Make the pictures speak

"You are not going to be in the room when people look at your pictures. Your picture has to speak for itself"

Joe McNally

That's a quote from Joe McNally's book 'The Moment It Clicks'. I have just found that one out myself, but it took reading those words in a book for me to realize that realization. I had my first 'exhibition' few weeks ago. Lots of people came to see my work as part of the Hackney Wicked festival few weeks ago. It was a brilliant time - I never realised how self-obsessed I had become since I started calling myself a photographer. That's the main thing I noticed when frolicking amongst the guests in our improvised gallery.

The other - more puzzling - thing for me was that people were generally interested in different pictures than I was ready to tell a story about. It's McNally's little piece of wisdom that made everything cristal clear for me. It is not the pictures that have a strong memory for me that are interesting to others, it is the pictures that bring interesting memories to other people that are the most fascinating.

I am not sure how this 'heureka moment' will affect my shooting, but it is surely going to influence the way I think about picking the pictures that are going to be shown to others from pictures that mean a lot to me.

Reflective vs. Shoot-through Umbrellas vs. Softbox

As all strobists do, I experiment with light modifiers. One that I have not tried yet is a softbox. Atlanta-based photographer Zack Arias has a great demonstration of the difference in light coming from a shoot-through umbrella, reflective umbrella and a softbox.

His 5-part tutorial on white backgrounds is great too.

ProPhotoLife

These videos are really useful for relative beginners (like myself) to see the box-standard studio setups. The guy's website has links to images and text.

It's at least a weekend's worth of stuff to try out.

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 is my main lens when shooting sports. It is a handy reach for a gym (Roller Darby) or a dirtjump/BMX track. Aperture of f/2.8 means that shooting at ISO800 in a badly-lit gym will often enough give me acceptably short times to freeze action with shutter speed and/or use flashes at lower power (so they recycle quicker).

The focal range of 50-150mm on a Nikon DX camera is the same as a 75-225mm on a full-frame (35mm), which is pretty much the standard sports telephoto range all the way from film times - but with this lens it comes in a surprisingly compact package! The price you pay for weight savings is that the lens is DX-only (Sigma call it DC). The HSM version auto-focuses even on Nikon D40/x/60 cameras.

When buying this lens I was replacing the Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 VR which I was disappointed with for a number of reasons. You get what you pay for with that lens, at least in build and physical construction. I dunno why I was expecting a pro lens at a hundred'n'fiddy squid. Aperture of 5.6 is useless for trying to freeze fast moving people with low shutter speed (VR or no-VR has no effect on that). I needed something with a tough build and f/2.8 or faster.

Looking at the options that I could afford and was willing to carry around, I chose this Sigma lens above the more expensive and heavier options. I played with the idea of one of the AF-S 70/80-200mm f/2.8 Nikons or Sigma's version of the same range. I haven't regretted this choice since I got the lens about 6 months ago.

Nothing external moves on this lens - it has internal focusing and zoom. The whole thing feels very solid; lot of the exterior seems to be metal - the two rings each have their own rubber pattern and turn very smoothly. The lens is not sealed against weather, but it does have a lot fewer "entry points" for dirt/moisture than other lenses in this price range. It is also affordable compared to (supposedly much better, but much larger/heavier) Nikon f/2.8 glass which costs 2-3 times as much.

The only thing I mind is no optical stabilization. It would have been useful in a telephoto lens combined with f/2.8 aperture. Focusing from 1m is OK but not great.

I also feel a lot of wrist strain (biking injuries catch up) when using a telephoto with the D40's small grip - although that's something that would be even more of an issue with the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR that I was thinking of as my first choice until I found this sturdy little thing at 50% of what I was about to spend.

There are some reviews at:
Pop Photo, ePhoto Zine,
and a Flickr Group

Sigma 30 mm F1.4 EX DC HSM

If you own a Nikon D4o(x) or D60 there is no other lens like this one. Nikon is being a bit slow catching up with itself and are only very few AF-S prime lenses available at this point. Since the above bodies will not focus with lenses without an internal motor, one gets no choice when choosing a 'normal' lens for a D40.

The lens was launched by sigma in February 2005. A lot has been written on various forums about Sigma's quality control, good samples, bad samples and corner softness of this lens. I don't know much about these things. I picked my lens from Jessops and never bothered photographing a chart or even a brick wall. In real-life use I haven't noticed any problems. At f/1.4 the depth of field is really shallow, to the extent that focusing on the tip of somebody's nose will render their ears/eyes soft, but that's the price that has to be paid for being able to take pictures at reasonable shutter speeds in very dark places.


Shallow depth of field: shot at 1/40s at f/1.4

Optically speaking it is excellent for my purposes. There is no distortion; there is no CA to speak of (anyway you don't really have to deal with CA in low-light shots). The colours are nice and when you stop the lens down a bit it is sharp and crisp. It has more than enough definition for my camera's chip and the bokeh is very acceptable. I haven't noticed much flare even with light sources in the frame; bright lights get a nice eight-pointed star.



