Home Spun Light

Today in class, I gave the students the assignment to research several options for do it yourself light modifiers.  The way I see it, there are two categories of DIY modifiers:  Those that try to emulate the look of existing, off the shelf equipment, but for cheap; and then there are those that create lighting effects that you can’t get from off the shelf products.

The students at RCC are pretty spoiled with some great lighting equipment and accessories.  From hot lights to studio and location strobes, they pretty much have it all.  My challenge to each student was to find a modifier they could build and would help them in creating the type of look they desired in their work.

Almost all of the designs we saw were for the readily available hot shoe style flashes on the market.  That’s good, because most of the materials that the DIY stuff suggests are both inexpensive and extremely flammable!  Use these materials with studio strobes, especially ones with modeling lights and you can go ahead and start singing: “The roof, the roof, the roof is on fi-ya!

There were some pretty interesting designs which I have listed the links for below.

This is one modifier that we have at the school that is certainly not home made, but has been greatly modified from it’s original form.  It used to house a 2k lamp.  It now houses a Speedotron flash tube.

One of my all time favorite cheap and easy light modifiers is the humble glass block.  Those things you can get in the building store to create fancy window-like walls.  They only cost a few bucks each and come in different sizes, but create all sorts of cool patterns in the backgrounds of an image.  It’s sort of like the effect you see when light is reflecting off the surface of pool water.  Probably not something I would use to light up the subject, but very useful for creating some subtle lighting variations in an otherwise boring background.

Another variation on this that I have seen used in the film industry is to use a black velvet cloth with hundreds of small square mirrors glued to it in a random pattern.  When you shine a 5k light on it, it’s kind of like disco ball effect, but without the consistent pattern.

Home made modifiers are really the best way to create your own look.  Off the shelf modifiers are great for creating off the shelf images, but sometimes duct tape and other creatively sourced materials come together to create a look that will leave people scratching their heads.  Plus, as we all know, there is no Photoshop action for well exectuted lighting, and as I’ve said a million times: available light is available to everyone.

Here are a few links that the students found.  Be sure to share your own in the comments section.

http://www.diyphotography.net/create-stunning-stars-in-your-eyes-with-a-diy-ring-light

http://www.imageguy.com/make-your-own-beauty-dish/comment-page-1/#comment-18

http://davidtejada.blogspot.com/2008/04/beauty-dish-for-sb-800.html

http://stephenzeller.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/tutorial-homemade-grid-spot-for-your-flash/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyJ1ZYIuAwE&feature=email

What Will History Look Like in 2110?

I took the family to Washington DC last week to visit the museums and teach our six year old a bit of history.  On the tour of the Capital building it really struck me how much history is preserved there and how much respect our founding fathers gave to the preservation of history, and historical items.

That made me wonder:  What is our generation leaving behind?  Is our media driven society so worried about producing the next new thing that we are not leaving any meaningful record of our existence?  There is no doubt that we will leave a heck of a lot of images and data behind, but I have a feeling that it will certainly be a case of quantity over quality.

In most places around DC you don’t see history preserved in photographs (they didn’t exist in the 18th century).  You see oil paintings, huge ones, and marble and bronze statues.  History preserved in materials that will be around for a really long time and not the silly little silver discs (DVDs) that so many of us are putting trust in to keep our personal histories.

Feel free to join the discussion.  I can’t be accused of being anti technology.  I live and breathe it.  I also think that film is potentially as delicate a medium as a DVD, you have both climate control issues and technology obsolescence issues.  With oil paintings and statues you do have to keep them out of the elements for them to last, but they are not dependent on any machinery to view.  You just go look at them.

So long Kodachrome

The last roll of Kodachrome was processed this week.  I won’t make any cheesy Paul Simon references like the ones I’ve heard on the news.  All I will say is that for the people who made their living on this film platform it is truly the end of an amazing era in photographic history.  The other thing I’ll say is that those people  are probably doing just fine, and are still producing fantastic images.

I do miss shooting film exclusively.  Handing my film to someone else to process.  Editing an entire shoot in the span of maybe twenty minutes and then passing the selects off to the scanning service to handle any necessary color correction and retouching.  I kind of miss grease pencils, 5x lupes, light tables and the other stuff that surrounded the film work flow.

We had it good back then. We had to be on our game technically because we couldn’t just fix it later.  I remember working hard on the shoot and when the shoot was over, not working.  Now, I work hard on the shoot and work a lot after the shoot to prepare the images.  Now that I think about it, what the hell have we done to ourselves?

