National Shrine - Backbends and Other Poses

A few weeks ago, I mentioned some projects that I really wanted to complete when I had the time. Well, last weekend, I had time, and I headed down to the National Shrine.

This was an extremely difficult shoot for several reasons:

1) The lighting was very low and "orange"

2) I couldn't walk in certain areas, so to take pictures there, I had to stretch my body (hence the title)

3) My literal shots were not resonating

On the bright side, I did find several "money" shots. Here are some examples:







The first and third pictures are examples of how changing the angle can definitely change the picture. Although rotating one picture would result in two nearly identical angles and shapes, the lighting is clearly different. I prefer the first picture a little more - it reminds me of a French children's fairy tale. I think children would see an element of fantasy.

The second picture required considerable tweaking in Aperture, so I was glad I shot in RAW. Honestly, I'm not sure if I could have duplicated this with my point-and-shoot. While I could replicate the ISO and white balance settings (800 and Tungsten, respectively), I used a wide-angle lens. Also, I don't know if the post-processing work that I did in Aperture could have been replicated with a JPEG image (typical output of a point-and-shoot). What exactly did I do? I lowered the temperature, raised the tint, and removed some of the shadows. I also did some cropping (which can be done with JPEG images, too).

What's my advice? If you have a point-and-shoot, follow the light, but only indirect light. This is because you want some soft shadows, but you don't want exposure issues. I'll elaborate more on what I mean about this tomorrow with a better example. Also, you want a high ISO - 800 and Tungsten white balance, as I already indicated. You don't need to zoom. In fact, I didn't at all. Don't be surprised if your colors don't come out properly in some situations. Just cut your losses and move on. Finally, follow my lead and tweak your positions and angles. See what you like.

These aren't the only interior shots I took this weekend. Till tomorrow!

Dreaming of my Next Project - Churches

I don't know if it's because Vegas is known as "Sin City", or because of an article I saw in Popular Photography Magazine, but I really want to take pictures of interiors of places of worship. In the DC area, that generally means churches and cathedrals. Some examples from the past:





It is too bad that there aren't any nearby (ornate/pretty) mosques, because otherwise, I could take more pictures like these:



But, I have two good local options here (in DC): The National Shrine (near Catholic University) and St. Nicholas (once I double-check with a friend about some questions I have). As I understand it, they both have domes, which will give me many fun options.

What will I do differently?

1) Take many many many more shots (so I have more to choose from)

2) Try multiple f-stops and shutter speeds for effect

3) Play more with angles and exposures

In other words, offer more variety.

So why now? My oldest cathedral pictures are three years old, and my newest are two years old. My skills have improved by quite a bit since then, but also, any pictures more than three years old cannot be entered in most contests. I therefore need to refresh my content.

When? Definitely not this weekend. My volunteer efforts will be taking all of my time this weekend. These places are four hour excursions, at least. My goal is to do so in February - and I'll do my best to honor that.

Till tomorrow!

Commercial vs Editorial - Releases

As you know, I was in New York last weekend, and I took pictures of my sister, niece, and brother-in-law. Remember this?



Also, I have taken numerous pictures of private and public property, including ...

Hotels:



Gardens:



and places of worship:



So, this begs the question: if I want to sell these pictures, what is my obligation? First, answer this question: Is the subject recognizable? In other words, can you identify the person or the piece of property easily? If so, read on.

Let's start with the first and simplest - my niece. I'd already obtained permission from both her parents to post her pictures on Flickr and my blog. I would simply need to formalize that agreement by obtaining a release a writing. This would be needed for commercial use, which is in conjunction with selling goods, services, etc. (like a billboard or a magazine ad), but not for editorial use, which is used in conjunction with a story or piece of text (like a magazine article). I say better safe than sorry - I obtain model releases (or the promise thereof) for everything.

What about the gardens? In this case, this was public property (the US Botanical Gardens), so according to most sources, I don't (technicall) need one. However, I'm a cautious person and would likely only sell these for editorial use. I feel the same way about the church.

The hotel is a different story. Technically, it's private property. For non-editorial use, I would obtain a property release. Whether that is easy or difficult is another issue, obviously.

In the case of both types of releases, compensation is typically involved.

So why do I care? Well, aside from the fact that I want to sell my pictures without breaking the law, I have to think about:

1) Taking a mix of recognizable and unrecognizable pictures of property, so that I have at least something to sell.

2) Making sure NOT to take pictures of strangers unless they are silouhettes, unless I'm paid to do so.

3) Understanding that I'm limited to editorial use if a release is required, because I'm frankly not a fan of paperwork.

This is a very confusing topic to some, and I hope I've shed some light on it. For most of you, this doesn't matter very much. However, you never know what could happen - someone could want to buy your work. Make sure you don't limit yourself!

Till tomorrow!

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. :)