CA: 1/250 at f/5.6 - some (out of focus) CA is noticeable in the top part of the picture.

The lens belongs to Sigma's EX range - supposedly that means better quality. Personally, I can't say anything about non-EX Sigma lenses - however compared to the kit lens or to the Nikon 55-200mm VR, this lens is much better built. The barrel and the petal-shaped hood are both finishes in nice satin paint, the lens comes in a very good box-shaped cordura case with a belt loop. Although the lens thread is made of plastic, the bayonet and most of the outer barrel is metal and the lens has a reassuringly solid feel. I have knocked mine around a little bit (dropped it with the camera from about waist high on concrete, shot with it in mild rain) and it seems to be holding up very well, except for a few small places where I actually managed to scratch the paint and realized that the outer barrel is indeed made of metal.

This is the second lens I bought for my Nikon D40. It quickly became my every-day lens and I really love it. I would highly recommend it to anyone with a Nikon D40/x or D60 over the kit lens (which is slow and plastic) or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 which won't auto-focus on those bodies. It is affordable (just about), fast, solidly built and compact. Don't let yourself be put off by a few vocal nit-pickers on certain forums, or look for a different lens if you do take pictures of well lit brick walls. There is no reason you'd want this lens for a Nikon D3 or a Canon 5D (in fact you could not even use it on a full-frame body - because it is a DC lens that does not cover bigger than APS-C size sensors). There is one fewer reason why get this over the cheaper 50mm f/1.8 if your body can auto-focus with non-HSM or non-AF-S lenses (Nikon D80 upwards), except HSM offers reportedly faster focusing. Ken Rockwell says :-) that if you shoot Canon the Canon 28mm f/1.8 EF is a better choice for less money. I don't know about Canon. I know that for entry-level Nikon SLRs it has no competition in its class, but it is very far from a "one-eyed king of the blind"; it is actually a really good lens.

Focal Length: 30 mm
Maximum Aperture: F1.4
Minimum Aperture: F16
Lens Construction: 7 Elements in 7 Groups, 2 ED elements
Angle of View: 45°
Diaphragm: 8 blades
Minimum Focus Distance: 40cm
Maximum Magnification: 1:10.4
Filter Size: 62mm
Dimensions (diameter x length): 76mm x 59mm
Weight: 406.7g

Links to other reviews:

• ePhotoZine
• Ken Rockwell
• The-Digital-Picture.Com
• PBase samples page 1, page 2
• whichlens.com
• PhotographyReview.com

Flickr groups:

• http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma30mm/
• http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigmaprimes/

Sigma: 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 1.4/30mm & 50-150mm f/2.8

I have been thinking about posting my own experience on these three lenses by Sigma for some time:

• Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4
  
• Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8

There are some good reviews out there already, but the rest seems to deal with distortion when photographing graphs, chromatic aberration when shooting trees against bright sky or finding "a good copy" of the lens through shooting a brick wall - retuning the lens to the shop - shooting a brick wall... Not the kind of stuff that I like to do. Other thing that bugs me is that most of these reviews are written by people who only just got the lens, tested it over a weekend and did a write-up. Do their opinions still hold months after using the lens in real life? Who knows? Did they have to please the shop/importer of the gear? Not me - I paid for all my equipment.

Over the next three days I will post some real-life experience with the above three babies. I don't have a lab, charts or methodology. I have months/weeks spent taking pictures with the above three instead.

The Future of Flickr

Let's be honest about it: I am a big fan of Flickr. There are lots of sites like that: Picasa, Photobucket, Kodak Gallery, Photoblog, Zooomr and many others. I have used some of them and Flickr suits me the best.

About a year ago, David Hobby of Strobist published a couple of posts (part 1, part 2) on the future of Flickr. About a year ago, he was predicting some exciting changes and so was Dan Heller and a bunch of other folk. These changes are yet to happen. Right now, there does not seem to be much going on in terms of "monetization" of the Flicker archive, at least on the surface. It seems that Flickr turning into the Internet's biggest photo stock archive is more of a microstock site's worst nightmare rather than Yahoo's concrete plan.

It is interesting what other people from the photography business have to say about Flickr and 'serious photography'. One of my favourite blogs, A Photo Editor, had a post about the Flickr stigma earlier this year. It's saying that using Flickr as a portfolio is cheap and 'unprofessional'. I am in no position to argue about it. Flickr was not designed for that purpose anyway. Flickr was bought by Yahoo in 2005 and replaced Yahoo Images in their stable of web services - it was always meant as a photo-sharing tool, rather than a fancy display case. It has evolved since then and pros have been using Flickr as one of their tools, not their only tool though.

One site that allows its users to sell images online is SmugMug. They are a paid site (well, so is Flickr unless you are willing to put up with an upload limit) with impressive options in terms of page layout and presentation. They even offer to transfer your existing Flickr archive to them under the heading "Fleeing Flickr". Admittedly, it's $149 to be able to set your own prices and sell your stuff through them. Dan Heller has a long post about it here.

