Portraits, Weddings, Family Events in Dallas-Fort Worth and beyond

Texas School and Joe Glyda

Too much going on lately! I’m posting this to try finally to publish some thoughts I meant to publish two weeks ago.

Texas School

Two weeks ago, I attended Texas School of Professional Photography, a fantastic annual happening sponsored by the Texas PPA. Texas School is many things. It’s a big convention for photographers from all over: mostly Texas, but I met photographers from all over the country and even outside the USA. Second, it’s a huge trade show where vendors of stuff that photographers want to buy — cameras, lights, printing, etc. — can show their products and talk to their customers. But most of all, Texas School is a week-long “master class” (to borrow a term from music) where a small group of students work, all day, for a full week, with an outstanding photographer.

Trade Show

The trade show was huge: filling a big ballroom, the huge area outside the ballroom, and extending way down the mezzanine, with exhibit after exhibit. Arlington Camera and BWC are major sponsors of Texas School and had some of the largest exhibits. I had a great conversation with the rep from Sony and played with the new Action Cam, spoke to a rep from Phottix (which makes the best radio triggers for Sony cameras), and was able to borrow a great 50 f/1.4 lens for a day from the Sigma booth. Thanks, Sigma. Loved the lens! I also visited with the folks from BWC Photo Imaging. I’ve been using a pro lab on the west coast for years, and I just realized the best printer in the country is right here in Dallas. For my own printing, I talked to the folks from Hahnemühle Fine Art, maker of the best photo printing papers in the world. If I’d done nothing other than stroll around the trade show and talk to vendors, Texas School would have been worth the long drive.

Joe Glyda

Ah, but I did a lot more than visit the trade show. I went back to school!

My class was “Lighting Beyond the Camera,” taught by master photographer Joe Glyda. Glyda is a renowned commercial photographer. For years he worked for one of the largest food companies in the world, shooting things like bowls of macaroni and cheese for ad campaigns or annual reports. You may laugh—I did at first, and to be honest, so did Joe, who had a smile on his face all week. But shooting macaroni and cheese (or bags of chips, or glasses of wine, etc) turns out to be fiendishly challenging. Actually, I kinda sorta knew this, because from time to time, I try to take a photo of a nice dish that I make at home. I’ll grab a camera and a flash, thinking I’ll take a decent photo, and it never comes out the way I want. Well, now I know why. Shooting food (wrapped or ready-to-serve) is an almost unbelievably technical field with extremely demanding clients, a field in which nothing short of perfection is acceptable. Lighting is the key to success in every type of photography, but in commercial photography, the lighting is controlled with a degree of precision (and patience) that a wedding photographer can only dream of.

Anyway, it was exciting to learn about a whole new photographic industry. I was surprised to learn that the food shown in ads now is (mostly) real, for legal reasons. We were all amazed to hear Joe talk about the food “stylist” who actually used a tweezers to turn every single piece of macaroni in a shot so only macaroni and smooth, creamy cheese was visible—no ugly elbow ends with their ugly holes. It was valuable to hear Joe talk about how he analyzes the challenge presented by different types of objects. But the key part of the class was actually working with light (and lights) to solve an unending variety of photographic challenges, including shooting breakfast buns, wine bottles, packages of croutons.

But it wasn’t all bottles and bags. We also had four wonderful models come in and work with us. With our two young female models, we went outside into the park across the street from our classroom near Addison Circle, to shoot in the harsh midday light. Our other two models were a couple of photographers themselves who came as volunteers for a pretend engagement shoot.

Joe Glyda (center) puts hand to face as he analyzes the problem of lighting our photographer-models. Some of my classmates look on.

Joe Glyda (center) puts hand to face as he analyzes the problem of lighting our photographer-models. Some of my classmates look on.