You can check out the article from the Wichita Eagle HERE

A look at my infrared camera

Though it’s not film, this is truly a beat-up camera.  I’ve had it for a pretty long time and it’s based off of a Nikon D100 camera body.

The D100 was hands down, without a doubt the worst digital SLR I have ever owned.  I bought it when they were first introduced which if memory serves me was 2002 or 3.  About a month in to using this miserable device I switched to Fuji cameras and put this one in a bag.  It stayed locked away until I heard about a company that could permanently convert them to infrared.

Taking away this camera’s ability to shoot in color was by far the best thing that could happen to it.  Knowing that this effect was on the novelty-ish side, I decided that I would only use it for a few shots per wedding and would limit the subject matter to a very specific look.

To convert a digital camera to IR you have to do two things.  The IR cutting filter that is over most camera sensors must be removed, and the camera’s firmware must be adjusted to only shoot monochromatic images.  Of course, just know that while in theory it’s reversible, you’re pretty much ruining the camera and will not be able to use it for anything else.

Considering subject matter is important when using IR and people.  As most know, IR tends to make grass and leaves record white, blue skies dark, and does all sorts of funky things with synthetic fabrics.  Oh, and then there’s the effect of completely black eyes when people look at the camera.  Overall, kind of ethereal and creepy.  For me, defining the way I would use this in my wedding work was easy.  Wide angles for lots of environment, shoot only in bright sun for maximum effect, and never direct the subject to look at camera.

Did I mention that IR light doesn’t focus at the same distance as the visible spectrum?  This means that auto focus is just a close guess of where the lens should focus which is another reason for the use of a wide angle lens and a small aperture of 16 or 22.  I used a less expensive Sigma 15-30mm that I had laying around.  It catches great flare and is the only lens ever placed on the camera.

As the years have gone by I admit I use it a bit less.  Out of a few dozen weddings this season so far, I would say I have used it at three, but the tides will turn again some day and you might see a lot more.

Wow, that was a long break!

I miss writing about what I love to do.  It’s just that it seems the more I’m doing this whole “business” thing, the less I shoot.  BOO!  Well, I have one beat-up camera to show you soon that I have been using quite a lot.  Details soon.

Interview with Jason Domingues

I met Jason a few years ago in Austin, Texas and have always admired his work.  We’ve kept up with each other over the years on Facebook and at the occasional photo convention.  I recently saw one of Jason’s tweets that had a photo of his new toy.  (well new to him) it was a 1970s era Yashica G 35mm camera.

I had just bought the very same type of camera and had not used it yet so I got in touch so see how he liked it.  I found out that Jason has been shooting a lot of film lately so I thought it would be great to do a little interview for the Beat-up Camera.

BC:  Was there an event you can point to that prompted you to make a career of creating photographs?

JD:  Yes.  It is a story that is told all the time.  I was an “artistic” photographer when a friend approached me to shoot his wedding.  I also had NO plan on shooting weddings, I didn’t want to deal with the crazy brides or their moms.  So as the months passed he just kept asking me to do it and with an understanding that if i could do it my way then I was game.  I knew I did NOT want to shoot weddings like every photographer out there.  I didn’t know at the time how I wanted to shoot them I just knew i wanted to be a little different then the rest.  So I shot the wedding and raced home and told Allison that this is what I wanted to do for a living and the rest is history!

BC:  If you could create a portrait of anyone in history who would it be and why?

JD:  My 10th grade teacher (tutor) – Mr Coen    The reason for this is one that is really close to my heart.  I am not the brightest person in the world (as you can see by reading this post) and all my life teachers, people, etc, etc would tell me “I could not do this or do that, I wasn’t bright enough” and Coach (Coen) never said anything of the sort.  He pushed me further and further and never gave up on me.  He doesn’t know it but he played a very big part in who i am today.  Funny thing is I have been trying to find him for years and it is like he disappeared.

BC:  What music are you into right now?

JD:  I listen to everything, I MEAN EVERYTHING!  My wife can tell what type of mood I am in by the music i am playing.  Sigur Ros – relaxed  Slipknot – stay the “f” away from me!  but if i had to pick what is on most of the time I would have to say club music like this site here http://soundcloud.com/djseanperry

BC:  What do you consider to be your artistic and aesthetic influences?

JD:  Music and Kids – Done, Done and DONE!   Music has so much emotion to it.  Try and shoot a session with headphones on I am telling you,  It is like you stepped into another world!   Kids, let me tell you about kids!  Kids live in this 5 min window – let me explain!  The 5 min window is the present time and 5 min’s before and 5 min’s ahead.  Kids do not care what happens on the outside of that window and if you can shoot and run a business that way you have made it!

