Reading Stories & Telling Stories

I posted a while back how pictures do not have to live on their own. Joined together they create storylines, plots, and tales. As a photographer (or as someone who just takes pictures), telling a story should be the point. Wether (how do you spell that, my mind is drawing a blank. On my dictionary its telling me its spelled right but means a "castrated ram". ) its the story of children making cookies or a child reading a book, when you are photographing the scene have in mind what you want to be part of the story.

Zevi was reading some books to himself (it's quite funny how he does so), and I wanted to capture it in a series. I tried to make each photo tell a different aspect, and to that each one should add something to the mix.

It took a lot of whittling down (with some help from some kindly folks on the forums), and here is the end result.

I'd really like to do this sort of thing for clients. Just tag along on an excursion (or even at their house) and just tell the story of their everyday, mundane (yet delightful) world.

On another note these Beautrix Potter books are wonderful. The language it uses is just magnificent.

"...and 'ticed him to eat quantities"

"No breadth at all, and cut on the cross; it is no breadth at all; tippets for mice and ribbons for mobs! for mice!"

Ah, the good old days.

Stops, Focal Lengths, and Sensor Sizes, Oh My!

Warning: For geeks and nerds only. If you do not follow into one of those categories fell free to scroll down to the photos below.

A few weeks ago I received a telegraph from China (read all about it here). I thought I answered his question (or what I thought the question was) pretty well. But a few days ago I received yet another telegram:

BIG STOP STOP WITTLE STOP STOP NOT ARWYAS SAME STOP STOP SOMETIMES MORE STOP MUCH TIMES LESS HEAVY LESS LIGHT MORE PHONE MANY MORE STOP WHY STOP NORMAL NOT WIDE NOT STOP PREASE HEWP GOING CLAZY LOOLOO STOP

Wow dude, you couldn't be any more clyptic?

Anyways I figured I'd talk a bit more about stops and maybe this Chinese bloke will reverse his course to the clazy house.

Two numbers to remember 2 and 1.4.

To change your ISO or shutter speed by a stop you double or half.

To change your aperture by a top you multiply by or divide by 1.4. The reason being is that the aperture refers to the size (diameter) of the diaphragm (the opening) of the lens which is a circle. When you multiply the diameter of a circle by 1.4 you get double the surface area, or in this case double the amount of light coming in.

Very exciting. So you go from 1-1.4-2-2.8-4-5.6-8-11-16 etc.

Why would you want less light coming in? Good question. A. Most lens get sharper when you close them down a few stops. B. More depth of field. C. Slower shutter speed.

Another thing that changes in increments of 1.4 is the focal length of lenses. 24mm-35mm-50mm-85mm (well not exactly), 100, 135, 200, 300, 400, 600 etc. the reason being is that, again since we are dealing with a circle the area covers halfs every time it's multiplied by 1.4. So a 35mm lens covers half the area of a 24mm lens.

Yet another aspect changes with every multiple of 1.4 (and this one is actually important) is the Depth of Field. A 24mm lens at f/2.8 has double the DOF of a 35mm lens at 2.8 and quadruple the DOF of a 50mm @ 2.8. So if you want to blur out that background you could spend $1400 on a 50mm 1.2 or $300 on an 85mm f/1.8 and the background will essentially be more blurred with the 85mm @ f/1.8 than with the 50mm A f/1.2 (and the 85 will probably be sharper as its much easier to make a 1.8 lens than a 1.2 lens.).

While we're (we being me because I have absolutely no clue who would actually get this far into this ramble) on the DOF topic I have to mention the sensor size. Each time the sensor grows by 1.4 it halves the DOF and the FOV (field of view) goes down by 1.4 (an 70mm f/2.8 lens would act like a 50mm f/2). So a 50mm f/1.4 lens on a d90 (Nikons cropped sensor) would act like a 75mm f/2.1 lens (x 1.5). And a 80mm f/2 lens on a 645 camera would act like a 50mm f1.25 lens on a full frame sensor (such as the d700). And a 300mm f/4.5 lens on a 8x10 view camera would be like a 50mm f/.75 on a full frame camera. (this is all in regards to frame of view and depth of field. Exposures don't change with sensor size or focal length).

The point being? Have fun!

As we were.