Joe persuaded me to use my light meter more. We worked with large, very expensive ProFoto lighting equipment (on loan to Texas School from Arlington Camera), but Joe also showed us how to make better and more controlled use of scrims or reflective white boards to maximize whatever lighting we have, once again, something I have done in the past, but not as often as I could have and not as intelligently as I could. Joe was a real stickler on the subject of color balance, insisting on something I’ve been careless about too often in the past: shooting a color card as a reference for color balance on the computer. I own a couple of color reference palettes (the X-Rite Passport and the much more portable Whi-bal card) but I’m actually using them now, thanks to Joe’s class. I was also comforted to learn that some of the problems I’ve had with my studio shooting (for example, wrinkles in the background cloth) are universal problems, and was grateful for many great tips (like don’t fold the background cloth, just crumple it up for storage so the wrinkles are irregular).

The not-very-good best of my muffin shots. You try to make it look natural—but virtually nothing about this shot wasn't intentional. I mean, for starters, the class spent a good while selecting the three most photogenic muffins out of an applicant pool of three dozen. And then we really started getting picky. I only had a minute to take my shot and wasn't using triggering the ProFoto flashes, but it was still interesting to take a shot.

The not-very-good best of my muffin shots. You try to make it look natural—but nothing about this shot was accidental. I mean, for starters, the class spent a good while selecting the three most photogenic muffins out of an applicant pool of three dozen. And then we really started getting picky. I only had a minute to take my shot and wasn’t using triggering the ProFoto flashes, but it was still interesting to take a shot.

For me, it was like cross training. (As if I knew anything about cross training!) I mean, instead of spending a week on challenges that I’m already very familiar with from my portrait and wedding work, I spent a week dealing with challenges that were fairly novel and took me outside my comfort zone. And yet everything we did was useful info and will be immediately helpful to me in my very different type of photography. Glyda was a great teacher and the other students were a great bunch to spend a week with.

Bottom line: Texas School was a great experience. I’m already looking forward to next year.

Leave a comment

Recommendation: Kampai Japanese Restaurant, Addison, Texas

I almost have my thoughts together about Texas School of Professional Photography, which I attended two weeks. But I want mention Kampai Sushi & Grill restaurant in Addison. I ate lunch there on Thursday with some folks from our class who were real sushi mavens and they loved it. I’m not a real big fan of sushi but I ordered the Triple Delight bento box and loved it. It had shrimp tempura, California rolls, rice, salad, and some sort of stir-fried beef with (I think) sesame seeds. It was delicious. The teacher of my Texas School class, master photographer Joe Glyda, seemed to be the most discriminating sushi palette among us. He insisted I try a piece of real sushi, so I did, and I loved it. Not exactly sure what was in it; I am pretty sure he mentioned eel. Well, what can I say: It was darned tasty.

And of course, having a camera with me and a nice 50 f/1.4 lens that the rep from Sigma had lent me, I had to take a picture of one of the beautiful masks on the wall of Kampai — after getting permission from the very friendly manager, naturally!

Image

On the wall at Kampai Sushi & Grill, Addison, Texas.

Leave a comment

Every Day, or, The iPhone is a camera, too!

Every Day

Lovely ad for the iPhone 5′s camera. I mention it not just because it’s a charming ad, but because I really relate to it as a photographer. When I’m working or thinking seriously about taking photos, I am, of course, using my big cameras. But more and more, I find myself taking “casual” photos with the iPhone. These are the photos that I used to take with a compact camera like the (excellent) Sony RX100 and before that the Panasonic LX5. Now, I use my phone.

Leave a comment

Best Dog

Just starting to look at the photos from Adrian and Matt’s wedding yesterday in Little Jilliby, New South Wales, Australia, but had to post this photo of the the bride’s dog Frankie, who was a key part of the festivities.

Of course Frankie now belongs to both Adrian and Matt, but I couldn’t help wishing yesterday that he had been Matt’s dog instead of Adrians. In the wedding biz we’re really into acronyms: two of my favorites are MOB (“mother of bride”) and FOG (“father of groom”), both of which are very, well, perhaps I’ll leave that alone. Anyway, it would have been cute if Frankie had been the DOG (“dog of groom”). Which he now is.

Frankie the dog in a tuxedo

Frankie, best dog for bride Adrian, at her wedding in New South Wales, Australia.

