Serious art?

 Photography  9 Responses »
Jul 092008
 


Yesterday, I was listening to NPR, National Public Radio. Normally, I don’t listen to it, but my car is in the shop right now and I have a rental, so no satellite radio. :-( I was listening to a program called All Things Considered, I believe. The topic was a Brazilian artist, whose name escapes me. This artist, first name Romario, I believe, is becoming more popular because some of his art is being displayed inside of museum; formerly, most of his art was commissioned for use in shopping malls and various outdoor venues. Among this type of artist, he was well known and sought after by shopping mall architects, builders, etc.

When asked about how he felt about his art finally getting displayed in a museum, his simple reply was: “That’s nice, but it’s not necessary. I like for my art to be where people can see it and get something from it.” He went on to say that he used to do all of his work on the sidewalks and that is what gave him joy and that shopping malls, in his opinion, where the perfect venue for his work.

Later in the program, they had some quotes from different art critics who said that finally his work is becoming ‘respectable’, ‘worthwhile’, and ‘serious’ because it is getting accepted in museums. However, there were some dissenters who said that his work was a ‘derivative’ of this person or that person, blah, blah, blah.

It’s interesting how people can attribute the worth of art based on where it is being shown. Same work, different venue, different ‘value’. Critics are such a joke! I’m glad that this guy has his a good head on his shoulders and doesn’t get caught up in those foul winds that are being spawned from the mouth of the critic!

 Posted by Paul at 11:17 am

Musings on the D700

 Photography, Spirituality  7 Responses »
Jul 072008
 


Back in September of 2007, I wrote about the exciting new Nikon D3. After all, it had been a long while since Nikon had introduced a new camera AND it was their first full frame camera; this, after letting Canon have control of the full-frame (FX) market for about 3 years. Well, the boys and girls at Nikon have stepped up and announced another full-frame camera. The Nikon D700!

The D700 looks like a direct competitor to Canon’s 5D. A digital camera with a full sized 35mm sensor at a price of about $2,999, somewhere between the D300 ($1799) and the D3 ($4999). Not bad at all! It, again, kind of raises my geek alarm. :-) I hate when that thing goes off because it keeps ringing, and ringing, and ringing!

But, again, for those of us already invested in number of DX lenses, the transition would be a bit costly, assuming that we wanted to take advantage of the FX sensor. The D700 provides 12 MP, full frame, or 5 MP (DX). Kind of seems like a waste to shoot with DX lenses on this baby.

The main reason for having an FX sized sensor is to shoot ultra-wide angle lenses such as the 16mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, or the 12-24mm f/2.8, each bringing their share of pain to the wallet! Another advantage of the larger sensor is lower noise at high ISO; however, I wouldn’t think that this would be a primary reason to spend an additional $1,200 over the price of a D300.

Certainly, I would consider purchasing this camera if I had all non-DX lenses, but the opposite is true; merely forking over to Nikon another $2999 of hard-earned cash is not the only issue. Another issue is the support crew that I would need to buy with it … my same reasons for not getting a D3. Sigh… Perhaps when all prosumer cameras are full frame and the cost of those lenses go down, maybe, just maybe.

I’m interested to see what this new introduction will do to the price of existing Nikon lenses that are used with 35mm film cameras. They will work on both the D3 and the D700. By the introduction of this camera, I would suspect that suddenly these lenses would become more valuable, even though they are not auto focus.

Depreciation costs
Lastly, after the introduction of the D300, I watched in horror as the value of my D2x plummeted like a lead balloon. Down! Down! Down, it went. Down to where a D2x in excellent+ shape with low mileage (shutter actuations), say < 20,000, might fetch, if you’re lucky, slightly over $1,200. A well used one, still in excellent shape, with shutter actuations of 40,000+ may get you $1,000, if you are lucky! Mind you, Nikon’s shutters are rated at 150,000 actuations MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures), meaning that about on average, shutters fail at 150,000.

Probably most of the people who are looking at these numbers will not even come close to exercising the camera to failure. My camera has 40,000 actuations in 24 months, which is about 1,665 pictures/month or about 55/day. Even at that rate, it would take about 5.5 years to bring the shutter to failure by using the ‘remaining’ 110,000 shots, assuming that it would break at that time.

I wonder what the introduction of the D700 will do to D3 sales. Hmmm. I don’t think that they’ll affect D300 sales much. That’s a different group.

Oh well. Something to think about. I think that the folks at Nikon are doing the right thing in taking back the market. Maybe I’ll jump on the bandwagon when this current crop of cameras start depreciating … and they will!

 Posted by Paul at 8:36 pm

For the Newbies: Shutter Speed

 For The Newbies, Techy Stuff  2 Responses »
Jul 022008
 


In a previous post, I spoke about the aperture. Now, I’d like to talk about the other half of the exposure dynamic duo, shutter speed. Whereas aperture had everything to do with the lens, nothing to do with the camera. Shutter speed is the opposite. It has everything to do with the camera, nothing to do with the lens. OK, view camera boys, back off! I’m talking SLRs! :-)

But first, I have to answer a question: Yes? You in the back! … *groan* No, shutter speed has nothing to do with wind velocity, hurricanes, or wooden shutters! Sheesh!