I had this awesome shoot this past week, with this great family. I was a bit nervous about the timing, as I usually like the late afternoon and am not that familiar with the harsher light of not-so-late afternoon. 'Twas tough in the beginning but we persevered (and I perspired) and we really had fun. I even got to use my new lens bought earlier in the day. A manual focus 105mm f/2.5. Yummy. And I tried a fake tilt shift.

Who's in charge?! (and no one's on second). Another pre-upshernish shoot.

Sunny, Warm Southern California has been acting awfully of late. Seems to be confusing itself with Cloudy, Cold Northern California. We planned this wonderful beach shoot for what should have been a semi-warm-semi-cool late afternoon. It turned out to be windy and cold (and windy). Kiddoes didn't like it. And no one was going even near the water. So a beach aspect of the shoot was abandoned a bit, but we still had fun (I did at least) and we got some great shots. This was my first time on the Santa Monica pier in somewhere in the vicinity of a decade. Holy Moly are there a lot of tourists!! With camera! Expensive cameras! Someone was even doing this professional looking documentary with a Nikon D3S and a 70-200 (no clue why he wasn't using Canon. Who shoots pro video on a Nikon?). Note to newbies with fancy cameras. Keep your lens cap in your pocket, not on your lens. Note #2 just because the store says you need a $20 filter on your $90 lens, don't listen to them.

All in all a great, fun, windy and cold time was had by all. (And shooting birds in flight with a 24mm 1.4 is an exercise in futility.)

After having a talk with the big boss about the recent weather, he seems to have fixed things up. It seems it was all just a big misunderestimation.

Don't Let Your Ambition Get In The Way

I have ambitions. Some loftier than others. And sometimes I let my ambitions stop me from being productive.

For example, I have ambitions for this blog. I want it to be informative, interesting, humorous, quirky. I want the photos to rock and the words to rock along. But sometimes I don't feel neither informative nor humorous. Nor interesting or quirky. So I won't post. Or I'll procrastinate (I love procrastinating. I'm pro-procrastinating).

No more! I shan't be a slave to my ever-changing altruistic dreamy ambitions. I shall strive to be mundane, boring and ordinary. At least until I get some stuff done.

Say no more. Here are some wonderful captures of some wonderful faces. Enjoy.

Perfectly Normal (another pre-upshernish shoot)

I love normal. It just flows. Its natural. Sweet.

I have gone through more 50mm lens than I care to admit. Just for the record:

Canon AF 50mm 1.8 (acted as a 80mm on my cropped sensor Canon)

Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF

Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF-D

Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF-S

Nikon 55 mm 1.2 Auto

Nikon 55mm 2.8 Micro AI-S

Sigma 50mm 1.4

2 Canon 50mm 1.2 FL

Hasseblad 80mm (which acts as a 50mm on a medium format body)

The 50mm lens (on a 35mm body, aka "full frame") gives a "normal" perspective. Not wide angle (dramatic), not telephoto (compressed, sometimes a bit flat), just right. Its actually Goldilocks very favorite focal length (though sometimes she opts for a 35mm).

Every camera company makes a cheap 50mm and most camera bodies used to come with one as their "kit" lens (before zooms were any bit decent).

Problem is I'm having a really tough time finding one that I like (a lot). A great 35mm is easy to find (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, they all have them).

Problems:

Canon 50mm 1.8 doesn't fit on my Nikon and anyways doesn't get really usable until 2.5ish (and it's made like garbage). Nikon 50mm 1.8 has the same issues just is a bit less garbage. Nikon 50mm 1.4D isn't sharp until 2.2 ish and has slightly obnoxious bokeh (pentagonal shaped). Nikon 50mm 1.4G is slow to focus (though very accurate) and isn't as sharp as I wish. Nikon 55 1.2 was the sharpest of the bunch at wide apertures but was really hard to focus due to it's age and the spherical aberrations wide open (and you're always focusing wide open unless you're using live view. Which I don't.). Nikon 2.8 Micro ai-s is sharp, easy to focus and has beautiful bokeh, but its not wide enough (2.8). The Sigma is awesome, sharper than the autofocus Nikons with better bokeh but ridiculously inconsistent autofocus, rendering it almost useless below 2.2 for subjects that don't sit still (i.e. kids). The two canons are manual focus and don't fit on my Nikon and I haven't developed any of the film from the canon film bodies so I can't speak for them. The Hasselblad is sharp as heck but I'm having major issues focussing it.