Leave a comment

Update on to-do lists

Back in December, I wrote a little post about two easy-to-use but very capable to-do list apps, Todoist and Reminders. I reached the tentative conclusion that Reminders worked better for me because I could share lists. I still think this is a very valuable feature.

But… I’m rethinking things.

Earlier I overlooked something that I now think is very important: Todoist can show me a single list of all of my current tasks, Reminders can’t. In fact, Todoist can show all open tasks, grouped by project; or all current priority 1 tasks (regardless of project); etc. This makes it much easier for me to triage my tasks. Reminders can’t do this.

It also occurred to me that, since Reminders comes with the Mac OS and is free, I can use it for shared projects (like the upcoming wedding of another daughter!) and use Todoist for all my personal tasks, the ones I don’t need to share.

So I’m back to using Todoist for most of my task management. Try it yourself; you might like it.

ADDENDUM a date later (3/6/13): Forget about both this post and the previous one and instead check out Wunderlist2. So long to both Todoist and Reminders! 

1 Comment

Sony A850 compared to Sony A99: Novelty isn’t everything

My main camera these days is the Sony SLT-A99, which is the latest and greatest from Sony. My backup is the A850, a model that’s now a few years old and wasn’t terribly cutting edge when it was new. The A99 is a magnificent machine with a lot of whiz-bang features, including full-time live view phase detect autofocus, focus range limiting, focus peaking and focus magnification, sweep panorama, scene modes, burst-mode shooting so fast it’ll make your head spin, and, of course, video. The A850 (like its big brother the A900), on the other hand, has pretty much no whiz-bang features, in fact, not a lot of features at all. But it, too, is a magnificent camera. Herewith a few thoughts about the differences between the two cameras.

NOTE: An earlier version of these impressions appeared in the Sony DSLT/SLT forum over at dpreview.com—a great place to hang out if you use cameras like the A99, A850, A77, A57, etc.

Sony A850

Sony A850

Advantage: A850

Things I like better about the A850.

  • Price! I got the A850 used for almost one-third of what I paid for the A99, but it’s worth at least half of the cost of an A99. Best full-frame bargain available today—much better (in my opinion) than buying an original Canon 5D, at least if you don’t already have a bunch of Canon lenses.
  • The A850 is built like an old-fashioned bank safe. I mean, it’s heavy and I’m pretty sure it’s bulletproof. By comparison the A99 (which I thought was pretty solid) suddenly seems just a wee bit plasticky.
  • I rather like having the front dial pointing up (A850) rather than forward (A99). Up feels more natural for my right index finger. It’s far enough from the shutter button that I don’t think I’ll be changing the shutter speed by accident. I rather like having the on/off button on the left side, too, so that the shutter button is simple and all by itself.
  • I like having those four functions on the left side of the camera: menu, disp, trash and playback. Removes clutter from the right side of the camera. (I still like the way things work on the A57 even better: use the noon, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock spots around the joystick as buttons. Much easier to find the right button without having to look.)
  • Really like having a hardware on/off button on the back for Super SteadyShot. I guess these days Sony wants as many functions as possible to be software-based rather than hardware-based and I can see reasons for doing that. But even having a press button that toggles SSS would have been an improvement on the A99. Pros use tripods and need to turn SSS on/off fairly regularly.
  • Love the simple mode dial, one third of which is empty. I admit, the A99 has more modes because it’s got more options: video, sweep pano, the 49 fps thing [just kidding], and SCN. I would have been delighted to pay $500 less and get the A99 without video; and I’d have paid $25 more to buy an A99 without the SCN modes. But I guess that’s progress. A $3000 point and shoot camera with training wheels for the kiddies. Yes, that’s snark. Sue me.
  • The A850′s image quality is great. Me very happy. The A850′s image quality isn’t better than the A99′s, but if the light was good, I’m going to have to look at the EXIF to see which camera took the shot. May feel differently about this when I have to use the A850 at ISO 1600 or higher.
  • I like that I don’t have to use an adapter to attach a Sony flash unit to the A850.
Sony A99

Sony A99

Advantage: A99

Things I prefer about the A99.

