement.

Crooked Crow performing live

As many of you may already know, I involved in a fairly well known non-profit organization called LIVESTRONG.  Founded by the family of Lance Armstrong, their mission is to rid the world of cancer through education and preventative medicine.  Now I won’t plug the organization too much, but I wanted to give you a little background as to how and why I came to photographing a live music show.  The thing is that my team held a fund raising event at a local pub.  To help bring some people in, we recruited some bands to play live at the event.  Well, as organizations go, we wanted to get some photos to document the event.  Who better than to do that than the only team member who is also a photographer.  Yes, me.

I have a confession to make:  I was nervous shooting the event.  I am not experienced shooting live events.  I’m not used to having so many people around while I’m shooting.  I am not used to using my strobes where they could be a nuisance to other people.  For that matter – I wasn’t used to shooting with strobes on the fly with moving (playing) subjects.  It was a steep learning curve, but I’m glad I did it.  I’m glad I went outside my comfort zone to capture a few good photos (and a ton of bad ones).  And while I don’t think that any of my photos from that night are necessarily that great, I feel that I learned a lot.  For your benefit, I compiled this short list of things that I learned to maybe convince you to give such photography a chance.

• No one really knows what you’re doing – As I mentioned, one of my biggest fears was shooting among a large crowd.  I’m don’t like to be the one being watched, and I felt as though I’d be on stage with my camera.  Truth be told, a few people asked a few questions.  But I quickly learned that most people either ignored me or didn’t have a clue what I was doing.  Basically, no one was in the position to criticize.
• Speak with the performers ahead of time - In speaking with one of the band members, I learned that it is a great idea to speak with the performers before the show.  No one at this event seemed to mind me trolling around with a strobe.  But he alleged that he has met a few people that are greatly displeased by the use of flash.  As is always the case, I don’t like to displease my subject.  So if there are any restrictions the performers might place upon you, you better find out beforehand.
• Be aware - There’s a lot going on at an event like this.  Everyone’s attention is fixed to the stage, many a drink were passed around, there were people with plates of food and it was generally a dark room.  I quickly learned that I needed to be aware of everything that was going on around me.  Not just so that I didn’t cause problems, but to protect myself and my gear.  Fortunately, I had no mishaps – but I could have easily tripped someone by accident or gotten a beer spilled on my gear.
• A flash is brightest in a dark room - I’m used to working in controlled environments when working with strobes.  I’m not used to photographing in places where there is a 50-70% difference in the light between the performers and the crowd.  What worked for the performers was far too powerful for shooting subjects off-stage.  I blew out at least a dozen photos until I got into the swing of things. (Note, I am not in the habit of using my flash in TTL mode)
• Carry business cards – Considering this was a charity event, I was quite surprised to find I gave out nearly 20 business cards that night.  Some to the band members – but a lot of people from the audience were curious about my work.  Some were looking for portrait photographers – but at least one person checked out my portfolio and wrote to me to tell me their thoughts.
• Be sure to capture everyone - One of the drummers joked that he never ends up in photos because he’s in the back line.  So I made sure to get a couple of shots of him as well.  But the same goes for all the performers.  The lead singer is the face of the band, but it’s still a team effort.  Capture everyone as best as you can.
• ISO is your friend – Even with a flash, the photos weren’t turning out the way I wanted until I raised the ISO.  By doing so, I was able to cut a lot of my flash and get the fill light that I wanted.  My camera is a little dated at this point, so my higher ISO (anything about 400) gets grainy.  But if I were to continue shooting live performances, I might wish to invest in a camera with better performance at higher ISOs. 
• Low angles are awesome - Of all the shots I took, the ones from low angles look best in my opinion.  The performers look powerful, and their stage presence is amplified by the way you frame the shot at low angles.  Next time, I’ll spend more time  crouching. 
• Shoot now, drink later – I made a pretty big mistake by ordering a beer just as the first band was taking stage.  I now had an extra item I had to lug around.  My beer kept me tethered to a place where I could put it down.  I didn’t move nearly as much as I should have.  I also missed a few good shots because of the beer in my hand – no time to put it down at a live event.  So skip the drinks, or at least limit them to when the performers take their break. 
• Seek help – For several of my shots, I recruited a friend to hold the flash as specific locations.  David Hobby of Strobist refers to this as a “voice activated flash stand”.  Even though my friend didn’t really know what I or he was doing, I simply explained what I wanted him to do and how to hold it.  Things worked out fine.  Some of my best photographs from the event were when I was using my voice activated flash stand. 

