Here’s the video he created when he introduced the project…

91 days from Stephen Voss on Vimeo.

The website he created especially for the project is 91-days.org. Additionally he has been posting updates of the images on this page.

He listed three reasons why he was undertaking this project:

1. To try a little experiment in sharing some original art.
2. To integrate a little bit of time for creativity into each day within a fixed set of constraints.
3. To do some honest, nothing-expected-in-return gift-giving to a random subset of people.

And that’s it. Nothing more except perhaps a mention on the recipient’s blog. Wow.

So I sent him my address, and last Saturday I received an envelope in the mail. It was a padded envelope with plenty of postage, and the print inside was absolutely stunning. He could have just tossed it in the envelope and sent it along, but he took the time to include a very nice handwritten note. Here’s a shot of the photo taken in my backyard.

The note…

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for being a part of 91 days. This was a fleeting picture – squirrels dug the flower out later this day, so the picture’s about all that’s left. Hope you enjoy the print.
Stephen

To say I enjoy the print would be an understatement. I’m in the process deciding the best way to mount or frame the print so it can take a place on my wall where I can see it daily. I want to enjoy it, but more importantly I want it to remind me that sometimes good and talented people can give without wanting or expecting anything in return. I think that’s a good reminder we can all use from time to time. I know I can.

For myself and the other 90 recipients of these prints… Thank you Stephen.

As for statistics, metrics, measurable achievements, etc.? Forget it. Too much of a left-brained activity. I need the right side of my mind fully engaged to get through this, especially at the end of a long day of the type of left-brain work that pays the bills and keeps the cats fed.

But me being me I can’t do anything halfway. I’m utilizing my normal workflow which begins with selecting the proper image to work with. Beyond that, it’s edits in Bridge/Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. Most of the images are going pretty quickly and can be processed in ACR, but some are taking a little longer. Again, not satisfied with half-butted approach, some of them are taking some time. For example, this shot of my precious Yashica-Mat took some time to get right. The backdrop wasn’t perfectly smooth when I shot this and had some very subtle shadow areas. It took a lot of experimenting to get it looking right, most of which was spent with a curves adjustment layer and then masking to try and get the background evened out with no highlights or shadow areas behind and beside the camera. The curves adjustment layer was successful, but trying to get a perfect mask around the camera without spending a great deal of time was a challenge. In the end I didn’t go that way at all. On a whim I decided to try the spot healing brush and found it worked like a champ. Took about a minute to fix the background. Wasted time? Hardly. I learned something and that’s never a waste of time. Here’s the final image.

I’ve been meaning to get a good shot of the Yashica-Mat for a long time now, only to realize I got a great shot of it a year ago and promptly forgot about it. I know. It’s a shame, but I’m rectifying the situation. I’m happy with my decision to get on with it and get the backlog cleared up.

Is it driving me nuts to not be firing a shutter? Somewhat, but it’s only been a week at this point so I’m dealing with it. I find I’m still taking pictures with my mind when I see an interesting shot so the mental practice is staying alive. It might even be good to keep me seeing without a camera getting in the way. That happens sometimes.

The ultimate results of my self-imposed photographic exile will be worth it. Let’s face it – if the process nets me a sock monkey shot I’ve forgotten like this one, it’s totally worth it.

]]> http://existentialmonkey.com/blog/?feed=rss2&p=201 0 http://existentialmonkey.com/blog/?p=187 http://existentialmonkey.com/blog/?p=187#comments Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:23:03 +0000 Main Monkey http://existentialmonkey.com/blog/?p=187 …for a time anyway. How long depends on how long it takes me to catch up on the backlog of images I need to post-process.

So what’s my story? What caused this?

I got in a bad habit of shooting a bunch of images and then bringing them into my workflow to select the best images and do any post-processing that needed to be done. Problem was I’d start on them and then life would get in the way and I wouldn’t finish up the set. When a new opportunity to shoot would come along, I’d go shoot away and the process would just repeat. This of course never happened with anything anyone was paying for but with work for my own purposes. That only makes it slightly better.

It’s like an episode of Hoarders, only with digital image files instead of trash, cats, and an inexplicable collection of broken mop handles. I need some shooting restraint and workflow discipline.