  • Live view, on LCD and also on the big, bright, beautiful EVF. The WYSIWYG aspect of live view is particularly useful to those of us who shoot in M (full manual) exposure mode a lot. On the A850, I’m back to having to pay close attention to that darned exposure scale to see if my picture’s going to come out.
  • Focus peaking and focus magnification are two of the greatest advances in the history of photography, at least for those of us who focus manually. These features require live view (see previous item). So manual focusing on the A850 is much trickier. Me very sad. I’ve ordered the M focusing screen and hope it will help a little.
  • No “live view + articulated display screen”. Well, no big surprise here. Without live view, ain’t much point to an articulated screen. (See first item.)
  • Better support for storage cards. The A99 supports SD and Memory Stick cards, and it can write dynamically to both slots, where the A850 supports the larger “old-fashioned” compact flash cards and Memory Stick. The card formats supported isn’t a big deal; the ability to write to both slots dynamically kinda is.

The first three plusses for the A99 boil down to a minus against the A850: the A99 has live view, and the A850 doesn’t. Now, to be honest, I could live without live view on either the viewfinder or the rear display. But I really want it somewhere. I use the EVF on the A99 about 95% of the time now, but I could live with the A850′s lovely OVF if I had live view on the LCD, along with an articulated screen and the manual focus assist features.  It’s these latter that I miss the most working with the A850.

And I suspect I will also soon discover that the A850′s images are pretty noisy if I shoot above ISO 1600.

Arthur Maxwell, shot with the A850

Arthur Maxwell, shot with the A850

Tie

Finally, some differences that are, for me, neither pros nor cons for either camera.

  • For the sake of future photographers, I hope that one day, the camera makers finally decide that there’s one best and right way to place the buttons and then do that, from then on. I wonder how long I’m going to keep mashing the A850′s Fn button in order to review my recent shots, or hitting the A850′s Drive button to change the ISO. I wish that the A850′s buttons were capable of being reprogrammed.
  • Using the A850′s OVF, especially without any live view at all, makes me feel like I’m back using a film camera. It feels really retro. I mean, the camera even looks retro, with that big hump on top where it stores water for long trips. This isn’t what I’d call an advantage. The A850 doesn’t have a retro look, like the the Olympus OM-D. The A850 actually is old.
  • OVF vs EVF. I’ve always said that the EVF isn’t better or worse than the OVF, just different. Well, the EVF has some terrific advantages and I feel pretty sure I’ll be using the A99 more than the A850 because of them. (Have I mentioned focus peaking and focus magnification?) But I admit, the A850′s OVF is pretty sweet, if the light’s good enough for me to see what I’m pointing the camera at. If the A850 had live view on the LCD like the A580, and if it sold for, like, $1000 less than the A900, I’d buy two.
  • Shutter sound. The A99′s shutter sounds like a squirrel sneezed. The A850′s sounds like somebody took the squirrel’s nut and crushed it with a hammer. Now as a wedding photographer who tries to be unobtrusive, I am happy that the A99 is quiet. I did a wedding a couple months ago where the groom, during the rehearsal, expressed concern about shutter noise. Seriously. He’d been at a wedding not long before where, as a guest, he was distracted by the sound of the photographer’s shutter. My guess is that photographer was machine-gunning, that is, shooting constantly in three or four shot bursts, something I never do. Anyway, I would like to be even quieter at the wedding; but I have to confess, the A850′s shutter has a more manly sound that I rather like. Being a manly man and all that.
Shot with the A850

Shot with the A850

Bottom line

In sum, if you don’t have a full-frame body and you’re thinking you’d like one, and you wonder if you should get the A99 (and live on bread and water for the next two years) or get a (lightly) used A850, my recommendation would be:

  • If you have to have video, well, I simply don’t understand what’s wrong with you. But your choice will be obvious.
  • If you can’t live without focus peaking, focus magnification, or an articulated screen, or if you can’t sleep at night unless you are comforted by the thought that you own the latest gear, then you’re a pathetic wimp but you should get the A99. (This is the group I fall into, by the way.)
  • Otherwise, get the A850. It’s a helluva camera. Seriously.