Side note:  For all interested parties, the band, Crooked Crow, is out of the Washington DC area, but they play all over.  They’re quite good, and I would highly recommend that you check out their music.

"Skate Blur" by Kevin Thornhill

Urban environments are an awesome source of inspiration.  There are so many textures and colors – even the graffiti is beautiful in the right context.  But perhaps the most exciting aspect of the the urban environment is the human element.  This week, Kevin Thornhill brings us this wonderful photograph, titled Skate Blur, which shows us the true influence of the human element.

First and foremost, I must point out that this was shot at a shutter speed of 1/25 – pretty slow.  Kevin likely used a tripod, but there are just some people that are somehow magically able to shoot tack sharp images using nothing more than their stable hands.  Whatever the case, Kevin got a tack sharp photograph of the wall at a shutter speed long enough to catch the skate board rider in motion.  Because of the colors in the background, I don’t really consider the skater to be the primary subject in-and-of itself.  But he is, to me, an essential piece of the composition.

Skate Blur is one of those photos that could have many interpretations.  I will not pretend to know Kevin’s intent when he shot this photo.  But in photography, the photographer’s intent isn’t always important.  What’s really important is that it affects you in some way.  So with that in mind, I will offer my own interpretation.

To me, Skate Blur is a commentary on the affect that humans have on an environment.  The cityscape was certainly built by humans, but these old buildings were built with respect.  In an earlier era, the buildings were seen as buildings.  Buildings like these were mostly utilitarian – not an artistic statement that you might expect of the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building or the Louvre.  But in that earlier era, these buildings were nothing more than that.  To later generations, these buildings have become a canvas.  But the juxtaposition of the photographer, Kevin, capturing the unique quality of the wall and its graffiti while the skater doesn’t give it a second glance.  The graffiti is the new environment, and it is apparently not the eyesore that we once thought it was.

My view is probably vastly different than Kevin’s intent.

Anyhow, I’m really inspired by this image for two important reasons:  Color and Blur.  Bright color in an urban environment is so rare that the graffiti proffers such a refreshing appeal in a photograph.  But the skateboarder in motion makes the shot.  The blur gives the photograph depth and a time signature.  These two elements create such a dramatic composition.

I would of course like to thank Kevin for sharing his work with the Shutter Photo @ Flickr Group.  In his short time with us, he has already posted some inspiring photographs.  I would also like to point out that Kevin has a pretty impressive portfolio on his own personal website.  Be sure to spend some time in his Black & White gallery – you’re guaranteed to be inspired.

Moo Business Cards
Business Cards (standard) starting at $21.99 (USD) for 50 cards
MiniCards: Starting at $19.99 (USD) for 100 cards
100% Recycled Paper Options Available

Despite the digital age, business cards are still the most prominent way to share contact information about you and your business.  In fact, I feel the digital age has actually made business cards more relevant.  Small side businesses have sprung up left and right, and the photography world is no exception.  Some, like myself, are selling their works as fine art or as stock photography.  Such side businesses are reason enough to have a calling card.  And your business card is extremely important.  They are personal and in many cases serve as a first impression.  Moo, a maker of custom paper products including business cards and postcards, seemed to fit the bill.

I’ll admit that I was introduced to Moo by one of their marketing associates.  Timing was perfect of course – I was looking to redo my business cards.  I wanted something more personal, and I wanted something that was economical.  So my introduction to the company came at an opportune time.  Moo was nice enough to provide a sample set of business cards for my review.  But in case you fear biased on my part, let me assure you that this is not the case here.  I will of course discuss why I like the business cards in greater detail.  However, to clear the air up front – let me attest that I am already nearing the end of my first package of 50 cards, and I will be ordering more cards from Moo.