A major disadvantage of some of the point and shoot camera crowd is a lack of ability to control the shutter speed or aperture. Basically, you get what the camera gives you. The camera works to get you a clear picture where everything is in crystal-clear focus. But, what if that is not what you want?

Blurring on purpose? Absurd!!!
The above picture, my son’s basketball team running ‘suicides’, was done using a method called panning. You hold the camera at eye-level and rotate at the waist while following the action. You need to use a slow shutter speed, in this case 1/8 of a second, in order to get the blurred effect. This effect gives the picture a sense of motion.
What is shutter speed?
Shutter speed is the amount of time expressed in seconds, or fractions of seconds, that the shutter curtain is open and allowing light to fall upon the sensor or film. My Nikon D300 has shutter speeds ranging from 30 seconds, on the long end, all the way up to 1/8000 second, on the high end. There is even a ‘bulb’ setting that allows you to hold the shutter open for as long as you want. This can make for some interesting night shots. Exposure = quantity (aperture) + time (shutter speed).

Fast shutter speeds
Higher shutters speeds, generally speaking, are about 1/250 second or greater. Higher shutter speeds allow you to freeze action. This comes in very handy when you are shooting sports, or some other fast paced action that you’d like to freeze. You can capture a moment in time, like the picture of this diver to the right, at the point of no return. Notice how the water droplets at the bottom of his shorts are frozen in time.

Slow shutter speeds
Slower shutter speeds allow you to capture motion over time. It gives your image an overall artistic feel. My favorite motion studies are of water. I like to set my camera upon the tripod and expose an image for multiple seconds. Of course, you have to have a fairly low light level to do this, or a filter that reduces the amount of light coming in so as not to overexpose (let in too much light) the picture. In this photo, to the left, the shutter has been left open for about 20 seconds. Everything that is stationary, rocks, plants, etc. remains in sharp focus. That which is moving, the water, takes on a pleasant blurred effect. This type of shot can only be accomplished by using a steady tripod, or some type of camera support.

Without a tripod, save for panning, slow shutter speeds can be a disadvantage because they record camera shake. You may have the hands of a surgeon, but surely you cannot hold perfectly still. Your breathing, heartbeat, and nervous system all contribute to camera shake. Additionally, where you stand, how you stand, the wind, etc. make their own contributions to this vibration. Lenses with image stabilization help to reduce this vibration, but are no substitute for a good tripod, but that’s another article all together.

It’s rather difficult to get sharp, hand-held pictures at the lower shutter speeds. A rule of thumb for selecting a shutter speed is that you shouldn’t shoot at speeds less than 1/focal length. So, if you have a 50mm lens, then don’t hand hold at less that 1/50 second. The longer the lens, the higher the needed shutter speed. A 500mm lens would require at least 1/500 of a second. Personally, I like to double that number, and prefer not to hand hold under 1/(2 * focal length). Mind you, only a very small percentage of my shots are taken hand held, save for sports.

Well, I cannot beat this horse anymore. So, I’ll just have to get another one ride off into the sunset. Until next time! (No horses were harmed in the making of this post!)

 Posted by Paul at 12:00 am

Missing pieces.

 Photography  5 Responses »
Jul 012008
 

It all started with watching an Ansel Adams video. After watching that video, I watched more and more of them until I ran into a site, Cybelephotography’s Channel. I stayed here for quite a while because, quite frankly, I was captivated by the number of outstanding images that I saw.

I don’t make a big deal about being black. I think that there’s already to much categorization already. Black. White. Mexican. Muslim, etc. You can hardly watch the news without being subjected to a race/religion/nationality adjective. I find it boring, unnecessary, and downright derisive most times.

However, as I looked through the images of such greats as Harry Callahan, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and other people photographers, I noticed that something was missing. People like me. I think that inherently, people tend to stick to subjects, or people, that they are familiar with. There is a great amount of fear in the unfamiliar.

I’ll admit to ignorance about black photographers because, quite frankly, no one ever talks about them and I never made an effort to find them; however, in looking at the works of James Van der Zee, and Gordon Parks, a former Vogue and Life magazine photographer, I was impressed and inspired. Not for something so shallow as skin color, but because I saw the history of my people in their pictures. There was some cultural relevance. It felt good.

While listening to one of many podcasts that you were so kind to recommend, I heard one photographer say that he believes that one essential ingredient for improvement of your own photography is to view and collect the work of others that you admire. He said that the more you look, the more ideas that you get. It’s an interesting point of view. I don’t own any photographs, neither prints nor posters of other photographers, but I saw a few that I liked in these collections.

I will probably look for some biographies, picture books, etc. It just seems to make sense. This will more than likely be my sole collection, but it will certainly add a bit of diversity to my viewing.

 Posted by Paul at 12:00 am
Page 2 of 212
© 2011 Paul Lester Photo Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Bad Behavior has blocked 467 access attempts in the last 7 days.