BC:  If you could choose between X-ray vision and mind reading which one would it be?

JD:  Mind Reading for sure.  Just to really know what people are thinking i think would be AMAZING!

BC:  Read any good books lately? Any recommendations?

JD:  Yes I am reading a really great book called  “the accidental millionaire” by Gary Fong (you might have heard of him    What this man had to over come was unthinkable!   Made me really think on what is really important in my life!

BC:  I’ve noticed you are doing some work with film, what’s up with that?

JD:  Film is my “out” or “therapy” when I am stressed on editing.  It is not perfect, images are blurry with the cameras I use and I don’t care.

BC:  What’s your favorite piece of equipment?

JD:  My Polaroid Sun 660 or my Polaroid 210

BC:  What’s are your feelings regarding the state of the portrait/ wedding photo industry in 2010?

JD:  That is a loaded question.  To me it is really good but I know a lot of photographers a struggling out there.  listen here it is in a nut shell – get out there and embed yourselves in the photo community, Do something that is different and when that becomes the norm change it and do something else different.

To see more of Jason’s work check out the blog at jasondomingues.com/blog

Film vs. Digital (part 3of3)

If you have not read parts one and two of this discussion, scroll down a bit and check them out.  I would like your feedback.

I didn’t fully appreciate it until recently, but my entire photo career has taken place within the “digital transition”.  When I was in school for photography in the early to mid 1990s, it was all about film, Digital cameras existed, but the only ones we had even heard about were in laboratories or super well funded photo studios.

After graduating, my first job at a commercial studio had me using the Leaf DCB.  We called it the brick, because it looked like a metal brick mounted to the back of a Mamiya RZ67 film camera.  Both camera and subject had to remain perfectly still as the camera took three exposures through red, green and blue filters.  The whole thing was tethered to a beefed up Mac and all told I think it cost around $60,000 for the whole system.

That was in 1994, and for the next eight years I shot both film and digital like it was no big deal.  The choice was easy, you shot 4×5 transparency film for the big clients, 8×10 film for the big-fussy clients, 120 film for fashion and digital for all of the catalog and retail stuff that wasn’t printed large anyway.  Like several of the readers who responded to part 1 of this story, I was comfortable with both platforms and never really saw it as an ‘either or’  issue.

Okay, enough about me, this article is really about the debate about whether teaching film should be dropped from photo school curriculums.  I wrote the above description of my past to communicate that I really have no strong bias one way or the other about the medium.  It’s actually the process I’m concerned about so let’s explore that.

If you recall, way back in part one, this debate began at an advisory meeting at the college I work with.  An outside advisor (who is also a respected photographer) made it very clear that in his opinion film is not a commercially viable medium and no reputable school would teach their students using such outdated materials and methods.  After everyone picked their jaws off of the floor and shook off the feeling of having just been assaulted, a lot of questions were asked.  “Is he for real?  How can that be?  Is there a right or wrong answer here?”

It’s about Process, Not Medium

I thought about this for a while and as with most things in life, I could see where both sides were coming from and each had valid points.   I eventually arrived to the conclusion that each party in this debate is correct.  The problem is they are having two very different conversations and didn’t fully realize it.  That’s when I began thinking more about process and less about medium.  Once I made that distinction, it became easy to give an opinion.

Oh, and if I lost you by throwing out the process over the medium concept think of it this way:  You can buy whole chicken, organic chicken, free-range chicken, chicken shaped like nuggets.  There are a lot of choices of chicken out there.  Like film or digital, the chicken is just the medium.  To be eaten however, the chicken must be cooked.  This is the process, but which way is best?  Will it be better in a crock pot, an oven, the microwave?  Should it be marinated, fried, smothered in BBQ sauce?  So many choices, photography is no different

This Should Have Been Called Training vs. Education

Let’s begin by identifying the goals of each party involved.  The college’s goal is to educate their students.  In this case, the specific education centers around photography.  For the advisor who started this debate, his job as head of the photo department for a newspaper means that his goal is to train, motivate and manage photojournalists to capture compelling newsworthy images.  It’s in those two words:  Training, and education that the fundamental difference reveals itself.

When your goal is to train someone it is for a specific function or job.  You show them the best methods, tell them what to avoid and equip them with the most appropriate tools to get that job done.  However when your goal is to educate a person it is important to expose them to a far wider range of options, provide broad experiences and information knowing that the students will get specific training later as they are exposed to the real working world.