My set: 50 standard business cards on 100% recycled paper

Moo doesn’t make just business cards.  They also produce greeting cards, postcards and sell a number of accessories such as frames and card holders.  These products are certainly an added bonus to photographers – especially those sending out postcard mailers.  But it’s clear that business cards are their primary focus.  Moo offers two different sized business cards:  Standard sized (7.17″ x 3.31″) as well as MiniCards (2.76″ x 1.1″).  Prices are quite reasonable, even with customization.  The standard business cards start at $21.99 (USD) for a pack of $50 and the MiniCards are available in packs of 100 for about $19.99 (USD).  Bulk discounts are also available if you’re ordering more than 200 Standard or 400 MiniCards.

Regardless of what product you select, Moo’s real advantage is the opportunity to print every single card differently.  You can use your own art or photos and you can customize the look of both sides of the cards.  You can even have different artwork on one side of the card for each and every card.  That means that if you order a pack of 50, you can upload 50 photos and use a different one on every single card, yet still have the same contact information and presentation on the other side.  I uploaded several of my own photos to serve as the back for my business cards.  The print quality is exceptional – so I consider my business cards almost like a mini-portfolio in my pocket.  In fact, on several occasions, I laid out all of the different cards out for perspective clients and associates to see.  After observing all of my best photos, I let them select which card they wish to keep.  One of my clients admitted keeping the business card on her bulletin board simply because she loved it so much.  Well, guess who she’s going to think of first when she wishes to buy another photograph?  This is why I love the cards so much.

The MiniCards have an appeal of being unique and having a small footprint.  It certainly stands out from the typical business card by size alone.  I spoke to one photographer who uses the MiniCards and she loves them.  She allegedly has received many compliments on the size of them alone.  As I am a bit more traditional in my ways, I opted to go with the standard sized business cards.  Premium card stock is Moo’s standard paper.  But they also offer a Moo Green option made of 100% recycled and biodegradable material.  My cards made out of the Moo Green material.  My first impression:  The cards are fantastic.  As I already mentioned, the print quality is quite good, the finish and durability of the cards is impressive and I absolutely love the cards.

Designing cards with Moo is pretty simple and easy to do.  In the most basic setup, you would upload all of your photos that you’d like to use through their web interface.  If you have a Flickr, Facebook, Smugmug or Etsy account, you can choose to import photos/artowork from those sites as well.  This wasn’t my own methodology, so I cannot personally attest for this process.  An artist I spoke pulled a number of photos of the products he makes from Etsy, and he had nothing but great things to say about the process.  Alternatively, you can simply use one of their pre-designed card backs featuring a number of color schemes and patterns.  But as photographers, you’d be crazy not to take the opportunity to upload your own works.

Once all your photos are uploaded, you will have an opportunity to crop the images how you’d like.  After a brief preview of the backs, you will then fill out what you want on the “info” side of the card and you’re done.  The info side can also support photos or graphic designs that you can also upload.  But the info side will be the same for all cards in the package.  As I already mentioned, you can have a different image for each of the backs in your set – you are limited only by the size of your set.  If you want to order 200 cards each with its own photo, you can do that.

The information side is somewhat limited in what you can do through its online interface.  Serious designers have the option to upload their own graphics in lieu of the text that can be added through the Moo interface.  If you have specific branding or if you’d like to control every aspect of the design, this may very well be your best course of action.  Otherwise, the interface does allow you to change colors, fonts, layout and so on.  But you’re limited to a handful of fonts, colors and layouts.  For that matter, you only have the option to control the color of the text or the color of the background – not both.  But despite its shortcomings, there are still a great deal of customization that you can do with the online interface.  But as I said, if you’re willing to design off-line and then upload the design (PDF, JPG or PNG format) of the information side, you have unlimited control.

Info sides are all the same. Back varies - up to as many alternatives as are in your pack.

It takes a few days for them to print, but I cannot complain about the time frames.  This is quality on-demand printing.  In my experience, such on-demand printing often takes longer.  The cards arrived in a protected bubble-wrapped envelope.  They are stored in a dense cardboard box which can be used for storage and doubles as a place to keep other people’s cards as well.  Moo even provides tabs to keep them organized.  According to the packaging, the box itself is also made of 100% recycled material.  I do not know if that is their typical, or if that is the case because I ordered Moo Green cards.  Also in the box is a reference card noting the batch number and of course the order reference number.  This information will help you reorder your business cards – exactly as you designed them.  But if you create an account on their website, they will also save the information for you to make reordering even easier.  And just for fun, the batch reference card also doubles as a buzzword bingo card for your big corporate meetings.

