On-Camera Fill Flash

The small, built-in flash on your camera is not meant to be a powerhouse that will enable you to capture large groups indoors or throw light any significant distance outdoors. Most are good to about 10 feet maximum, though range can be boosted somewhat with higher ISO settings (with the increased noise price that you pay.) Some have a bit more power than others, but rarely do they go beyond a fairly short range. However, there are times when the small output can be used for adding just a taste of light to highlight a foreground subject and to bring lighting balance into a contrasty scene.

An opportunity for just that situation came up when photographing along the Rio Pueblo in Northern New Mexico last year, where the foreground sat in deep shadow. I knew I wanted to retain those shadowed forms to highlight the bright foliage, but after the first shot I thought that the shadows were too dominant (fig 1). Near my shooting position sat a small bush with the same yellow coloration of the background that did not record in my first shot.

I raised the small flash on my camera and took a shot. I liked what it did for the composition but the foreground plant looked too bright, a result of hitting it with flash from a few feet away. I then chose to use flash exposure compensation at -1.5EV, a good practice when working close like this. The resultant shot helped balance the composition and brought some visual interest into the foreground.

So next time you are working in strong contrast, and want to compose to maintain the shape and form of the shadows, consider using the small pop-up flash, along with flash exposure compensation, to add some extra visual “kick” to your images.

1
Exposure: Spot meter reading on bright bushes in background, f/16 at 1/125 sec at ISO 100; 24mm (equivalent) lens.
2
Exposure: f/16 at 1/125 sec at ISO 100, fill flash (on-camera) set at -1.5EV flash exposure compensation.

Text and images copyright George Schaub 2009, all rights reserved

Landscape and Nature Photography

“I was studying for a degree in environmental conservation at the University of Colorado in Boulder, taking classes in mountain ecology...My summers were spent backpacking in National Parks. My mother gave me a camera when I went away to school, and it seemed like a natural thing to take along. I wanted to document what I was seeing and what was exciting to me. Photography didn’t start out as my ultimate goal. After a couple of summers backpacking and photographing nature, the activity of photography grew to be more important than backpacking.”

William Neill, from an interview with Grace Schaub

The desire to incorporate the power and beauty of the natural world around us into our being is one of the prime motivations for making landscape and nature photographs. These photographs can then be shared with others to show where we’ve been and what we’ve appreciated. A landscape may depict clouds rushing over mountains in the wilds of the Rockies, or a barn or rustic farmhouse in mannered fields. Not all of nature is bucolic and sunny. Powerful landscapes can also show the power and, at times, fury of nature, even the devastating effects of man upon the natural world.

One of the keys to successful landscape photography is using visual and technical applications to capture a true “sense of place.” The aim is to record both the external visual record of the place as well as the internalized power and presence of the experienced moment in which it is recorded. The most powerful images are both visual and emotional records.

Landscape images may at times be a gift from a coincidence of sky, light, time of day, or the viewpoint offered by the road or trail. However, evoking a true sense of place usually demands patience, applied technique and a willingness to “feel out” an area prior to photographing. It also requires active seeing and contemplation on what framing, exposure and time of day will best communicate the power and beauty of a location.

One way to approach landscape studies is to leave your camera in your bag before you begin to shoot. Move through an area and make mental notes on framing, the direction of the light and the best point of view. While spontaneous moments of inspiration should not be denied (especially on days when the light is undergoing constant change), consideration of a number of photographic options prior to making pictures may be the best course. It also allows time for enjoying and appreciating the place.

Landscapes tend to be broader views of an area that encompass sky and ground or a lake with surrounding forest. Though the distinction may be slight, and the photographs may be made in the same locales, nature photography is generally on a more intimate scale. It may be photographs of wildlife or a clump of fall leaves caught in the glistening waters of a rushing stream. Nature photography often relies on chance, or serendipity, and pictures are found while enjoying a hike in the woods or a stroll down the beach. Nature can also be an excellent source of abstract forms; images made in that frame of mind become metaphors for a grander design, or touch emotions not usually engendered by the subject’s face value.