Education must come first of course.  It’s the basis needed to understand any specific training.  Even rocket scientists have to take history, English and maybe even an art class at some point in their education.  What does that have to do with rockets?  Nothing, but that’s not really the point.  The point of education is general knowledge and creating an understanding of how things work.  The point of training is to take general understanding and put it to work for a specific result.  Stripping away distractions, focusing on only what provides the desired outcome is what training is all about.  Using only the best equipment to make that outcome more achievable is also a function of training.

So, OK, I said a lot, but you’re still not really sure how I feel?  Until film, paper and the chemistry needed to process them become unavailable, it’s my opinion that they are extremely valuable as  learning tools.  Students need to do more than learn, they need to understand what they are doing.  The process that you go through from exposing film to processing and then printing your images in chemistry is slow and methodical enough to help a person really understand what is going on.  Then once they have that understanding they will have a much better handle on how to expose, process and print images with digital media.  Film is a great educational tool.  End of story.

Fun Stuff on the Way

It seems like every spring I load up on the stuff that I either need or want to use for the next year.  Not really huge purchases, I have all the major equipment I need, but this is the little stuff that makes work fun.

So what’s on the shopping list?

•Variety of vintage film cameras (I’m using them for a specific project, but it seems like only half of them work, so it takes several.)

•Nikon F5 (that is one sturdy camera!)

•Adapter for putting Nikon lenses on a Canon camera body

•35mm film scanner (to replace the one I had from 2001)

•100 sheet box of B&W 4×5 film (for my character study portrait series)

•New film reels and developing tank (not 100% decided on if I want to take back my B&W processing)

•Lots of rechargeable AA batteries for flashes (I go though these like M&Ms.  They say they’re good for 1000 cycles.  They lie.)

•More radio slaves (You can never have too many)

2010 is about a lot of things for me, and one of the things I’m looking forward to is engaging in more personal projects.  What is 2010 about for you?

Film vs. Digital (part 2 of 3)

If you missed part 1 of this discussion please scroll down one post and then come back to this.  If you have already seen part 1, welcome back!

I suppose this discussion should have been titled: “Should schools abandon film in their teaching?” but that seemed like a pretty long title.  I sincerely appreciate the comments that this subject has received, but I do want to make a few things clear.

A few folks asked why it had to be film vs. Digital, “Why can’t they live side by side?”  Well, that is what has been happening for years until it was recently suggested by an outside advisor that film was no longer relevant as a teaching tool.

The problem schools face is that they need to make decisions about where to best put their available funds in order to prepare their students for the big bad world out there.  Which text books to purchase, which instructors to hire, what facilities and materials will be necessary to accomplish the task of educating their students.  Any decision, big or small has significant impact.  If film goes away, then so does the darkroom.  This particular school already has an awesome computer lab and studio, so what do you do with the several thousand square feet of empty space if the dark room and lab facilities are shut down?

So I agree with many of the folks who commented, in the real world, the “digital vs. film” discussion is silly, useless, and unproductive.  In an academic environment however, a change like dropping film instruction means that resources will be allocated accordingly, and some instructors would be replaced by others, the building would have to be redesigned, and the entire curriculum must then be re-imagined.

Don’t think I’m clinging to the past Though.  I was sitting on this very advisory board over ten years ago when we decided that it would be in the best interest of the students to drop the photo chemistry course from the curriculum in favor of replacing it with an introduction to digital course.  In time, several other courses were either replaced or modified to reflect the changes in the industry.  This migration from old to new technology has been happening slowly, and to date, the bulk of the student’s learning experience after the first semester is with digital equipment.

I have intentionally held my opinion here so that I can hear from people well outside of this issue.  My full unfiltered opinion is on the way in part 3, but until then I would still like to hear more form those of you who have something to say.

Film vs. Digital…Really? (part 1 of 3)

I can’t believe this is even an issue in 2010 but here we go.  It’s been over ten years since the revolution came and went but the debate rages on.  This time in the halls of academia.

Nearly every college or university program has a board of advisers.  This is a group of professionals from the industry who guide the professors and instructors on what is current and relevant in their industry.  This helps form and evolve the curriculum and insures that students are getting their education based on the realities of the job and not a lot of outdated information.

At the annual meeting recently, one of the advisers, a photojournalist, was quite vocal in his opinion that photo schools should not begin a student’s photographic education using film.  In his opinion, using film should not be taught, discussed or acknowledged because (in his opinion) it was not something a student would use once they transitioned into the real world, therefore it is a waste of time to use it.

Naturally this began a lively discussion and before long there were many opinions being given on both sides of the debate.  I have a lot more to say, and history to share on this subject, but first I would like to hear what others have to say on this topic.

Please leave a comment with your opinion, and if you would, tell us if you attended a photo school or not.  I’ll be posting part 2 of my thoughts at the end of this week.