The print quality of the cards is exceptional.  The cards feature edge-bleed printing.  The colors were beautiful and very true to the source images that I provided.  I even threw a couple of really challenging photos into the deck – at least from a color reproduction perspective – and Moo passed my test.  As I mentioned, I spoke with a few other photographers that used Moo.  One of them mentioned that her cards printed a little darker than she expected – yet I didn’t have such problems.  My business cards were incredibly color accurate.  Though I didn’t not inquire as to that photographer’s setup, I suspect that the case is very likely a color management issue.  I use color management in my studio, and thus I suspect that my source images were color accurate from the start.

As for the paper – remember that I selected the Moo Green option, which is 100% recycled paper.  I try to use recycled paper as often as possible, but sometimes the recycled papers are not always of great quality.  Moo’s Green papers are a heavy card stock with a nice matte finish.  I was quite surprised how heavy the card were.  The paper serves as a fantastic base for the printing.  I have not had any experience with Moo’s other paper options, but I would certainly order the Green option again.

In the end, my new business cards are fantastic.  Moo met each and every one of my goals:  An economical option that is eye catching with an incredible print quality. With the relatively small batch sizes – a pack of 50 as compared to my old business cards which required a minimum set of 250 – the choice is almost a no-brainer.  Moo’s business cards are certainly something I’d recommend to anyone.  It really is like a little portfolio in your pocket.

Things We Liked

• Can upload own graphics/photos for both sides of card.
• Each and every card can be completely unique.
• Easy-to-use interface.
• Easy to import through Flickr, Etsy and more.
• The business cards were well received among potential clients and associates.
• Print quality is exceptional:  Color accurate, edge-bleed printing, clean fonts.
• The option to print small batches.

Things We Didn’t Like

• Not many color or font options for information side.
• Cannot edit items once in your cart.
• Does not save all photos between editing sessions (if creating more than one product).

The first @party is over (one week ago, actually)! 44 people filled the quaint little hostel in eastern Mass., along with a bus full of Singapore-MIT students on Saturday night. All the compo prizes were handmade — trophies for the winners and cookies and fudge for 2nd and 3rd place. Remote entries were counted in votes but not eligible for prizes (sorry guys . There were four live music acts, a presentation on NES video effect mixing, and a screening of the Get Lamp documentary.

Compo results: http://pouet.net/results.php?which=1528&when=10
Demo/wild compo releases with reviews:
http://www.pouet.net/party.php?which=1528&when=2010
Some more downloads (e.g. music):
http://www.scene.org/dir.php?dir=%2Fparties%2F2010%2Fatparty10/

Videos from the live streams of the competitions and performances:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/party-20101
More footage of the performances:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb6UZGpgXvM

Trixter’s photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/99362042@N00/sets/72157624309167974/
Luis’ photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luis2048/sets/72157624183876969/
IC’s photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/IspdChaos/Party2010
Jason’s photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/sets/72157624205824557/

Some of these photos and more will be posted to Slengpung in the near future.

Thanks to everyone who came and helped us out – it took many volunteers to make this successful. If you have any more post-party links, let us know! We will be conducting an @party survey soon, and gauging interest in an @party DVD which will help us balance our budget. Keep an eye on our official website: http://www.atparty-demoscene.net. We hope to do this again next year!

"Union Paving" by D. Travis North

When faced with the question about what kind of photographer I am, I used to freeze up.  There are so many things and so many sensitive people to consider.  Eventually, I developed my elevator pitch:

I’m a freelance photographer with a strong interest in urban architecture and landscapes and the details that are associated with them.  I shoot first for myself and my own creative release, but some of my work has been published and some of my work is for sale.  Additionally, I dedicate a portion of my life to the education of other emerging photographers through my web based magazine, Shutter Photo.

I am pretty proud of my elevator pitch.  It took me a long time to develop it and I have practiced it well.  I am especially proud of the fact that I don’t specifically label myself.  I don’t explicitly state that I am a Landscape Photographer, nor do I cross that line by saying I’m a Professional (or even a Semi-Professional) Photographer.  Titles such as these are irrelevant and misleading.