Why stay with Flickr:

• it's cheap
• it gets a lot of traffic
• it is here to stay (although it's dubious in what shape and form)
• its groups are a great platform to meet people and get (mostly positive) feedback
• it is being trawled by (a certain kind of) picture editors every day
• there is no limit to upload with the cheap "PRO" account, one can upload all sorts of experiments and failed attempts
• your profile can promote your real portfolio
  

Why complement Flickr with a professional-looking portfolio

• own domain name
  
• better control over the presentation layer
• tighter focus on your best images
• it shows dedication and attention to detail
• you may be able to sell images directly (but it will cost you)

How about microstock? Well, read this... Making money from pictures is not my main priority at this point, but I will start looking into solutions on making my portfolio into something more presentable and post my experience here.

Become a Sports Illustrated shooter!

This on-line game is great:

http://www.directdaniella.com/

LRG: Riots of Spring

London Rollergirls are on: www.londonrollergirls.com/ You can also find them on Facebook.

The above pictures brought a lot of traffic to my Flickr profile. On most days I get about a dozen views, whenever I do a major posting I get a few hundred in the 24 hours that follow, when I posted a batch of 35 Rollergirls pictures I got over 1600 views in 48 hours and it's still counting.

I don't think that the Rollergirl pictures are my best pictures; I did not even tell that many people about them; still they generated about 50% of the number of views that all my other pictures managed to make over the space of 7 months. What's that? I am sure there is an important lesson to be learned here... somewhere. What is it? I refuse to believe that all this traffic is due to the subject (good looking girls in short skirts) - there must be something else to it as well!

Eastbourne Train Station

This weekend I went to Eastbourne, Sussex to hike across the 7 Sisters Cliff. It was fun - well recommended as an easy day trip from London.



This picture is just a quick over-the-shoulder grab shot. I was getting on the train and the colour of the sky was so good - so I just turned around and zoomed out very quickly during the 1/8sec at f/5.6 exposure (ISO 400). IMO: It came out amazingly! It was taken with Sigma 10-20mm; it is such a fun lens to play with. Note: this picture is 100% Photoshop-free.

Product Shot

A weekend project - no less...

New Studio

London's full of warehouses converted to flats. They are surprisingly easy to find. I just moved into one and there is so much space...

Lighting info: no ambient light, 2 strobes (SB-24 and SB-26) one gelled blue, one with a DIY honeycomb.
Exposure info: Nikon D40 with Sigma f2.8/50-150mm at 50mm (1/30s, f/8, ISO 200), manual focus

Composite shoot

This is a great post about making a very complex image. I always wonder how it's done for this type of picture. There are other great ideas on Brian Niven's blog.

There is also a really cool video on YouTube documenting Brian's workflow (well, sort of) on the photoshoot of Branden Steineckert, drummer from Rancid, and his dog.

Faces of Hackney??

I came across this website: Faces of Sunset Boulevard. It's amazing. I so want to make one like this about Hackney.

Lighting Schemes - pictures worth thousands of pictures...

I have got this irresistible urge to try and reverse-engineer all photos in glossy magazines that I see. I can't help it, but to keep on analyzing shades, catch-lights and specular highlights for ages, just to try and guess how a picture was made. It's a condition that was only to be expected after my first strobe arrived, but it is getting worse.

Websites like this one and this one make it a bit easier to get the few basic setups visualized.

Brand New Beat

Surprise
Sigma 1.4/30mm
available light

Ellen and Nicola
Sigma 1.4/30mm
off-camera strobe, bounced off low celing

How do you switch this thing on...?
Sigma 10-20mm
off-camera strobe, bounced off low celing

Staropramen
Sigma 10-20mm
off-camera strobe, bounced off low celing

DJ @wrk
Sigma 10-20mm
off-camera strobe, bounced off low celing

Studio in a box - Strobist style

My lightstands and umbrellas arrived today. It took just over a week from the US (mpex.com) and there was no import duty to cover. The total price including postage was about what I would have paid for identical stands in the UK + I got two collapsible umbrellas (that nobody seems to stock here) thrown in.

Wicked. Can't wait to go home and play.

Thinking Business.

Photography is a hobby for me, but I do think about making some side income from it in the medium term. I am not ready to leave my day job yet, but posts like this (part 2 here and someone else's thoughts here) make me think.

As much as I'd like to live the life of Chase Jarvis in 5 years time, I don't think it will be as easy as he describes (stop being a ski bum, make good pics, sell pics for a good price, get rich...).

Don Giannatti has an informative page on the subject too.

Nunhead Cemetery

Nunhead cemetery photoes - more to follow.




The above picture is a combination of 7 pictures that were taken off a tripod to keep the framing constant. There were two flashes pointed at Sara's face to avoid dark shadows. I am not completely happy with the whole thing, but it was a funny experiment.

Another Self-portrait - Testing the Honeycomb Snoot