I’ve decided to put a stop to the ever increasing backlog by not adding to it any longer. Since I know I can’t stand to not make new images I know I’ll have an incentive to catch up so I can get back out shooting, especially since I’ve got a new film camera. I’ll discuss that one in a later post.

The parameters are simple. No new photos, except for some acceptable exceptions:

1. Anything my wife needs me to shoot. If you’ve been married more than two and a half days you know this is a no-brainer.
2. Anything I want to shoot with my iPhone. Since those get post-processed within the device, they don’t add to the problem.
3. Anything I need to shoot for demonstration or educational purposes. Not cool if I’m trying to demonstrate something to someone and I have to tell them that I’m not allowed to take photos. A little weird factor is OK, but that would probably be a bit much.
4. Any paying gig. The odds of that are about as high as #5 that follows, but if I’m going to have discipline, I need clear parameters.
5. Any opportunity to take a photo of any extraterrestrial activity or crypto-zoological type creature. I don’t believe in that stuff but it’d be flat goofy to miss a chance to get a capture for which the National Enquirer would pay $3.50.

I got a good start last night; I scanned eight rolls of 120 film, some just a few days old, some dating back to last April. I’ll deal with them first and start working backward in time from there.

So here’s one of the film images that I’m starting with. I think it still needs a little work – looks a little warm to me.

Three weeks ago I had planned to get out and shoot on a Sunday. I didn’t have any major plans and I used up the morning doing other stuff. By the time I got around to go shoot it was close to mid-day and it was a pretty hazy day at that. The light around central Oklahoma isn’t exactly beautiful on a hazy early afternoon. Regardless of where you live I’m sure you can relate.

I had a brief Twitter exchange with a photographer in Phoenix on another subject and he commented on enjoying the beautiful day. I replied back to him that the light here was just ugly, but I was going shooting anyway to prove to myself yet again that it just…doesn’t…matter.

Sitting on my desk right now is a copy of U.S. Camera’s Everybody’s Photo Course by Joseph Foldes that I picked up at an antique show in a stack of old photo magazines. It was published in 1961 and has a series of instructional lessons with assignments building from basic understanding of exposure through complex lighting. This of course would have nothing at all to do with this post if it weren’t for Lesson 24: Seeing Pictures.

Too many cameras lie idle because “there is nothing to photograph”. I hope that yours is not one of them…

There is an endless variety of subject matter available to all of us, everywhere. Our task is to discover and to photograph it.

The first thing to realize is that you can take a good picture of practically anything. You don’t have to wait for something unusual to happen, or until you can visit a “picturesque” place. You just have to learn to see, to notice subjects that will make a good picture.

Good advice and advice we probably all can use from time to time.

So the light was lousy that day. So what? Since I don’t pursue picturesque landscapes (pretty pointless in the middle of Oklahoma anyway) what the light looks like really doesn’t matter much. Will I find the same shots I might have found at sunrise? Doubtful, but I can find something good to shoot.

So what I really need is a plan. Nothing too rigid or I won’t be able to see freely. So here it was (more or less):

• I wanted to work with a 35mm full-frame exposure on my Holga. I’d tried this before with less than satisfactory results, so I wanted to give it another shot.
• I wanted to shoot some black and white in my Yashica-Mat TLR. Given the sky was kind of hazy and featureless…
• …it also gave me an opportunity to try some filtering. I’ve got a stack of old Series V filters and a Bay 1 adapter to mount them and this would be a good day to try some filters to make the sky cooperate.

I had the perfect place in mind for shooting. There is a very nice outdoor energy exhibit at the Oklahoma History Center with lots of old oilfield equipment. It is a target-rich environment and I hadn’t shot there in over a year so I was looking forward to working there.

And I’m off. And I drive to the Oklahoma History Center. And I find the gates around the exhibit are locked up tight. Hmmm. I did say I didn’t want to be too rigid.

So there’s always Bricktown. Of course when I think Bricktown it’s like photographic deja vu. I’ve shot it, and shot it, and shot it, and one thing I don’t like doing is repeating myself. However, rather than viewing that as a limitation I decide it’s just going to add to my challenge so I head that way.

