Stops & Stops and yes, Stops

A few days ago I received this cryptic telegraph from China:

PHOTOGLAPHY MAN STOP I AT DLY CREANERS AND SEE BLOG STOP VELY NICE STOP I WATN KNOW WHAT IS STOP STOP HOPING YOU CAN HEPL STOP UP STOP DOWN STOP OPEN STOP STOP I DNOT GET IT STOP HOP ON STOP STOP STOP ON HOP STOP THIS GETTING BROODY EXPENSIVE STOP MUST USE ACLONYMS STOP PHIFAIFIAGN STOP TY STOP

For the record I don't normally get telegraphs. And while it is an option on my contact me page I never really expected anyone to actually use it. Just goes to show that it's always better to have more options just in case (which is entirely untrue).

And while I'm honored that one would have go through all this trouble to contact me in this way I fail to comprehend exactly what is being requested here. The word STOP seems to be a bit repeated which seems to stress its importance (although, of course, the telegraph operator may have the typing equivalent of Tourette Syndrome, you never know). So I'll pose my own question and answer it (how lame is that?).

What the heck is a stop? I see it in all photography literature. Close down a stop. Up the ISO a stop. Slow the shutter speed a stop. English?

Good question (thank you).

First of all we have to understand an aperture. Every lens lets light through it to the sensor (digital or film) to record a photograph. Every lens allows you to adjust how much light it allows in (either to quicken or slow down the shutter speed, to change the exposure, or for depth of field choices). The apparatus inside the lens which closes down is called an aperture.

The job of this aperture is to stop the light from coming in. Each time you close it down a notch it is called a stop. Stopping down is done in halves (and opening up is done in doubles). Each time you close down a full stop you allow half the amount of light in as before.

On most modern cameras the aperture changing is done from the camera, not the lens.

Okay, so now we know that each stop effectively halves or doubles the light let in. So the beings in charge decided that all three criteria for changing an exposure (ISO, shutter speed an aperture) should be measured in stops. So if you have a correct exposure but you'd like to open up your aperture two stops (for less depth of field) you have to increase your shutter speed or decrease your ISO by two stops (or one of each). If you want to slow down your shutter speed from say 1/30 of a second to 1 second (5 stops: 30-15-8-4-2-1) (say, to blur the motion of water) you'd have to close down your aperture or decrease your ISO by five stops.

(Most modern cameras allow adjustments in half or third stops also.)

Kapish?

On to completely unrelated topics. Mazal Tov to my co-cow-watcher Nechemiah Newman on the birth of a daughter. May the high pitched voice, the mood swings and cuteness balance your 3 crazy (good crazy) boys.

Here's a shoot I did a few months back with them before C's Ushernish.

Yes, I do notice the vast number of "walking away from behind" shots. I'm not sure what's up with that either.

It's an older shoot so the pictures aren't nearly as consistent as I'd like, but Devorah is reading this and I must speak nicely.

This month Baruch Hashem should be quite busy so check back often for new posts.

(And much luck to the chinese dude.)

Levys & Co.

Question:

Howdily-doodily Mr. Photography man person,

I came across your blogididly and you have indeedily-doodily wonderful images.
In my old (but oddly non aging) age, with the grace of G-d I have taken up photography in an attempt to record the life of my wonderful kids (even the one with all that devil hair) before they grow up (which they haven't been able to do in the past 22 years, but one never knows when they'll start), and I wanted to ask how exact-diddly-act-ily do you set focus on an object, lets say a child and the rest is perfect-o-diddlyo blurred out? Okily-dokily, I think that's it for now. Thank you in advance for your reply and for doing the Lords work. Amen.

Your humble servant,
Ned Flanders

Answer:

Hello Ned,

It's nice to hear from you again. It's been what, 17 and half years? Well anyways, I hope you are doing well. To answer your question (its pretty simple, but I am going to make it as complicated as possible):

There are two concepts that come into play. There is subject/background separation and depth of field (from here on called DOF). We'll deal with DOF first.

