Well we're a few days into Florence now, and the longer I stay here the more I like the city. It is not very big, but it's dense with tourists, local residents, street vendors, pizza, and most importantly, gelaterias. It has its own rhythm, completely different from that of Paris, and a world apart from anything in the States. You can wander in circles for hours, going back and forth across the bridges or making ever-widening circles around the Duomo, dodging the small cars and vespas as they tear through the tight streets, perusing the "fine" purses and art for sale on the sidewalks, and eating pizza at the base of a centuries-old building. That's exactly what we did this evening, after a morning of taking a long hard look at Michelangelo's David and Masaccio's work on the panels in the chapel of the Santa Maria del Carmine, some of the finest pieces of art in the world. Florence is rich in that kind of cultural history, and is very aware of it--sculptures can be found randomly on street corners or in front of buildings, and the city in general is proud of its museums and amazing churches.
Well, photographically, I have done better about taking the touristy shots. I feel good about it. I'm still not being as creative with the photographs as I'd like, but its getting better. I feel confident that I was right in thinking that simply pressing the shutter more is going to get me thinking more photographically. I have plenty of throw-aways, too, but some keepers I think. This isn't quite the same strategy as the "take a million shots and hopefully one of them will come out," which I strongly disagree with. I'm approaching it with more of a "pick the camera up, take some tourist shots to get you looking through the viewfinder, and maybe you'll start to see something more graphic." I think its working, and should only get better as I move forward, getting less self-conscious about laying on the floor to get a shot, or staying behind the group when there's good light.
I'm finishing this post on the bus as we make way to Venice. I'm excited that all the winding canals will make for some graphic images. There's one more thing I'd like to incorporate into my images: portraits. There were so many interesting people in Florence doing interesting things that I'd love to photograph, but I never got the courage to ask them. I took some portraits of friends, which I'm satisfied with and hope to continue, but how great would it be to get portraits of street vendors, gelateria workers, couples on the street and Italian policemen? That would be a sure way to add something extra to the "touristy" shots, but it will take some courage and technical confidence--I can't be fiddling with my camera as I try to do this. Onward to Venice.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Prego
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
En Route to Firenze
We are currently on our way to Florence, Italy. I'm am participating in a study abroad program for school, and will be in Europe all summer. We left Paris yesterday after spending four days there, and spent last night in a small valley town named Chamonix in the French Alps. After Florence, we will visit Venice, Vienna, Prague, Berlin, and Brugge. For the second half of the summer, we will be on the Worcester College campus in Oxford, England.
After a slight snag in the beginning of the trip (I couldn't get a passport in time to leave with the rest of the group, and had to fly out the next day) I arrived in Paris safely. I had high hopes for this trip photographically. I wanted to capture both the experience I was having, as well as the "essence" of the city, as cliche as that sounds. I did not want the normal touristy shots. Unfortunately, I believe I utterly failed at this in Paris, which is unfortunate because it is one of the liveliest, most photographic, and simply most amazing places I've ever been. Yet, I hardly took my camera out of the bag. Why? Well, I've deduced it down to two main issues.
1) I don't want to take the touristy shots. My determination to avoid bland tourist "I was there" shots led me to take very few shots at all. Every place I went I saw beautiful sights, and hundreds of people pointing cameras at them. I knew that if I picked up my camera, I would be taking the exact same shot, adding nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing graphic or photographic, simply the same boring shot. So I didn't pick up my camera, and consequently have very little to show of my experience, touristy or not.
2) I travel mostly with groups of 4 to 8. Now, this is great, because this trip is certainly about more than photographs. There are some wonderful people on this trip with me and I've really enjoyed meeting new people and getting closer to those I've know before. However, this is about the worst situation to be in photographically. Groups in general (the exception being groups of photographers) move too quickly to do a photographic subject justice. Tourists snap a frame or two and move on; they've satisfied their photographic need; they've "got it." To truly photograph a subject, though, one needs to spend time with it, learn it and its details and approach it from many viewpoints and angles. This, of course, takes the kind of time a large group doesn't have. So, as a photographer in a group of non-photographers, I have a choice. Go through the photographic process, and hold up the group and risk being left behind, or just take the tourist shot with everyone else and move on. Neither option seemed sufficient, and I ended up with no pictures.
So what's the solution? Well, I've decided to try two things, both of which compromise my initial ideals. First, I've decided to take the tourist shots. Let's not fool ourselves, I am a tourist, after all. Even if the photograph has no more of a statement than "This is what the Eiffel Tower looked like," that should now be counted worthy enough to snap the shot. I've got to start releasing the shutter more, and quit worrying about whether I'm taking the shot as a "photographer" or as a "tourist" --stupid labels anyways. Even if I don't get the shots I want, at least I'll have something to show for it. And, once I get the photographic juices flowing (which will never happen until I look through the viewfinder), who knows--maybe something will happen. I guarantee it won't happen if my camera stays in the bag.
This second compromise is to occasionally leave the group. I would like to set aside some time in each city--preferably towards the end of my stay--for myself, to photograph some part of the city alone. With all my bland snapshots, I should be able to narrow down what I think deserves the most attention. I'd like to then go back and explore that subject more, finding out what it is I really respond to. This can only be done alone, which is unfortunate because enjoy being with the people so much. The people I've joined up with really are wonderful people, and these places I'm visiting would be far more boring without them. I do not want to leave the group, but I feel the social sacrifice will certainly be worth it, if I am able to explore these incredible scenes more closely. This effort will certainly be harder than the first: I can reluctantly force myself to take the tourist photo, but it will be difficult for me to turn down an offer to go with a group to be by myself with my camera. Well it sounds kind of sad when I put it like that. I hope they understand.