On my way toward Bricktown I decide to take a detour through a new neighborhood of townhouses and condominiums east of downtown, and I see a very cool installation art piece I’ve never seen before. It’s pretty dramatic with tall white metal structures pointing up and a series of cables running from the structure back toward the ground. It’s interesting and I want to shoot it. This looks like the perfect opportunity to use the Yashica-Mat with a K2 medium yellow filter to help darken the weak blue sky. Given the white of the structure I should be able to get a pretty good contrast with the sky and it should make for an interesting black and white composition.

I work around it and come up with a few interesting angles and get three shots. This is one of them.

I’ve broken the ice and now I’m getting into it. I’ve shot some and I’ve found a cool subject that will need further exploration on another trip. Now onward.

As I drift around “seeing” photos I start to find a few worth putting on film. A shot here, a shot there, and I’ve come up with a few I’m happy with. Here’s another of them, and was one of the first I shot with the Holga that day.

As I drift past Sonic headquarters I notice a couple of enormous earthenware pots at their front entrance. I’m sure they’ve been there for a very long time, but somehow I’ve missed them. Looks like another opportunity for some medium format black and white…

And so it continues. A nugget here, a small gem there. A latte at Starbuck’s. It was pretty cold that day. I needed the liquid warmth.

With harsh sunlight comes strong shadows. If you look at them as an opportunity rather than a problem you can find they can help contribute to a photo. Here’s an example of that, and a good subject that runs right off the 35mm and right on past the sprocket holes.

As I wrap it up and head toward the vehicle I’m really dying to get a shot of one of the fiberglass buffaloes that is installed along the canal. These things are all over Bricktown and each is painted differently. The paint scheme on this one has a lot of character and I really want a head shot, but that puts me pointing right at the sun. I can shift a little, but I’m still going to have a pretty ugly exposure situation working against me. I consider trying to turn the buffalo but I figure that’s probably frowned upon and he’s likely to be too heavy for me to do that. So I can’t move the sun, I can’t turn the buffalo, and I’m not waiting for sunset. Guess I better pick another angle.

Nothing like a fiberglass buffalo backend to wrap up a day of shooting.

So the light was lousy. So what? I proved to myself again that you can find shots when you look for them, even in less than optimal conditions.

I got to shoot the 35mm full frame Holga. I tested some black and white filtering on the Yashica-Mat. I found a new and interesting subject. I got some exercise. I had a latte. It was a good day.

When you shake off all the limitations and pre-conceived ideas and boil it all down to just having a desire to make some art with a camera, you start seeing photos all around you that might have been missed otherwise. There might even be a fiberglass buffalo butt around somewhere.

I like to get up close with my subjects sometimes and I love shooting at or near macro. You can get close with a Polaroid SX-70: it focuses as close as 10.4 inches from the subject. At least it does if you have one. Which I don’t. I can’t focus a non-existent SX-70 at any distance.

So until I come up with an SX-70 (I’m always on the lookout), I’m shooting with a couple of pack film cameras, some 600 series cameras, my mom’s old Colorpack, and a couple of Spectras. I really like the Spectras, especially since my first cost me 50¢ with film still in it. I just picked up my second yesterday, and apparently they’re worth more now than they were a year and half ago, because I paid $5.00 for the one yesterday.

Like everyone else on the planet, I keep a close eye on eBay for things I’m interested in, mainly cameras and camera gear. Perusing a few weeks ago I ran across a listing for a Polaroid Spectra/Image Close-Up Stand Duplicator. I’d never seen one before, but it looked interesting enough and even came with the box and instruction manual. Better yet there was almost no bidding activity. I threw a few bucks at a proxy bid, and how ’bout that, won it for the killer price of $2.25. Of course the shipping eats you alive these days, but what’s a camera junkie to do?

So it came in the mail and I finally got it out of the box last weekend. Here’s what it looks like with the camera mounted and unmounted.

It couldn’t be simpler to use. The photo subject goes in the area below where I have the jacks. The camera goes into the top, and you close the front door when you’re ready to take the shot. It has mirrors internally that reflect the light from the camera flash around the subject for proper illumination and has lenses that adapt the camera for the close focus. The instruction manual said anything higher than approximately 1/2″ would not be in focus, but it seemed to me to be a little more generous than that. Closer than 1/2″ wasn’t exactly tack-sharp (the Polaroid Spectra version of tack-sharp anyway), but it was definitely acceptable focus. The camera itself will fuss about the focal distance, but it allows the shot anyway. The film drops out in front of the subject door.