More photos coming as I take ‘em.

10 Comments

Something old, something new: Using the Rokinon 35 lens with the Sony A99

So I’ve got the Rokinon (a.k.a. Samyang) 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC lens. It’s a great lens, and I’ll have more to say about it in another post. Here I want to talk about a special problem this lens poses, and how the Sony SLT A99 helps a photographer deal with that problem. I should clarify that the lens itself is a 2010 vintage; the “something old” in my title isn’t the lens, but rather a characteristic of this lens that is uncommon nowadays but in the old days was more or less universal: it’s all manual, as in manual aperture, manual focus.

Kind of crazy to use such a lens on the Sony A99, right? After all, the A99 is one of the most sophisticated cameras ever made, with more automatic features than you can shake a stick at, including the world’s best phase-detect autofocus. Using the Rokinon 35, you have to forego the A99′s terrific autofocus capability and most of its other whiz-bang features as well. And yet, ironically, the A99 is the perfect camera for this lens, and it is so precisely because of a couple of its advanced capabilities. In particular, the SLT’s WYSIWYG displays (EVF and Live View), combined with a couple of manual-focus assist features, make shooting with a manual lens easy, fun, and very effective.

Exposure

Let’s get exposure out of the way first.

The Rokinon 35 doesn’t send any aperture info to the camera, so the camera’s meter can’t factor that into its calculations. You can still shoot in all the normal exposure modes, P/A/S and M, but the camera can’t adjust the aperture. In auto, program and aperture-priority modes, the camera will try to determine a nominally correct exposure by adjusting the shutter speed and/or ISO. In shutter-priority, the camera will be stumped if you don’t have the ISO set to “Auto”. My advice is: put the camera in full-manual (M) mode. Be one with the lens.

Now the remarkable thing here is, although the camera has no idea what the aperture is set to, it does know how much light is coming through the lens and hitting the sensor, and it can respond to that. So the excellent live view available not only on the A99′s rear LCD screen but also in its electronic viewfinder (EVF) shows you the exposure you’re going to get. So, as I said in my review of the A77, shooting in full-manual (M) mode with a Sony SLT camera (like the A77 and A99) is intuitive and pretty close to goof-proof. If the camera’s current settings are going to blow the exposure out of the sky or bury it deep in the dark, you’ll see the impending disaster as you compose your shot and you’ll be able to adjust the settings before you click the shutter. In the history of photography, there’s never been a better camera for manual-mode shooting than the Sony SLT A99.

Now there are two small problems with the Rokinon lens that require a little getting used to.

First, the aperture you’ve set the lens to is the aperture you’re using to compose the scene. If you’d like to use a small aperture like f/5.6, or f/8 or f/11, say, for depth of field considerations, but the available light isn’t great, the finder may be too dark to compose or focus. Solution: Adjust either the aperture, or ISO or shutter speed so you can view the scene, then put it back before you shoot. I find it quite easy to hit the ISO button, use the front control dial to jump up to 6400 or 12,800 or whatever, then drop it back down again.

The second problem is that no aperture info is stored in the image file’s EXIF info. You’ll get the shutter speed and ISO, but not the aperture. I’ve been shooting mostly but not exclusively at f/2.8. I may soon have to reacquire a habit I had decades ago when I was learning to shoot on manual cameras: I’d record the settings for various shots in a notebook. Now I suppose I’d use my iPhone.

In the history of photography, there’s never been a better camera for manual-mode shooting than the Sony SLT A99.

Manual focus (1): zone focus

On to manual focusing, which I’m pretty sure will be the greater challenge for most photographers. Yes, it’s a little bit of work to focus manually but it’s not nearly as hard as you might think, especially on the A99, because of two manual-focus assist features: focus peaking, and focus magnification. You can use one or the other; I prefer to use both. Throw in a little bit of old-school zone focusing, and you’ll be amazed not only at the quality of your results but also at the pleasure you get from being totally in control.

Sony A99 + Rokinon 35 f/1.4

Let me talk quickly about zone focusing, which has been around forever. (If you’re already an expert at zone focusing, you can skip to the next section.)