True professionals – those that make their living exclusively with photography – have titles.  This is a branding issue for them.  Annie Leibovitz is a portrait photographer.  That’s what she’s known for, that’s why you would hire her.  You would not hire Leibovitz to photograph the new sky scraper down town.  I’m sure she’d do a lovely job, but that’s not her expertise and it’s not her brand.  In the professional world, titles make a difference.  But I feel it’s safe to assume that if you are a professional, you stumbled here by accident – because this article is not targeted at you.  For the rest of us, we are hobbyists.  Photography is secondary to our primary income – we may not even make any money off of our work.  And for us, titles don’t matter.

The truth is that we – as hobbyists – don’t restrict ourselves.  We are exploring the world of photography as a whole.  And while we may latch on to one thing or the other, there is much to be gained by experimenting in areas outside our comfort zone.  We are not specialists like Leibovitz.  As such, it would be unfair to label ourselves in such a specific manner.  We are not to be pigeonholed.  We are photographers – and that’s as specific as we need to get.

So think long and hard about what you do as a photographer.  And think about how you present yourself.  Are you restricting yourself too much with the titles that you might throw around?  Are you possibly missing great opportunities with such labels?  Perhaps it’s time to take a broader approach.  Discuss your interests like I have in my elevator pitch.  But don’t pin yourself to one specific genre.

Greetings.  I am Travis North, and I take my camera everywhere.  I’ll shoot whatever seems appealing and no challenge is too small.  But don’t ask me to narrow my horizons any further than that.

It’s a rough week: Too much time at the office, your kids have been especially needy, and you missed an episode of your favorite show. You just don’t feel motivated to do anything, even the hobby that you love. This is no time for forced inspiration. This is no time for yoga breathing techniques. Now is the time to do…

…nothing.

Creative endeavors like photography are not systematic processes. It is a creative process, and you need to be inspired and motivated to do it right. If you force yourself to practice your art at a time where you’re mind isn’t entirely willing, you’re only going to hurt yourself. Especially if you cannot achieve exactly what you want. Frustration builds, then resentment – pretty soon you find yourself in a creative funk. We don’t like creative funks; they’re a bitch to get out of.

I of course speak from experience. Photography, as you know, is not my primary career. For my day job, I am a Landscape Architect specializing in Land Development. Like many of you, our company had to downsize over the last few years, and I lost the majority of my staff (read: I’m the only one left). My department has been hit really hard these past few weeks as the economy builds. That’s a good thing, but in the short term that means I’m the one doing all the work. Alone. It involves late hours at the office well after the air conditioning has been shut down. So I get home late at night – sometimes after my wife has taken her nightly trip to dream land – and photography is far from my mind. I’m thinking about games, the television, or even sleep myself. Such conditions are no place for a creative release.

So if you find yourself in such a situation and you’re just not motivated to be creative – take a step back. Sometimes, you are close to the edge and you can do simple things to get yourself motivated. But don’t try to hard. Because if you have no chance of becoming motivated – no chance of being creative that night – then you’re only digging yourself into a hole. And you should take a break. Go play your games, veg out, visit the bar or sleep. Do whatever it is that your mind desires. It will thank you the next day and possibly reward you with some creative energy.

"Cymbals" by Judy Knesel

It wasn’t too long ago that Judy Knesel’s work graced our pages with her photo, Flowers on the Porch.  Once again, I must introduce you to Judy and her work – this time, a photo shown here titled Cymbals.  The photo is fantastic in that it shows us how such simple objects can become such beautiful compositions through the lens with some creative lighting, composition and the use of depth of field.  The subject (or subjects, as it were) is something familiar to all of us: Cymbals, possibly part of a drum set or a display at a music store.  Everyone has seen these in some form or another, but I’m sure we never really thought about how beautiful they can be – in the right context.  I share this photo with you today to speak about two specific building blocks of composition:  Pattern and Texture.

Typically, when we think of Pattern, we think of a definable pattern.  Something regular or consistent like bricks in a wall, or the checkered pattern of a chess board.  In its strictest of definitions, a pattern would have to be a rigid repetition of a shape or form.  But in the world of creative vision, that doesn’t always have to be the case.  Pattern doesn’t need to be regular.  Pattern doesn’t need to be organized, nor does it need to be repeating the exact same shape.  In Judy’s photo, there are several kinds of cymbals – different shapes, different sizes, even different finishes.  But they all serve the same purpose – both musically and visually.  These are a representation of a symbol (note the spelling) that is transfixed in our brains.  And therefore, we consider them to be one in the same, despite the subtle differences between them.  So pattern doesn’t have to be so rigid.  It can be free flowing and less defined.  The rules don’t have to be so inflexible.