Simple as it is there’s definitely no challenge to taking a successful photograph. The challenge, if you will, is coming up with subject matter that is interesting enough to expend valuable Spectra film. I looked around the home office here and found some party popper confetti, some jacks, and some marbles, all of which I had been saving for an opportunity like this. I used a piece of black velveteen paper for a backdrop, aligned the subjects carefully and fired away. I did not shake the image as it developed. That does no good. Everyone should know this by now.

So here’s the three shots I took. I took one additional shot with the marbles using old 620 film spools to try and corral the marbles better, but the spools ended up in the shot. The image area covers nearly the full range of the opening in the bottom of the stand.

How does it do on the promised 1:1 ratio? It’s easier to check with a Polaroid than a digital image. Lay a jack on a photo of said jack. It’s the same size. Easy stuff.

I won’t go crazy with this thing because I could chew through a small fortune with it, but it will make an appearance now and again.

Funny, funny Polaroid Corporation.  Lady Gaga as your new Creative Director.  Let’s see, she’s a photographer?  Nope.  She’s a designer?  Nein.  She’s a visual artist?  Huh uh.  So what is she?  She’s hot stuff, she makes the entertainment news.  She’s today, she’s the now thing, she’s not Brittney Spears.  In short, she’s a fad.

Come on Polaroid.  What the devil are you thinking?

Some background would be in order here, but I probably know less about Lada Gaga than any other human being.  My knowledge of her comes from her Wikipedia page, and the only experience I’ve had with her music is Eric Cartman performing M-m-m-my P-p-p-poker Face on South Park.  That’s close enough for me.

Musicians are artists, and judging from her record sales it sounds like she might very well have some talent.  She’s definitely not my style of music so I’ve not bothered to seek her out.  She’s the hot thing at the moment, but she’ll be a “where-are-they-now” subject soon enough.  I’ve seen her on the news pages with her outlandish get-ups and wild appearances.  When I see a musician looking like that, I immediately come to the conclusion that they didn’t get where they are by talent alone.  No sir, they needed a gimmick, and boy what a gimmick she is.

Which b-b-b-brings us to P-p-p-polaroid.  It wasn’t that long ago Polaroid was singing a blues tune.  The undisputed pioneer of instant photography built on the genius of Edwin Land was on hard times.  They were an analog company in a digital world and they saw the images developing before their eyes as if by magic.

Polaroid had participated in the digital camera market but with little success.  As photography moved further from film to digital, times were harder for Polaroid and they finally filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001.  Fast-forward several more years (the boring business details can be found easily enough) to more recent years where Polaroid has decided to get out of film and into digital.  With this new business vision, all those pesky factories and that old messy mechanical equipment used to make the film were just not a part of the future.  Much to the chagrin of Polaroid lovers everywhere, they began to shut down factories and scrap equipment.  As of late 2009 Polaroid is out of the film business.  Fortunately for those of us that love these cameras Fuji Film got into the business and still make the peel-apart films.  Even more fortunate for us is a man named Florian Kaps who still had a vision and enough testicular fortitude to see it through.  Partnering with the former head of film production for the factory in Enschede, Netherlands, he was able to put together a plan in conjunction with Ilford Photo to re-initiate integral film (the kind you could shake but it wouldn’t really develop faster) production in 2010.  The new effort goes by the name The Impossible Project and they are the savior of Polaroid lovers world-wide.

So now to Polaroid’s big announcement from the 2010 CES show… They will be teaming with Lady Gaga as Creative Director for a special line of products.  In other words, they’re going to get right back in to the market they just got out of and think they can do it successfully because they’ve got a fad on board.  Here’s a little of a CNBC report with an interview with Miss Gaga.  Forgive me for my lack of hip trendiness, but I really don’t think she makes much sense here.  I’m not even really sure she knows anything about analog vs. digital photography, but I guess that’s not much the point now, is it?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So where’s my beef?  I’ve done a little Googlizing of the topic and found quite a few people that think it’s wonderful and that anything that helps Polaroid helps photography, and isn’t it wonderful, and blah, blah, blah.