Landscape and nature studies have always been an important part of photography The earliest book of photographs by one of the pioneers of photography, Fox-Talbot, was entitled “The Pencil of Nature.” Nature as metaphor was a major theme of photographers such as Minor White, Walter Chappell and Edward Weston. The linkage of nature photography with conservation became the life’s work of Ansel Adams. Many activist-photographers carry on this work today.

Image and text copyright George Schaub 2009. All rights reserved.

Digital Infrared Black and White

Infrared light is by definition “invisible” light that resides above the threshold of human vision. It is not Kirilian, or aura photography, though it sometimes creates an ethereal, ghost-like representation that can be quit seductive. Like most things photographic that appear visionary, there is a bit of science behind the magic. This involves disabling the “normal” operation of the camera to allow infrared level light to record, something that is usually blocked by an IR cutout filter placed in the light path from lens to sensor. It turns out that without this internal filter the digital image would be “polluted” with IR, and would, for most people, create less than desirable image quality. In truth, digtal sensors often have considerably more infrared sensitivity than you might think.

In most cameras the filter is “hard wired” into the construction, which means that if you remove it you now have a fulltime IR capable camera that cannot be returned to normal use. This must be done by a service company that knows its stuff; it’s something you cannot do on your own. Some cameras come IR dedicated, mostly those used by law enforcement agencies for gathering forensic evidence. A very few can be converted in do-it-yourself fashion, such as the Sigma model DSLRs, where you can remove the lens and literally pick out the IR filter (which doubles as a dust filter), albeit very carefully, and reinsert it later. Those who are true IR fans would do well to investigate the cameras used by police departments; as of this writing Fuji makes a few such models.

Another step that needs to be taken to capture true IR images is placing a filter over the camera lens, something that is uncommon for most digital photography (as most filter effects can be added later in software.) If you shoot IR without any filters with an altered camera you will get a sort of reverse pollution of visible light, something that certainly diminishes the IR effect.

There are three types of basic filters that can be used, with one being quite expensive and, in my experience, unnecessary to gain the effect. The filters used include a red filter, something black and white film photographers might still have in their closet, (a Wratten 25A), plus two filters that block more and more visible light and do not allow for image recording below the infrared threshold. The two other filters, which go under various names and codes according to the filter maker’s markings, block light under 700 nanometers and 830 nanometers (and some higher) on the spectrum; in other words, progressively more IR light and much less visible light. The highest blocking filter (830nm and above) gets very expensive and is only for well-heeled purists and aficionados.

The effects achieved with the two blocking filters can be amazing but you cannot see what’s going on in the viewfinder, which means that you have to frame and focus prior to placing the filter over the lens and making the exposure. Some photographers view over the top of the camera for an approximate framing. The red filter, while not as “pure” lets you at least see what’s going on in the finder. If you are an IR fan then the blockers will be your choice—those who dabble in it, as I do, will find the red filter is fine.

Exposure is unusual as well. It has nothing to do with making readings and using metering patterns, since you are not dealing entirely or at all with visible light. It’s a strange concept, but that’s also part of the IR mystique—being out of normal bounds of having to read exposures and balance highlight and shadow. The best way to work IR exposures is to start at somewhere around f/11 at 1/125 second and then review the image after exposure and adjust accordingly. The view in the finder is quite different than you’d expect, so you will have to gain experience with what a processed IR image looks like according to a certain exposure level. This is the only way you will be able to make predictions about what the correct exposure might be, or at least what it should look like upon playback.

There is something in IR known as a “focus offset”, which means IR light bends a bit differently and may arrive at the sensor plane in different ways than visible focusing. This will become critical when doing close-ups, but does not have much effect, in my experience, for photos made beyond six feet. I often shoot at f/11 or narrower with a fairly wide angle lens just to take up that slack, changing the shutter speed accordingly.

The procedure some use for shooting is to purchase a filter that is a bit larger than the largest diameter lens they own (thus it can be used on all the lenses owned). They first frame and focus the tripod-mounted camera, then hold the filter over the lens when the exposure is made. This procedure takes care as it can result in some light leak from the corners, but that is usually eliminated with some practice in proper holding of the filter. Exposure is set manually. Some bold photographers shoot handheld in the same fashion, viewing over the top of the camera to yield an approximate framing and shooting a bit wider than they normally would for a “fudge” factor. They figure they can apply a more specific cropping later.