Texture is an essential element to almost any photograph.  Even if the texture isn’t the focus of the photograph – even if it’s not prominent – texture is important.  It’s what makes things feel real.  Early computer generated (CG) graphics never felt real to us – because the texture was not perfect.  Recent technologies have allowed CG renderings that – though stylized – make us believe we can really grab something off the screen and feel it.  In photographs, we have the same emotional attachment to texture.  Though the cymbals in Judy’s photograph are only a 2D representation, we know these objects are real because of the textures.  The use of depth of field provides one aspect – the bokeh provides a texture that clues us into the relative size of these items.  The light cast on each cymbal clues us in to the finish on each plate.  Most of these are polished to the point that they are highly reflective.  Others are more dull, indicative of a grooved surface or an unfinished surface.  The lighting – side lighting-  is used effectively to show us these subtle details.

So I challenge you to create some pattern and texture centric photographs that bend the rules in much the same way as Judy Knesel’s Cymbals.  Patterns don’t have to be so well defined, and textures can help provide more information than you’d initially think.  So explore, and capture some compositions.  Than make sure to post them to the SP @ Flickr Group.

Thanks again to Judy for being a contributing member of the group and for being an inspiration to us all.

"Cymbals" by Judy Knesel

It wasn’t too long ago that Judy Knesel’s work graced our pages with her photo, Flowers on the Porch.  Once again, I must introduce you to Judy and her work – this time, a photo shown here titled Cymbals.  The photo is fantastic in that it shows us how such simple objects can become such beautiful compositions through the lens with some creative lighting, composition and the use of depth of field.  The subject (or subjects, as it were) is something familiar to all of us: Cymbals, possibly part of a drum set or a display at a music store.  Everyone has seen these in some form or another, but I’m sure we never really thought about how beautiful they can be – in the right context.  I share this photo with you today to speak about two specific building blocks of composition:  Pattern and Texture.

Typically, when we think of Pattern, we think of a definable pattern.  Something regular or consistent like bricks in a wall, or the checkered pattern of a chess board.  In its strictest of definitions, a pattern would have to be a rigid repetition of a shape or form.  But in the world of creative vision, that doesn’t always have to be the case.  Pattern doesn’t need to be regular.  Pattern doesn’t need to be organized, nor does it need to be repeating the exact same shape.  In Judy’s photo, there are several kinds of cymbals – different shapes, different sizes, even different finishes.  But they all serve the same purpose – both musically and visually.  These are a representation of a symbol (note the spelling) that is transfixed in our brains.  And therefore, we consider them to be one in the same, despite the subtle differences between them.  So pattern doesn’t have to be so rigid.  It can be free flowing and less defined.  The rules don’t have to be so inflexible.

Texture is an essential element to almost any photograph.  Even if the texture isn’t the focus of the photograph – even if it’s not prominent – texture is important.  It’s what makes things feel real.  Early computer generated (CG) graphics never felt real to us – because the texture was not perfect.  Recent technologies have allowed CG renderings that – though stylized – make us believe we can really grab something off the screen and feel it.  In photographs, we have the same emotional attachment to texture.  Though the cymbals in Judy’s photograph are only a 2D representation, we know these objects are real because of the textures.  The use of depth of field provides one aspect – the bokeh provides a texture that clues us into the relative size of these items.  The light cast on each cymbal clues us in to the finish on each plate.  Most of these are polished to the point that they are highly reflective.  Others are more dull, indicative of a grooved surface or an unfinished surface.  The lighting – side lighting-  is used effectively to show us these subtle details.

So I challenge you to create some pattern and texture centric photographs that bend the rules in much the same way as Judy Knesel’s Cymbals.  Patterns don’t have to be so well defined, and textures can help provide more information than you’d initially think.  So explore, and capture some compositions.  Than make sure to post them to the SP @ Flickr Group.