So really, what’s wrong here?  Alright here’s my analysis.  You can pick me apart in the comments if you like.

Polaroid bailed and left a lot of photographers out in the cold with no hopes of film.  Some professionals still use the instant stuff for different purposes ranging from proofing to fine art.  Plenty of hacks like myself just love the medium and marvel at the possibilities that exist all without the need of Photoshop.

Fuji has been taking care of us.  The new cameras that Gaga with her years of engineering, marketing, and manufacturing experience will help develop aren’t going to use the peel-apart films, and besides, Fuji is big enough to take care of itself.  Thank you Fuji, and please keep cranking out the good stuff.  If you ever see Polaroid coming up the walk with something that looks like a cross between a woman and a peacock, lock the doors.

Over to The Impossible Project.  This was a ballsy move by a few very dedicated visionaries, and now Polaroid sees an opportunity to jump in and capitalize.  They’ve worked with The Impossible Project to help the film come back to the light of day, and I’m sure they’re appreciated for that, but now they’ve gone and done something a little too bold.

The Polaroid camera is getting ready to be re-released as a kitschy fad item.  Maybe Polaroid doesn’t see it as that, but with Gaga as their new highly made-up face, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.  Since The Impossible Project is going to be making the films, doesn’t that benefit them?  It definitely will short-term, but I’m afraid the long-term effects will be problematic.

Problem #1: Polaroid isn’t going to be making the film.  They will be making the cameras.  Polaroid doesn’t seem to be going out of their way to make sure people understand that.  The web is all abuzz with “Polaroid is back!!!”  The Impossible Project is the key to this whole thing, and when partners don’t take care of each other, bad things ultimately result.

Problem #2: Every teeny-bopper Gaga wanabee is going to want one of these cameras.  The cameras are no good without the film.  Lots of cameras means lots of film.  Lots of film means big production increases, more equipment, more personnel, more everything.  If you’ve ever been around manufacturing you know what I’m talking about.  It’s hard.  Really hard.  It’s going to be even harder when all these Lil’ Gagas get bored of the fad, or figure out that at about $1.00 – $1.50 per shutter push, this instant stuff is kind of pricey.  And just wait until their friends want the photos on MySpace.  There’s no USB jack on a Polaroid photo.

Sudden increases in production followed by sudden decreases in demand can be the death or at least tremendous hardship for a manufacturing company.  I’ve seen it.  It’s not pretty.

I think Polaroid is really stepping in it and I sincerely hope it doesn’t cause The Impossible Project irreparable damage.  I wish them the best, regardless what fate befalls Polaroid in this deal.  Two things I know: 1) I will continue buying Impossible Project films, and 2) I will still not own any music from Polaroid Corporation Creative Director Gaga.

A side note: You’ll find people ’round the web that just say “you don’t need a light meter, you’ve got one built in to your DSLR, just use it.” Here’s my list of why that doesn’t always work out so well.
1) If the DSLR is in the vehicle, or at home it’s of no use.
2) It’s awkward as hell to use one camera just to meter a scene then set up the other camera for the shot. I’ve done it (did it yesterday, in fact) but it’s still a pain in the neck.
3) Built-in meters are reflective. If you want to do an incident metering (read on for explanation) forget it. Flash metering, forget it.
4) If your DSLR ISO range doesn’t go where you need to match the film you’re using in the film camera, you’ve got to compensate and adjust accordingly. It’s not a huge deal, and you should know how to do it, but if you goof, you’ve blown the shot.

Close side note. On with the post.

Excluding things like cinematographic and color temperature meters, light meters basically fall into two groups: reflective and incidence.

Modern cameras utilize reflective metering. They meter the light reflected from the subject through the lens and onto the metering sensor. Obviously a scene can have different levels of light coming from different parts of the scene. Back in the old analog days, the most basic camera meters just averaged out all the light hitting the sensor. Higher end sensor systems would either totally ignore parts of the scene and only meter an area in the middle, or would average the entire scene, but bias the average toward the light in the center (center-weighted metering).