Zone focusing is a manual-focus technique that allows you to set the focus before you take the shot, possibly without even looking through the lens. There are two parts to zone focusing: (1) setting the focus in advance based on the distance from camera to subject; and (2) determining the aperture you need to get the depth of field the shot requires.

Setting the focus in advance is fairly easy. You can do it two ways. If you’ve got a lens with markings on it like those shown in my photo of the Rokinon, you could just guess the distance to the subject and then try to turn the focus ring until the distance marker is in the right place. In the picture above, the lens is set to just a little under 10ft. That’s how far I think the camera is from the focal plane—say, the subject’s eyes. It’s just a guess, which is a problem in itself. And the process is made even less precise by the fact that the barrel seldom has more than a few distances inscribed on it. As you can see from the photo, I could be fairly confident about 2ft or 3ft or 10ft, but everything else is going to be pretty iffy. Nevertheless, in a situation where you simply don’t want to raise the camera to your eye until the instant you take the photo, setting the focal distance using the numbers on the barrel will get the job done.

The other way to set the focus and get the distance exactly right is to look through the lens and focus on something that’s at the right distance. Say, for example, you were doing street photography and you thought it would be neat to take a photo of someone waiting at a bus stop, not someone who’s standing there now, but someone who will come along later. You could focus on someone who is there now, or focus on the bus-stop shelter. That will set the distance for you. Then when an interesting person comes along, you raise your camera and shoot without changing the focus.

Now, on to the second and less obvious part, the part that gives “zone” focusing its name: setting the aperture based on the desired depth of field.  Once I know the distance, I look at the depth of field scale immediately below the distance and observe the way the aperture numbers spread out in both directions: 22, 16, 11, etc. on the left, and 11, 16, 22 on the right. These tell me how much depth of field I’d have for each aperture. I look at the distance to focal plane scale (top ring) and decide where I want my zone of acceptable focus to start and to end, and then I drop down from those imagined points on the distance scale to the depth of field scale below. For example, say I wanted the zone to start about half way between the three and the 10 on the distance scale. Given the way the scale works, that’s probably going to start the zone around 5ft from the camera. (In this calculation the far-side distance is going to be infinity or close to.) So I drop down from that point half-way between 3 and 10 and I seem to land close to the 11 on the depth of field scale. That tells me that if I set my aperture to f/11, I’ll have a zone of acceptable focus that starts about five feet in front of the subject and extends more or less to infinity on the far side. With that much depth of field, I can be fairly confident of getting a picture that’s acceptably focused. This is how you calculate aperture from your desired depth of field.

You can of course do it the other way round, that is, you can calculate the depth of field from your current aperture. In the photo above, the aperture is set to f/2.8 on the aperture ring, so the depth of field scale in the middle shows me that I’ll have depth of field extending roughly from 8ft to 12ft. (A quick check with dofmaster.com gives me exact numbers: from 8.27ft to 12.6ft. Had to input the A900 as the camera because the A99 isn’t recognized there yet.) If I wanted more depth of field—if I wanted to increase the zone of acceptable focus—the middle scale would allow me to determine what aperture to use. F/5.6 would expand the zone from about 7ft to, oh, 17ft.

Okay, I cheated on f/5.6 and went back to dofmaster.com to look up the far limit. I did so to illustrate the problem with zone focusing, which is that, with so few markings on the lens barrel it’s rather difficult to be precise. Using this method you can shoot quickly and count on being in the ballpark. But if you have an A99, you don’t have to be in the ballpark. You can do better.

Manual focus (2) : focus peaking

The first tool that the A99 offers for more accurate manual focus is focus peaking. After you turn focus peaking on in the camera’s menus, you’ll see a colored highlight at points of particularly sharp contrast, that is, the points in your photo that are presumptively in focus. Here’s what it looks like. (This and the other photos of the A99′s rear LCD were taken with my iPhone, hand-held. What you see on the LCD or through the EVF is actually clearer than these shots suggest.)

Cat sitting on chair by window.

Cat sitting on chair by window.