IR black and white has always been near and dear to landscape photographers, and now that high-speed IR black and white film has been discontinued by major film makers digital seems the only way to go.

Travel Photography

"You certainly don't present a negative, or even a real attitude about a place. There's no point for a travel photographer to show refugee camps. If you can show them as romantic hill tribes, fine. There's a difference between travel photography and photojournalism, and a different function to each."

Lisl Dennis, Interview, 1985

A person may live and work in the most inspiring locale in the world and rarely pick up a camera. If another person travels to that area they may be so captivated that their camera rarely leaves their hands. Travel reveals "the shock of the new", while an inhabitant may have become so visually jaded that they are blind to the amazing people, places and things around them.

The impetus to photograph when traveling may come from the need to bring back "trophy" pictures (the "I was there" shot), or simply from the fact that new places, faces, architecture and landscapes tend to open the "photographic eye". That inspiration is often enough to get the creative juices flowing.

Much of travel photography is the record shot, a virtual inventory of the obligatory sites on a tour. While there's nothing wrong with this, such shots are readily available at the local souvenir store, or from the host of travel sites that dot the web and that seem to cover virtually every popular destination. Although some record shots are inevitable, memorable travel pictures are those that take a more personal, interpretive approach to the subject matter.

The degree to which this can be done is often determined by the journey's itinerary. Covering eight countries in five days will often yield photographs that seem to be no more than a glance back at subjects that whiz by. Immersion in an area usually results in better pictures, as there is time to study and observe subjects. That study may simply be noticing when light is best on certain scenes and shooting accordingly. Observing the flow of life in the locale, and photographing people in the market, during festivals or simply going about the business of their daily lives can become the real treasures of the travel experience.

Ever since its invention, photography has been tied to travel. When getting about was a more difficult task, only available to a small segment of the population, photography served as the eyes of the world on exotic and far-flung regions. Pioneering photographers traveled around the world to bring back pictures for exhibitions, books, parlor stereographs, and later, for newspapers and magazines. When cameras and film became more portable at the end of the nineteenth century, and travel became more accessible to more people, the linkage between the voyage and the camera was sealed. Today it is almost unthinkable to travel without a camera as part of the luggage.

Both professional and avid amateurs provide many of the photographs for today's travel industry, either on assignment from tourist boards and travel publications, or as so-called "stock" photographers, who shoot on speculation. A large network of picture agencies sell stock images to the travel industry and magazines. Freelancers try to combine business with pleasure by making travel pictures when on vacation or weekends, or plan elaborate trips that are actually self-assigned photographic essays. The sheer volume of photographers engaged in this industry makes for a competitive marketplace, one where the ability to combine a travel "lifestyle" with technical excellence is key.

The eyewitness type of travel photography is a major part of the shots made today. Click on a hotel booking site and you will see dozens of images of cities and towns, along with actual shots of the hotel made by travelers (often quite different from the hotel supplied shots) and even shots of particular rooms and the view from that room! One of my favorite to browse, and the use fro booking advice from fellow travelers is http://www.tripadvisor.com.

The digital SLR is the camera of choice for those seeking to make more than snapshots on trips, although cameras with excellent optics and high megapixel counts can work as well, although care must be taken not to shoot at too high an ISO. For competitive reasons, pros often use full-frame DSLRs with high megapixel counts. In general, zoom lenses are good choices for travel, as they cut down on the amount of gear. While tastes differ, as does the requirements of different locales, a good lens kit should include a zoom in the 28-80mm and one in the 70-210mm range; this covers most picture needs. A small portable flash also comes in handy.

When traveling always carry-on the gear and especially the “take” after the trip is done. Never, ever pack anything of value in checked baggage. Personal experience has shown me that should you have something “lost” when in checked baggage results in a round of finger pointing on the part of the authorities that brings you through a circle and back again.

There are a host of accessories for the traveling photographer, including camera bag-sized tripods, photo vests, hip cases and "fanny packs". Small beanbags for steadying the camera on virtually any surface during long exposures can come in handy. While traveling with a camera is fun, lugging too much gear will always get in the way of the travel experience.