Now on to a modern camera. Nikon calls their full-frame scheme Matrix metering. Canon refers to it as Evaluative metering. These are more advanced than basic full-frame averaging in that they look at the entire scene, but then do some magical computer-camera stuff to arrive at the “perfect” exposure. The D300 manual recommends it “in most situations”, but I don’t use it much. Any time the camera is doing “magical computer-camera stuff” I feel left out. I tend to use center-weighted metering or spot metering.

Imagine the situation where you are trying to shoot a subject with very dark skin wearing light-colored clothing in front of a very light background. Using full-frame, or even center-weighted metering will result in the dark skin tones being very underexposed since it will try to meter the lighter clothing and background for perfect exposure. This is where spot metering comes in. Set spot metering, put your focus point on the subjects face and it will meter for those levels. Obviously everything else will now be over-exposed, but the subject’s face will be nicely exposed.

Incidence metering is different in that you meter the light at the subject, as opposed to the light reflected from the subject. Flash meters are incident meters. With an incident meter, you stand with the meter detector facing the camera position and meter the light falling on the scene. Many will have a semi-spherical, semi-translucent cover over the sensor to detect a more 3-dimensional coverage of light instead of the light coming directly at the sensor.

The most critical choice factor for reflective vs. incidence metering comes down to whether or not you can physically get at the subject. A landscape or any other distant subject requires reflective metering. For a portrait you could use either reflective or incidence metering.

When metering for flash, if you’re not using a flash meter, you’re pretty much limited to automatic control of the flashes for the camera and flashes working together to set exposure and flash levels, or you’ve got to shoot and review the shot (preferably with the histogram) to see if you need to make adjustments.

So on to hand-held meters.

When it comes to buying a hand-held meter, your first choice is whether to get a vintage or modern meter.

Vintage meters are cool and there are people that collect them just like vintage cameras. The main drawback to vintage meters is that most used a selenium cell to operate. Selenium is photo-voltaic and generates a voltage proportional to light exposure. Over time however, the selenium degrades to the point that the meter no longer works. Repair at that point is cost-prohibitive. They still look cool, but they’ve given up their functionality at that point. It is significant to continue looking cool though.

There is a ton of great information on various vintage meters at James’ Light Meter Collection. Lots of good background on lots of cool vintage meters.

eBay is a good place to get vintage meters, and the prices tend to be reasonable. I would recommend buying meters only from people that understand what they are and how they work, and confirm the meter is in functional condition, though there’s nothing to guarantee that a meter that works today won’t die next month.

I have a General Electric DW-58 that I paid $20 for in an antique store. That was definitely more than it was worth, but with no shipping costs and being able to test it right there, I decided to get it because I needed a meter to travel with my Yashcia Mat. It will do both reflective and 2D incidence metering and is within about 1/3 stop of being correct when check against my D300.

If you don’t want the hassle of a vintage meter and the fact it might be dead next month, modern meters are the way to go.

One advantage to a modern meter is that most offer flash metering as well. The digital meters respond quickly enough to the flash and have a digital readout that’s not limited by an analog needle. I’ve recently read a discussion that made the point that metering flash is completely unnecessary because modern cameras do everything automatically and blah, blah, blah. I’m personally not a huge fan of “all-automatic” because I like to know and control everything in my shot. Full-auto (through-the-lens, or TTL) flash metering has it’s place, and I use it sometimes, but it’s not my mainstay. Plus, if you’re using manual studio strobes, or want to work with a vintage camera, then you’re back to flash metering.

I use a Sekonic L-358 Flash Master. $259 at B&H. It will do reflective, incidence, and flash metering and I’ve been happy with it so far. The reason I bought the L-358 instead of the less expensive L-308S is because the L-358 will calculate flash/ambient ratios and will also allow aperture priority metering.

If you just want a very basic analog reflective / incidence meter, the Sekonic L-208 Twin Mate is the least expensive I know of at $99 from B&H. I had considered one of these until I decided that I wanted flash metering capabilities also and it wouldn’t do much more for me than the GE DW-58 I already had.

They also make reflective spot meters, but they are pricey. My D300 has spot metering and I figure if I’m ever in need of a spot measurement when I’m using something besides the D300, I can pull it out of the bag and use it to meter. If I don’t have it with me, I’ll do my best using the meters I have and make my best eyeball estimate from there.