Thanks again to Judy for being a contributing member of the group and for being an inspiration to us all.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of producing boring images.  We all learn from an early age to position our subject in the center of the frame.  Unfortunately, this makes for a stagnant and extremely boring image.  When you place your subject in the center of your frame, you divide your image in half.  You break up the background and often freeze any action that may be taking place.  This approach will dull even the most interesting of backgrounds.  Never fear!  There are two very simple methods to help you fight this bad habit and fix your compositions forever.

The first method, and the one that I use most in my own photography, is the rule of thirds.  With the rule of thirds, instead of dividing your image in half, divide your frame into thirds (that was obvious wasn’t it?) both horizontally and vertically.  The frame that results will have have 4 intersections.  By setting your subject directly on one of these 4 intersections, you will be able to keep both your foreground and background interesting.  Most digital cameras offer a “grid” function which divides your screen into thirds for you.  This should help you to compose your images until you get used to working without a visual aid.

The second approach is the diagonals method.  This method states that you should first divide your screen diagonally between any two corners.  You should then choose a third corner and divide your screen again so that the resulting line intersects the first at a 90 degree angle.  The point where the two lines intersect is where you should place your subject.  While I have also found this composition to be visually appealing, my personal preference remains with the rule of thirds.

There are countless ways in which you can compose your photo.  The best thing to do is to take as many pictures as possible and find which way is the most appealing to you.  Most photographers eventually develop a pattern based on their own personal preferences.

While it is important for every artist to develop their own style, there are a few “rules” that will help you on your way.   First, unless you are going for a specific feeling that requires this, try not to photograph your subject’s back.  It gives the appearance that you missed the shot and the subject turned away.  Second, do not frame your subject so that they are looking out of frame.  A subject looking out of frame makes the viewer more interested in what was missed than what was captured.  Third, try to choose only one subject at a time.  Clusters of subjects can work if they are close together, but try to keep your images simple.  Fourth, don’t cut off part of your subject.  Portraits get away with cutting people in two since the subject is not the person so much as their face.  Make sure not to cut off anyone’s head, arm, legs, etc.  Finally, make sure your subject is well lit.  A poorly lit subject can result in muted details, muddy colors, poor contrast, and white skies.  I once had a professor who refused to photograph a subject that wasn’t in direct sunlight.  Given that he would only shoot for about 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening, this wasn’t a terribly practical approach.  A quality flash, studio lighting, or a few small spotlights pointed in the right direction can just as easily illuminate your scene.  Remember, these are “rules”, not rules.  If you’re creative enough, you can still play with them, but in the mean time, they should help you improve your form.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of producing boring images.  We all learn from an early age to position our subject in the center of the frame.  Unfortunately, this makes for a stagnant and extremely boring image.  When you place your subject in the center of your frame, you divide your image in half.  You break up the background and often freeze any action that may be taking place.  This approach will dull even the most interesting of backgrounds.  Never fear!  There are two very simple methods to help you fight this bad habit and fix your compositions forever.

The first method, and the one that I use most in my own photography, is the rule of thirds.  With the rule of thirds, instead of dividing your image in half, divide your frame into thirds (that was obvious wasn’t it?) both horizontally and vertically.  The frame that results will have have 4 intersections.  By setting your subject directly on one of these 4 intersections, you will be able to keep both your foreground and background interesting.  Most digital cameras offer a “grid” function which divides your screen into thirds for you.  This should help you to compose your images until you get used to working without a visual aid.

The second approach is the diagonals method.  This method states that you should first divide your screen diagonally between any two corners.  You should then choose a third corner and divide your screen again so that the resulting line intersects the first at a 90 degree angle.  The point where the two lines intersect is where you should place your subject.  While I have also found this composition to be visually appealing, my personal preference remains with the rule of thirds.

There are countless ways in which you can compose your photo.  The best thing to do is to take as many pictures as possible and find which way is the most appealing to you.  Most photographers eventually develop a pattern based on their own personal preferences.