First of all the definition: Depth of field is how much of the picture is in focus. In simple terms there is (to a certain degree) an ability to set (either in your settings or choice of equipment) how much is in focus. In reality however there is always only one part of the picture in focus (in more accurate terms one distance), however there are degrees of unfocussness or blurriness on the rest. Since the falloff to complete blurriness is not abrupt the DOF is not an exact number. In photographic terms the part of the photo which has acceptable sharpness is called the circle of confusion (i.e. how much of the photo our mind is tricked into seeing as sharp). This depends on three things: How accurate our vision is, the size of the print (or desired viewable screen size), and the viewing distance.

Okay, now that we got that out of the way, there are four things that affect the DOF.

1. Aperture. How much light the lens lets in. The larger the aperture the less is in focus. (For a beginners guide to this stuff check out the pioneer woman's "what the heck is an aperture" series.)

2. Subject to camera distance. The closer the lens is focused the less the DOF is going to be.

3. Focal length. The longer the lens the smaller the DOF at similar apertures (i.e. a 180mm lens @ f/2.8 (that's the aperture) will have less DOF than a 50mm @ f/2.8). Now this will be argued by some for some scientific reason, but for most intents and purposes it's true.

4. Sensor size. Okay this one is a bit tricky. The larger the sensor is (the part of the camera that records the photo, previously known as film) the longer the lens used for the same scene is going to be. I.e. an 80-110mm lens on a medium format camera will give you the same picture as (approximately) a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera (and a 35mm lens on a cropped sensor camera like a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D90) and a 10mm lens on a smaller point and shoot and a 1mm on a camera phone. So for the same scene you'd be using a longer focal length leading to less depth of field.

Got it?

Okay, now there is also subject/background separation which is affected by two things (one way more than the other)

1. Distance from subject to background. The further away the background is the less it will be in focus.

2. Lens. Some lenses render the out of focus (OOF) areas differently, sometimes leading to more perceived separation.

Conclusion:

If you are looking for that cool narrow DOF you want the camera with the biggest sensor, a long lens, a wide aperture, and a close distance to your subject.

The cheapest option: Get a Nikon f100 - $200 (film camera) and a few manual focus lens (50mm f/1.4, a 80mm f/2, a 105mm f/2.5 and a 180mm f/2.8 are all awesome lens under $200 each).

Most feasible option: Nikon D90 - $500 used (cropped sensor, i.e. slightly smaller than a 35mm film) and a 50mm 1.8 Auto Focus lens ($80 used) and a 85mm f/1.8 ($300 used, awesome lens) (the D90 doesn't play nicely with manual focus lens. Big shame).

Better: Nikon D7000 (cropped sensor, i.e. slightly smaller than a 35mm film) for $1000 (ouch) and the previously mentioned manual focus lens.

Best (if you really know what you want): Canon 5D ($900 used) and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ($400 used, make sure it focuses properly).

The real question is: Who am I writing this for (the answer: myself). For more geeky articles (way more geeky) see Roger Cicala's articles on Lensrentals.com

I really should put up examples, but I'm a bit (read: ridiculously over) tired. (If you're interested, here is a a previous post mostly shot with the aforementioned 180mm f/2.8 (manual focus)). So I'm posting a recent session instead (ironically mostly shot with a 35mm lens which naturally has a lot of DOF).

Enjoy!

Random Fact: Half of these kids (maybe not exactly half) were from Holland and didn't speak a word of english (though they were ridiculously well behaved). My Yiddish didn't work too well either.

Have a wonderful DOF with nice OOF.

Oscar + Sharon = Awesomeness {Orange County Jewish Wedding Photographer}

Wow. This was a while in the making. I shot this wedding last August (or somewhere around then), and just recently finished culling, processing and editing (I have gotten much faster since then). Almost every picture went into photoshop and I didn't know then that wedding pictures (or any event pictures for that matter) need to have consistent processing as they are usually presented together. So after I finished these I went back and redid them to match a bit better (especially the black and white conversions which were all over the place). Lesson learned.

Actually being my first wedding there were many, many lessons learned. Close down, move in, move out, check your exposure compensation, spot meter, fill flash, watch your remaining shots available on the card (biggie) etc. etc.

Sharon and Oscar were wonderful to work with. Oscar used to shoot weddings back in the medium format film days and helped me a bit with some lighting tips and such. Sharon had this awesome gown and Henna markings going on, and her family was really fun to shoot. (And the wine was good.)

The wedding was outdoors (quite a challenge for me) at Chabad of West Orange County in Huntington Beach.