All metering aside, in a pinch (and at no cost), you can always use the Sunny 16 rule. Brian Auer has very nice explanation at his blog Epic Edits.

Further reading:

• Light Meter at Wikipedia
• Light Meter at Camerapedia
• Introduction to Light Meters at B&H Photo

Case in point? Here ’tis.

I was shooting Jacqui in a low-light elevator lobby in the Mid-Continent Tower in Tulsa. I was using a single SB-800 propped on a trashcan below and to the right of camera axis. I had a full cut of CTO on to balance with the tungsten lighting and was using a Honl Photo 1/4″ honeycomb grid to get a nice tight light on Jacqui without spilling around and behind her. I was using a Lensbaby 3G, which has nothing to do with this topic, but it’s sure cool to point out.

So I take a shot or two and tweak the flash output using the on-camera Commander mode. How am I checking the exposure and lighting? With the LCD of course. I mean, that is the entire point of this post, eh?

So a couple of shots and I’m rocking it. Now I’m just trying to get a good set with the Lensbaby to get her eyes nice and sharp while throwing in that awesome Lensbaby blur away to the edges. About five shots and I’ve got it all. Light, focus, blur, all nailed. Money shot. Looks great, show Jacqui and she digs it, or is just being really polite. Either way, I’ve got it and I’ll be happy if I don’t get another good shot all day. It’s that good. Here’s a low-tech screen shot just for proof.

Well, I thought it was that good until I got it home and dumped it into Bridge. I’ve found Bridge can be a real ego compensator compared to the LCD. The LCD says “you rock” and then Bridge says “Serious? You’re really serious?” Here’s the proof.

Wait a minute. It looked good on the back display when I shot it. Wait another minute. Haven’t I been here before? Yep. About every time I’m shooting in low light. Here’s what the histogram on this one looked like.

So if I’d been paying attention to, and believing in the histogram on the camera? Pretty much the same thing.

The D300 has a 12-stop spread from black to white, and here I’ve managed to compress all my pixels in the bottom third of that dynamic range. Not what I was after at all, and sure not what the display really looked like.

So I don’t want to lose the image all together and I jump in to that all too familiar “save it in post” mode. Tweak here, tweak there, thank God for Adobe Camera Raw. Here are the develop settings that got me there and the resulting histogram. If you’re familiar with these settings, you can see how far I had to push.

‘Course you go pushing exposure to +2.25 and brightness to +50 and here come ‘da noise. Funny how trying to correct one mistake leads to others. When will I learn? When, when, when? Trust your histogram.

So a run through Imagenomic Noiseware Pro and I’ve got something presentable.

It also occurs to me maybe, just maybe, I’ve got the display brightness up too high on the camera. I checked, and it’s set to the default of 0, but just to help me out next time I get dense and forget the histogram, I adjusted it to be a little more realistic. If it’s not bright enough for outside, I’ll adjust it back when needed, in fact I even saved the LCD Brightness menu to the customized menu.

So now, with the LCD brightness set to -2, this is what I’m seeing.

So, lets see if I can do better in the future. I mean Skywalker trusts the Force and destroys a whole Death Star, surely I can trust a histogram and score an image or two.

(Photo from the iPhone)

Creepy. I’m sure there was a fabric covering over all this when the doll was made. If there wasn’t, I’m sure lots of little girls were emotionally scarred for life the first time they undressed the dolls.

Of course too, there were plenty of little boys that would have deliberately cut off any coverings to see what was going on inside, which would have also messed with the little girls’ emotional conditions.

But that’s just us as little boys. We were evil and wicked. We thought we had it going on. Then we got older and the roles reversed.

Guy goes for a hike. Guy finds a shiny thing at the bottom of a river. He pulls it out to find he’s got a totally trashed Sony digicam. Being a geek-type, he removes the memory stick and figures out it safely maintained 244 photos and 25 movie clips. Now, for absolutely no reward, he wants to track down the owners of the camera to return their images and movie clips. Good for him.

So here’s the link to his blog: Basin Found Camera.

I figure the more that know about this, the sooner he’ll accomplish his mission. The Web as community. Too cool.