While it is important for every artist to develop their own style, there are a few “rules” that will help you on your way.   First, unless you are going for a specific feeling that requires this, try not to photograph your subject’s back.  It gives the appearance that you missed the shot and the subject turned away.  Second, do not frame your subject so that they are looking out of frame.  A subject looking out of frame makes the viewer more interested in what was missed than what was captured.  Third, try to choose only one subject at a time.  Clusters of subjects can work if they are close together, but try to keep your images simple.  Fourth, don’t cut off part of your subject.  Portraits get away with cutting people in two since the subject is not the person so much as their face.  Make sure not to cut off anyone’s head, arm, legs, etc.  Finally, make sure your subject is well lit.  A poorly lit subject can result in muted details, muddy colors, poor contrast, and white skies.  I once had a professor who refused to photograph a subject that wasn’t in direct sunlight.  Given that he would only shoot for about 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening, this wasn’t a terribly practical approach.  A quality flash, studio lighting, or a few small spotlights pointed in the right direction can just as easily illuminate your scene.  Remember, these are “rules”, not rules.  If you’re creative enough, you can still play with them, but in the mean time, they should help you improve your form.

"Bubble Billy" by Kaytee Riek

Architectural photography – the ultra precise, extraordinarily calculated and most obsessive compulsive genre of an already obsessive compulsive field that is photography.  An outsider might think that architectural photography isn’t much fun.  That is…until a shot like, Bubble Billy, from Kaytee Riek struts on by to remind everyone that architectural photography can be fun.

What you see here is a classic building through the reflection off of another building.  But the classic building is not just any building, it is Philadelphia’s very own City Hall.  Standing on top of City Hall is a statue of William Penn (thus the name of the photograph).  The building holds substantial historic significance in Philadelphia.  It held the throne as the tallest inhabitable building for seven years from 1901, when it was completed, to 1908.  For that matter, it remained as the tallest building in Philadelphia until 1987 (Kaytee speaks briefly of that lore in her description on Flickr).  Because of it’s unique architecture – there are only a dozen buildings built of this style in the United States that remain standing today – and because of it’s location deep within the heart of Center City, it is possibly one of the most photographed buildings in the city.  The statue of William Penn alone has likely be captured hundreds of thousands of times.  If I had to guess how many people captured the structure in a reflection – the number of photos would easily be cut to a quarter.  But only a fraction of those would have caught them – intentionally – in a distorted reflection.  Kaytee is one of those.

The purpose of me bringing this photo to you today is that I wanted to show that things don’t have to be perfect to be beautiful.  In natural environments filled with imperfect flowers, asymmetrical mountains and rocks and meandering streams – its much easier to accept imperfections.  But in man-made spaces, imperfections and distortions are uncomfortable.  For example, City Hall is a beautiful structure – especially since it’s restoration several years ago.  It is very easy for us to see it’s beauty at face value.  But when seen in a distorted reflection, as is the case here, many people, even photographers, cannot look beyond the fact that it’s not a perfect representation of the building.  Such behavior is not truly our fault.  It all comes down to the left brain – which specializes in symbols and order – trying to take control.  As photographers, we cannot let that happen.  Controlling and limiting your left brain is a discussion for another day.  But being aware of the left brain’s desire to control and organize is enough for us to remind ourselves that a shot like Kaytee’s is beautiful – even before capturing it with your camera.

The thing I like about Bubble Billy is the playfulness of the shot.  Each panel of glass distorts the building in a slightly different way.  It’s almost like looking at a building in a giant carnival mirror – distorting some portions of the building to look thin and others to look fat.  It’s a really interesting way to capture any building, especially one as substantial as City Hall.  She carries out the playful theme with the photograph’s title.  Titles can have a tremendous impact on the observer’s expectations for a photograph.  Such a playful name clearly indicates to the observer that the photographer also has a playful intent, and our appreciation for the shot grows.  But the thing that is most curious to me – a Philadelphia native – is trying to dissect how this shot was made.  Or more specifically:  From where.  For those who aren’t familiar with the building, it’s pretty tall:  About 550′.  The vertical angle of the shot suggests that it was shot from an elevation about even with the observation deck (visible in the photo).  I can’t tell if Kaytee shot it from the observation deck itself, or from another nearby building.  Either way, the shot turned out great.

Bubble Billy is a great photograph with a nice twist on a common theme, and it is certainly deserving of attention.  But don’t stop at this one photo:  Kaytee’s photographic works, especially those in her Photo 365 Project, are inspiring.  It would do you good to explore her galleries to be inspired.