I'm finishing this entry at 2:00 A.M. the next morning in Florence. We took a walk through the city at sunset, and ate in a pretty nice restaurant: we had penne with beef sauce, pork tenderloin, white beans, and the most amazing tira misu I've ever had in my life. From here on out, it's gelato every day.
Buonanotte!
Monday, May 21, 2007
Backlit Tree
A while ago I came across this tree in my front yard that had wonderful afternoon-sun backlight. Each leaf had a remarkable luminance to it not found in any of the adjacent trees. After several unsuccessful shots of the whole tree (and the rays of light coming through it on the ground), I decided it was better to eliminate the distracting background and go in closer. I ended up with this composition, from under the tree looking up. I knew I wanted it to be in black and white, to try and emphasize the light values that attracted me to the scene, as opposed to the colors.
At first I was very disappointed with this image. Due to looking directly into the sky, most of the background/sky parts are completely blown out, beyond the range of the camera. The worst of that has been cropped out here. Also, I didn't feel like I captured that original luminance I saw. My girlfriend called the image "uninteresting" and preferred the raw file in color, and perhaps she's right. But the more I look at it, the more it grows on me--at least a bit. I do rather like the tones in the leaves, and the wash of bright light in the background, though possibly distracting, is accurate in the sense that it was much brighter than the leaves I was focusing on (it was backlit, after all). I like how, compositionally, the pathway of the eye is controlled: My eye enters from the left, travels across the line of ivy toward the center of the frame, jumps up to the triangular shape of oak leaves on the right, then back down the tree trunk. Another viewer's pattern may differ, but I still think the composition is graphically strong, despite the large array of lines in the background.
In short, this is an image which I'm not entirely dissatisfied with, though I'm not entirely satisfied with, either. I know the scene had potential that could have been brought out by a better photographer. I chalk this on up to one more step on my path to total photographic control.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
A Study on Flash
Like I posted earlier, I've been trying to learn how to use my flash effectively. I'll be going to Europe in a few weeks, and I want to be able to use my on-board flash in low light without having my pictures come out...well..."flashy."
The other evening when Mom and I were waiting on the bats (see "Panning" below), I twisted around and quickly metered and shot a snap of my mom (top, left above). The meter apparently favored the light coming from behind her through the window, and her face turned out dark in comparison. "No matter," said I as I slowed the shutter speed down by a stop and shot again (top, right). Although the tones in her face look good, the background is way overexposed, as was expected.
"Well," I thought, "this may be a good time to pop up the flash and give it a whirl." In this situation I would be using the flash as the main source of light as I try to balance it with ambient. Based on the advice given by Strobist.com as a good starting point, I stopped down by two stops, then turned the flash compensation down by 1.5 EV (bottom, left). We're getting closer. The values are more balanced--nothing is terribly over- or underexposed--but it has that dreaded "flashy" look; the tones are cold and very flat. It has an almost sickly feel to it. Being as close to her as I was (I was in the passenger's seat), I thought I'd turn the flash down another stop and see what happens. Bingo! The tones are much more balanced, detail can be seen in the subject and background, my mom doesn't look ill, and everybody's happy (bottom, right).
None of these are good pictures. The composition is not all that interesting, and Mom looks like she is about to fall asleep. I tried to keep post-processing to a minimum in order maximize the differences between the four images. I probably could have tweaked the flash and exposure settings more and gotten an even better shot. At the time, I was so overwhelmed by the vast differences between the images I just wanted to see them on a larger screen immediately, and didn't think to keep messing with it. Still, as an exercise I think it was quite instructive to ignore all the other variables (composition, post, etc) and focus on the one I'm trying to learn: flash.
So, what did I learn? Well for starters I learned that it is possible to non-flashy images with a flash, it just takes some effort. That's important, because up till now I thought that my lack of skill combined with my dinky little on-camera flash (which gets a really bad wrap in photography circles) would mean that good shots in low light were just impossible. Now I think my flash has some potential that I need to squeeze out before I squeeze $185 out of my wallet on new one. I also learned that the tip I got from Strobist works: when using flash as the main light source, underexpose by a couple of stops and dial the flash down 1.5 to 2.5 stops. And finally, I learned that camera-to-subject distance has a huge effect on the necessary flash output. Sitting this close to the subject -2.5 EV was plenty of light; had I been further away, it may not have.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Panning
Last Tuesday my mom and I went to Bessemer, AL, where she said she had seen a large amount of bats coming in and out of a small tower on the high school football stadium the week before. We eventually did see a few bats, though not very many, which would have made it difficult to photograph successfully in the dark--there was very little contrast between the few small bats and the dusky sky. So, while we waited for the bats I saw an opportunity to practice the panning technique on the cars that went by in front of the stadium. Out of the seventy or so exposures I made, this one I deemed the best, which gives you an idea of how successful (or rather, unsuccessful) I was. It was more difficult than I thought! I was sitting down, taking the pictures from inside the car (you can see the dash in the lower portion of the frame). I'd like to try it standing up to see if that makes a difference.