Before taking these photos I set the camera’s picture effect to black and white, in order to emphasize the yellow highlighting. I got this tip from another Sony user at dpreview.com and have found that it does help when I’m using focus peaking a lot. If you shoot raw, you’ll still get a color raw file; you’ll just see black and white in the EVF as you compose and focus. This is how I shoot most of the time now.

The picture of my daughter’s cat Kiki on a chair in my office shows both the strength and the weakness of focus peaking. The rungs in the back of the chair highlight very nicely. If I turned the focus ring on the lens, the yellow highlighting would move, either towards me or farther away from me, perhaps highlighting the edge of the far windowframe, then the tripod in the corner and the bookshelf. The menu options for focus peaking allow you to set its strength to high, mid or low; I usually stay with mid. Setting it to high highlights too much, setting it to low highlights too little. Mid is just right.

But what I would really want to focus on here would be the cat, not the chair. You can see some yellow on Kiki’s back, and just slightly around her ears. This would probably work. But you need to understand that focus peaking tends to appear on the clean edges, and you may be trying to focus on something a little softer like an eyeball. Focus peaking works especially well when the edges that the feature highlights are, in fact, the edges you want to be sharp, as in this shot of a sculptured metal candleholder:

20130215-0239

Manual focus (3): Focus magnification

Which brings me to the last and best way to nail the focus: focus magnification. I first encountered this feature on the Sony A580 and and loved it. It’s gotten better and easier to use. I’ve assigned focus magnification to the custom button on the front of the A99, so I can easily punch it with a finger on my left hand while I’m looking through the EVF. It does exactly what it sounds like: It magnifies a part of the image, so you can focus more carefully. Here it is showing a part of the candle-holder above:

20130215-0240

My iPhone shot of the back of the camera is not impressive. Take my word for it, what you see through the EVF is sharp enough for fine-tuning focus. As you magnify the image, focus peaking gets more discriminating, so the highlighting becomes less noticeable and highlights only the finer edge, which is a good thing. And you can even move to a second level of magnification, if you really want to get the focus right on the eyeballs. Here I’m doing just that while taking a photo of Mao, my cat.

20130216-0271

That’s at f/2.0 and a distance of only a few feet, so depth of field is pretty thin, but thanks to peaking and especially focus magnification, I can get the eyeballs precisely in focus. The only drawback to focus magnification is that it takes an extra second or two, so it’s useful as a portrait technique, but probably wouldn’t work great for volleyball. Fortunately Mao was fairly still.

Cat on a warm, plush sofa

Mao on the sofa. Taken with Sony SLT A99 (1/125s, ISO 1600) + Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC lens (@ f/2). Focused on Mao’s eyes using the A99′s focus magnification feature.

So, here’s how I work now.

  1. I start by zone focusing. If I’m in a desperate hurry, I lift the camera, squeeze the shutter and hope for the best.
  2. If I have an extra half second, I adjust the focus using focus tweaking. If I’m in a hurry, I squeeze the shutter and am fairly confident of a well-focused shot.
  3. If I have an extra second or two, I’ll hit the custom button on the front of the A99 to zoom in and use focus magnification. If I’m trying to focus on something right in the center of the frame (as I often am), I make a quick adjustment to the focus and click the shutter. But if I want to focus on the subject’s eyes and they’re not in the center of the frame (and often they’re not), then I have to push the joystick one way or another to select the magnified area.

The go/no-go decisions between steps 1 and 2, and steps 2 and 3, are made in an instant. If the subject isn’t moving too fast, in particular, if the focal plane isn’t changing much (i.e. if the subject isn’t moving towards me or away from me very fast), you absolutely can take in-focus photos this way. Remember, there was sports photography long before fast autofocus lenses became available. Practice!

My goal has long been to take fewer, but better photos. Slowing down and shooting more deliberately is without question the Golden Road to the attainment of that goal.

Don’t let your camera boss you around!