Does a perfect, large aperture 50mm lens exist? Yes. the problem is it doesn't mount on my cameras, its manual focus (not the end of the world) and it costs $4,999. It's the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH. Unfortunately its out f my price range (not to mention I'd have to buy a $8000 Leica M9 to use the thing).

Okay so what are my other choices. I could give up and just use what I got. I could get the Canon 50mm 1.2L which is pretty darn good, but I'd need a Canon body, which unless I spend $4500 won't autofocus properly (or I could get the Canon 1V which rocks and is only $500, but its film). Or I could pick up a Contax 645 medium format film camera with an 80mm f/2 (in 35mm terms that would be a 50mm with the DOF of a 1.2). But the prices on those have been skyrocketing (on another note I was going to buy one a few months ago for $1600 and was talked out of it. the prices now are around $2800). So I think I'm left with a Mamiya 645 and a 80mm f/1.9. It's manual focus but with that nice huge viewfinder shouldn't be too hard to focus. Now I just have to sell my Hasselblad kit (its on Craigslist if you're interested). Or I could pick up a recent model of the Leica 50mm f/1.4 R which can be adapted to fit on my Nikon, though it's not as great as the M version it's still pretty rad. But that will cost around $1000. Or I could pick up a Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 for under $500, but that's only really sharp in the center and is a bit longer than I'd like. Or the Nikon 50mm 1.2 ai-s which is mighty sharp but very nervous bokeh wide open. Or the Nikon 58mm f1.2 AI-S which is an an outstanding lens but costs around $3000.

Or I could just get over myself and rely on my composing and framing skills to deliver awesome images instead of relying on the unique look of a wide aperture lens. Nah.

//End Rant.

Onto some photos I made (though mostly took) with a wonderful family in Laguna Woods Canyon Park (mostly shot with the aforementioned horribly autofocusing Sigma).

Up North and Black Again (again. This time with a 24mm.)

Every few months I travel up to Northern California for a Kosher cheese run at Rumiano's in Crescent City. It's around 6 hours North of San Fransisco. I usually fly (as I did this time) which doesn't allow me to bring my tripod (unless I shell out $50 bucks, which I'm not willing to do). Crazy airlines. What's even crazier is their carry-on policy. Anything checked costs $25 each way. If your carry-on is too big, they allow you to take it through security and on the tarmac they check it underneath for free. My luggage went underneath but they didn't charge because I "carried it on" to the tarmac. The only loss is the no liquid rule. (They stole my PB + J!!)

The airplane flys into Arcada Airport near Eureka, I rent a car and drive an hour and a half north through the redwoods to Crescent City. On the way theres this tiny town called Trinidad which has the most awesome supermarket. They have a larger selection of organic and healthy food than most health food stores in SoCal (Whole Foods included!). Being as the only food I had was a loaf of homemade sourdough bread (thank you Estee) and some cheese, I filled up on greens, tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, mushrooms, olives, mustard, sesame oil, some (real) soy sauce, a six pack of this awesome beer (forgot the name), and a metal bowl (for the salad). I'm into my food. Added some feta cheese when I got to my motel and voila - a ridiculously amazing salad.

After the supermarket raid, I made my way down to the beach there to dunk my newly purchased bowl in the world's biggest mikvah. Commited dunkage, took a bunch of fotos (way too many wide open at f/1.4. Because I could.), picked up a hitchhiker (he was a student from Albany, and he hitchhiked from Atlanta. He was aiming for Bend, Oregon.) and made my way to my motel to prepare my feast.

I don't take nearly enough non-people pictures. It's nice to be able to take time (to some extent) to compose (a tripod would have really helped). I need to train myself to slow down.

The weather was pretty bleak so the processing kind of reflects my mood then.

For the record, the sign by the elevator reads: "WARNING Please be advised the parking elevator will not operate during a power blackout. Consequently, because we are unsure when a blackout may occur, we suggest that you use the stairs to avoid entrapment."

Right.

The two photos before were shot wide open at 1.4. How cool is that (if you care about such things)?