Image and text copyright George Schaub 2009. All rights reserved.

Where Does Film Go From Here?

I recently got to thinking about how future generations might come to regard film, as a sort of an odd way to store images that faded, got scratched and in the year 2020 became a neigh-on impossible format from which to make prints. Sure, there is an image on that base, but what do you do with the darn things? It’s amazing just how quickly many folks are losing touch with the film world, and indeed never experienced it in the first place. I know that more and more schools are dropping their darkroom and even film-shooting classes, and that the art of printing using anything but an inkjet and digital files will soon be an “alternative process” that gets as much use as the gum bichromate or cyanotype processes (see, you forgot those already.)

While many people in the industry were “raised” on film, we’re seeing more and more companies coming into the fold who have little or no clue about the film realm at all, and who look at you funny if you raise the medium in discussions. Take a look at the roster of companies who exhibit at photo trade shows and you’ll see lots from the computer world, those whose medium is bits and bytes and not silver halide. Look at categories like bags and tripods and flash and you’ll see that most companies are using what they must consider the magic bullet of “digital” in their product branding. What pray tell, might a digital tripod be? And any camera bag without a slot for a laptop is simply not considered viable anymore.

There’s no question why all this is happening—digital cameras have taken off like a shot and the vast majority of new cameras sold are digital. Film sales and processing have fallen off a cliff, at least in terms of year-to-year sales, and there hasn’t been any development money dedicated to film SLRs in many a year. Indeed, the only new film cameras are single-use, and even those are very few and far between.

What might have held digital up in the past, at least in relation to the convenience factor, has been resolved. The infrastructure is now in place for easy printing, what with kiosks, Internet and at-home printing solutions. And even if the image starts out on a piece of film there’s little doubt that somewhere in the chain it will be converted to binary code.

Digital has unlocked a potential for images and their use that film never or rarely achieved. The ability to share and distribute images grows each month, with web based setups that will allow people to share “content” anytime, anywhere and with anyone. An amateur in Australia can as easily show off images to someone in Holland as they can send an e-mail. Internet picture site owners talk of millions upon millions of participants, with the number of images growing exponentially each month. Photographers are routinely buying desktop storage units that can hold 500 gigabytes of image files.

So, where does this leave film? Clearly the number of companies making film has shrunk over the past years. Yet, when you talk to those still in the business of coating by the mile and selling by the yard they don’t see the loss of their competition as increasing their own film sales. Perhaps there might be some uptick, but in general the hemorrhaging of film sales in general has overcome any gains one might expect by the exiting of two major film manufacturers. Indeed, the net loss of film sales overall has continued.

Yet, yet…here’s no question that there are still millions of film users, and hopefully they will always have something to load in their cameras. It was thought that the so-called “developing nations” such as China and India would be film buyers for years to come, but this has not come to pass. The rise of the middle class in both countries and their quick leap into technology makes this market a less viable bastion for film’s survival than anyone predicted. On the other hand, a growing legion of young photographers is beginning to embrace film again. True, some gets loaded into toy cameras for so-called “alternative” looks, but some black and white silver shooters and printers are hanging in there and some schools refuse, rightfully so, to put their darkroom gear in the dumpster.

The debate of film versus digital has continued, despite the all-digital trend. There are many who point out the vapor-like quality of digital, and the fact that their film cameras are still quite viable after even ten or twenty years of use. And of course, there’s the film “quality”, the look and feel of the medium itself, and the beauty of the silver print. No argument there. But in this world it’s not always about people’s tastes or their likes or dislikes—it’s what the industries making the products deem the proper place for their R&D, marketing and distribution dollars. And as far as the photo industry is concerned it would seem that, to any objective observer, film is on the way out.

Yes, there will always be some film offered and made, but the selection will shrink as the years progress. Now that users of digital cameras can dial in any ISO, any contrast and saturation, color or monochrome and indeed almost any level of sharpening and color response (which is after all the attributes of a distinct film emulsion) why have so many brands and types of film on the shelf, or at home in the refrigerator? And how many photographers can ever again take a picture again without looking at the back of the camera to see how it turned out?

Images and text, copyright George Schaub 2009