I have shot all manual (manual exposure, manual focus) a fair bit in my life. It’s how I learned photography (because I had no other choice) and it’s how I was working with my Pentax cameras a few years ago when I “converted” to Sony. Partly because my first Sony camera (the A580) didn’t have two control dials, I got away from shooting in M mode for a while, and because I didn’t have the collection of good primes that I have now, I was too busy zooming to add manual focusing to my list of responsibilities.

But I’m using no zoom lenses now and of course the A99 has two control dials. So I’m back in full control again. Makes me a little nervous, but I take greater pride when I nail a shot, and I find that I’m nailing more than I was before. Shooting full manual does slow me down a little, but that is not a bug, that’s a feature. My goal has long been to take fewer, but better photos. Slowing down and shooting more deliberately is without question the Golden Road to the attainment of that goal.

I should note that, just about everything I’ve said here would apply to using any lens on the A99 in manual mode. So this isn’t just about all-manual lenses like the Rokinon 35. I’m working this way now with all my lenses, and all the others are “normal”, modern autofocus lenses.

Leave a comment

Paris with the A99

Paris with the A99

I don’t usually post short posts that basically link to somebody else’s content, but I’m making an exception for this outstanding video of Paris, taken by Enrique Pacheco entirely on a Sony A99.

I myself haven’t yet shot any video this wonderful. Maybe I should sent my A99 back to Sony for a service.

Arthur. What does this have to do with video of Paris?

Arthur. What does this have to do with video of Paris?

Leave a comment

Texture

Which photo do you prefer, like more, or think more interesting; this one —

Kiki (Snapseed)

— or this one:

Kiki The first photo was processed in Snapseed and given some texture, while the second photo was processed “normally” in Adobe Lightroom. Neither photo is a grabber, I admit. But I think that helps clarify the contribution of the texture in the first treatment.

The digitally-added texture definitely does something to the photo, although I find it difficult to put my finger on exactly what it does. It enhances the photo, that’s easy to say. Perhaps by making it less realistic, it makes it more “artistic,” at least superficially. It may make the photo look old. 

What it doesn’t do is make the photo look timeless. Actually, the first photo is totally dated: It belongs to the Instagram era, circa 2012–2013. You thought it belonged to, oh, the 1950s? I’ve never seen an old photo from the 1950s that looked like that.

That’s why I don’t process photos this way, at least not regularly. Black and white photos are (often) less time-bound than color photos, and I love black and white. Wish my clients liked it more. But filter-processed, highly textured photos? They’re popular now, thanks to Instagram. But will their popularity last? Or will these photos look dated in five, ten years?

20120623-02207-snapseed

20120623-02207

I like the first photo a lot more. I find it difficult to say why, but I do. But I’m troubled, not because I can’t say why I like the first one, but because I’m not sure if I’ll continue to like the first one. And I’m not sure I’d like to look at an album that contains 500 otherwise ordinary photos given the same treatment.

Should I worry about it?

Another thing that troubles me about “filter processed” images is that they are so intractably digital, that is, they’re designed for viewing on screen and do not print well. I like prints. A print made on very good art paper has its own special texture that a digital image can’t imitate.

But we live in a digital world. Sometimes I feel like I’m one of the last people on the planet who cares about prints. I practically force ’em on my clients. My last bride had a discount coupon for prints that she never used. That’s normal these days.

Best tattoo parlor in my part of town.

Best tattoo parlor in my part of town.

And aside from the digital-ness of these filters, there’s another issue that I’m troubled about. They enhance the photo in one sense (well, “texturally”) but in another sense, they seem destructive, or at least leveling. Does it make any sense at all to take a photo like the one above with a Sony A99 full-frame camera and an excellent prime lens — and then do that to it? Isn’t that a bit like taking a rib-eye steak from Rudolph’s (perhaps Dallas’s best butcher) and then breading it and deep-fat frying it? Sure, it might taste great. But is it a sin?

I’d been thinking about this subject for a long time before I ran across Richard Hernandez’s article on CNN.com, “Photographers, Embrace Instagram.” It’s a wonderful piece, enthusiastic, inspirational if not visionary. His message is carpe diem, photographically speaking. I don’t know if he’s right, but the message certainly has a ring to it.

Leave a comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.