Adventures with Tripods

Some of you know that I strongly dislike tripods. I have always considered them huge and unwieldy.

Ever since I dipped a toe into the world of stock photography, I've been much more concerned about ensuring my work is suitable for actual licensing and use. The higher the resolution and the larger the file, the better. However, because of motion blur issues, the larger the picture, the less likely that it would be usable in such a context. The slightest blur is totally magnified when blown up to 100%.

So, for the work I like (butterflies), I've decided to break out my tripod and see if I could really see an improvement. I went on a shoot last week, and here are some good examples:





Observations:

1) Get to know the tripod before taking it anywhere. I had to wrestle with it a few times, even after I'd worked with it at home.

2) Butterflies move. A tripod won't solve that problem. However, there's no denying that all of these pictures are far more crisp, clear, and pretty than most that I took as recently as last month. The results do speak for themselves.

3) Tripods are not permitted everywhere. I had to use mine as a monopod, but I still got great results.

Settings and general advice: Auto white balance, ISO 200-400, and lots of experimentation with f-stops, ranging from 3.x to around 6.x. Keep in mind that the higher the f-stop, the more vulnerable you can be to motion blur. It's for this reason that the tripod helped me the most. Play with angles and move around - that's especially important here. Create shapes - the above are good examples. Above all, be patient. Keep trying.

Speaking of which, my next photo shoot will be at a place where I probably won't be able to use my tripod. I'm going back to Hillwood!.

Next time - today's butterfly photo shoot - I had to go back!

I've Done It!

Well, I finally submitted some of my pictures to an online stock photography site. I chose six, and here they are:






A few observations:

1) I needed to come up with more tags and keywords than I'd initially thought. This slowed down the process for me.

2) Dreamstime's workflow isn't

3) I couldn't use any of my 2007 photos in Syria :( because they didn't meet the 3MB minimum.

4) I rejected far more of my pictures than I'd expected - this process makes me even more critical of my work!

5) I found other options for pictures to post - such as cathedral ceilings (I like the way mine look), other travel pictures, and even some architectural shots. I'll therefore post a few more tomorrow.

Given that it will be at least one week before my pictures are reviewed, you won't see an update from me on this topic anytime soon.

Next time - an idea that I need to research involving Apple and its App Store.

Is it the Camera or the Photographer? Part Two

In my previous post, I introduced the concept of not needing to go out and buy an SLR and ten lenses (an exaggeration, perhaps), without taking the time to determine if you actually need one. After all, SLRs and their kits are heavy, unwieldy, and depending on where you travel, not even allowed. So, here are a few more examples for you to consider:



This is one of my favorite shots of all time. The level of detail would have been very difficult to capture in an ordinary camera. I had to play with multiple settings simultaneously, in order for this one to work. In general, interior shots such as these benefit from a wide-angle lens, and a camera with a manual setting.



I took this picture at sunrise with a regular camera. I don't know what it would have looked like with all my gear, but I was traveling from city and city and wasn't able to take more than a compact. I think this looks fine. Had it been one hour later, I would have needed a polarizing filter, and Photoshop for post-processing - not to mention a way to shoot in RAW. (More later)
Finally, an example of my favorite type of photography:



Getting this level of detail in low light and with this precision requires a fast macro lens and a good camera body. I can't do any macro shots with my compact. If there were ever a case for good camera equipment, this would be it.

So, to summarize, if you're shooting objects in the near distance in good (not too sunny) weather without any marked precision requirements, a compact camera (in the $250 range) will do.

Otherwise, go out and look at some SLRs so you can control your environment. If nothing else, you'll be able to shoot in RAW, my favorite format (with a few exceptions). What does that mean? I"ll cover that tomorrow. :)