Overall, while I see many things that I could have done better with I think I did a pretty good job for my first.

Thank you Oscar & Sharon for believing in me (even though I warned against it) and Carol for always vouching for me.

Warning: A lot of photos coming up.

WAPF + NTK + Jewlicious

In the past year and a half (or so) my wife (the fetching Mrs. Berkowitz) and I have been getting into a very healthy and organic lifestyle. We are very into traditional foods and food preparation and are very much of the opinion that food is more than the sum of its parts. Estee ferments much of our food, makes ridiculously awesome sourdough bread (ingredients: Flour, Water and a bit of Olive Oil), soaks all of our grains, and ferments deliciously effervescent Kombucha. We stay as far away as we could from processed foods, white flour, sugar and any refined oils. We love our saturated fats, whole raw milk, and succulent meats. We do not count calories, vitamins or any other attempt to boil down our nutrient needs to a number game. We don't read the nutrition "facts" we read ingredients. This is something I really believe in and will write more about some other time.

One of the people who helped us very much along the way is fermenter extraordinaire, maker of Kombucha, water conservationist, blogger, Yahoo group starter and repairer of worlds: Uri Laio.

Recently I had the opportunity to photograph a workshop of his at the Jewlicious festival in Long Beach. Twas a fun workshop with fun people. I give myself a blessing that all of my photoshoots should be this much fun.

All shot with my trusty Nikon D700 and new, old, new (my second, both bought used) 35mm f/2 el cheapo el awesomo lens.

Enjoy!

Have some fun!

From the Mailbox.

Question:

Dear Za Man,

I am ardent reader of your gracious blog and am in most awesome awe of you're photographic eye. I am in quandary and have questions about photographic field in general and in particles about photographing children. I see that in past you have been kind to have posted readers questions a long with you're wonder responses. If you would answer my quandary I would greatly be in eternal debt and much thanks,

Tandala Mkubwa

SP I engaged use of Google Translate for this letter. Please apologies for any errors.

Answer:

Dear Tandala,

Thank you for your readership and kind words. The first rule in photography in general and in particular when dealing with children, is that everyone involved (kids, parents, photographer) must be having fun. In my opinion this is even more important than equipment, technical prowess, lighting etc. While one definitely can produce stunning results while having an absolutely awful time, the chances are slim.

So next time you head for a photoshoot the last thing you want to tell your kids is "we are going to be taking pictures. You must listen to everything the scary bearded guy says or else you don't get dessert". Instead try: "hey sammy boy, we are heading to the park to have an awesome time. We are gonna go on the slides, the swings and if the weather is right we might even get to try out that kite we got for your birthday! There's gonna be this cool hipster with a camera and he's going to take pictures of us having the best time ever, and if you're nice he might even let you take some pics!!".

Obviously that's not always possible. Sometimes you're all dressed up on the way to grandmas for dinner and you really want to squeeze in some shots before you get there. Make sure it's worth it...

Here's a shoot I did some time back with that last scenario. It started with a one of the daughters waking up in the car and freaking out (though she was pretty cute about it). Eventually she had some fun and we ended up with some great pics. It helped that the kids are absolutely dolls (and the parents are pretty neat too).

As the photographer in this case I should have prepped the parents a little better. Next time.

And the pics:

Storytelling & Telling Stories

A picture is worth a thousand words.

What about two pictures?

When I started out with photography I was so excited about what a little knowledge along with a capable camera (and photoshop!) could do that I got lost in each picture. Each photo was tweaked, optimized, leveled, curved, balanced, straightened and cropped to its ultimate.

I wasn't in touch with what a picture is: a moment in time. And if the moment is taken on its own without context, it becomes lonely, shy, introverted and pimply. In short it shuts down. Becomes silent. And what good does a silent picture do?

Each picture tells its own story. And because of my workflow (editing each picture separately, with completely different outcomes) the pictures look great one by one, but dont fit together at all.

Two pictures aren't worth two thousand words. They are worth one million. Pictures that work together weave stories, express emotions and capture feelings.

Recently I've been working on telling stories.

What's yours?

We (the extended Berkowitz family) have a get together every month or so. Last week we hosted and here is the story (it's a bit long. I have to work on telling the story in fewer words (but not too few)).

Enjoy.