New Camera? "RTFM", Then...Practice.

Yes, reading the manual has always helped.

You've got that sweet new camera, and now after a few photos taken Christmas morning (or a bit later if you had to wait for a battery to charge) you are thinking of all the great photos you are going to take. Whether your new camera is intended to launch you into a more advanced and deeper participation in photography, and upgrade to an existing kit, or just something you though would be nice to own for those special occasions, it's important to learn how to use it properly.

The first step is to read the manual. Um, yeah, what manual? Few cameras come with physical manuals of late: usually all there is in the box is a quick start guide, and buyers are expected to either download the .pdf manual from the company's website, or perhaps find it on whatever software DVD came with the camera. Like it or not, reading the manual is an important step what should not be skipped.

“But da-ad,. I want to start playing with it right now.!”

You can do that, by sitting down with the manual and playing with the camera as you read through it. Trust me, you will be glad you did. I frequent a gear-oriented online website and the forums are flooded with questions about how to do certain things. Things that are found in the manual. Things people really should know before they even try using the camera.

Asking for such information on a public forum can get a range of responses from very helpful to confusing to “RTFM” (Read The F***ing Manual). Best to avoid all that by actually reading the manual, then going online to ask questions if something in the manual isn't clear. Which is usually the case. The manuals are translated into English from Japanese.

The manual is important because even consumer grade cameras today are filled with more features than most people will normally ever use (especially if they don't read the manual). Finding out what your camera can do, and how to do it, can avoid the frustration of thinking it can't do something, or not being able to capture pleasing images in certain situations due to lack of proper camera settings. A common occurrence is indoor photos that have an unpleasant color cast to them because the person using the camera doesn't know how to set the White Balance control. RTFM.

So, you've read the manual and as a result know the features you want to use and how to use them. You've even set things up so the camera is a breeze to use. You're all set, right?

Of course...not.

Producing photos that go from “hohum” to “nice shot” to “Wow, you must be a professional” is a process of practice much as it is with music. Even the most automatic keyboard still requires the player to practice his part, even if that's just the melody. (Besides, there is much more satisfaction in actually learning how to play piano than in just knowing which keys to press while the keyboard does most of the work.)

Here's the real gist of this article: how to practice photography. I'm going to talk about that on two levels, beginner and experienced.

Photography involves seeing, and that means training your “photographic vision”. This happens in two ways. One is to study, not just glance at, photos that impress you with their quality, both technical and aesthetic. Just as listening to master musicians can inspire, so too can studying photos by master photographers. Just as budding musicians will learn and practice songs as played by masters, photographers can benefit from attempting to emulate the work of masters. This includes both learning the technical aspects (such as Edward Weston's lighting technique) as well as the aesthetic.

With photography, the technical knowledge and ability often makes aesthetic success easier, so learning how Weston lit his famous bell peppers can mean the ability to realize all sorts of images you want to produce, without looking at them and thinking they aren't quite what you hoped to accomplish. This aspect of developing photographic ability applies to both experienced and beginning photographers. I constantly study works by masters and pursue learning new techniques.

To get really good, be prepared to take your camera with you as much as possible. Sitting in a closet or shelf does you know good. Keep it in the car (out of sight to avoid theft) take it with you when you go out for a walk. Sometimes photo opportunities pop up unexpetedly, but sometimes you create those opportunities yourself. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you when the chance to make a photo arises.

A major learning stage for a beginner is using your camera in all sorts of different situations. Sit down and make a list of the situations you anticipate photographing, then practice techniques that will help you both get to know your camera and the situaton better. For instance: if you are going to be doing a lot of photography involving your kids playing sports, then study the features of your camera that relate to action (shutter speed, ISO settings, autofocus modes). Take that knowledge and practice.

No soccer games in the offing? No problem. As your kids to run around kicking a soccer ball in the back yard or at the park so you can practice panning, anticipating the height of action, framing moving subjects et al. An ideal situation is to practice photography during your kids' sports practices. That way when a game comes up, you will already know how to capture the action like a boss.

Such regular “practice” is what results in photos that wow people as opposed to those which just look like anyone else's snapshots. This goes for any subject.

One thing I do want to mention, and this applies to both beginners and experienced photographers, is “Don't just stand there”. People tend to take photos from the natural position of standing up. This often results in boring, or at least ordinary, photos.

Years ago I read an interview with a photographer known for the quality of his nature photography workshops. He said he could tell at the start of the workshop who would produce the best photos. Was it their cameras? No, it was their clothes. The photographers who showed up in older clothes they were willing to get dirty were the ones prepared to get down on their knees or clamber about in trees to get the shot. The ones in nicer clothes wouldn't do that. The photos showed the difference in their willingness to do more than stand there with a camera.

The next aspect of practicing is to pick a theme or subject and shoot it consistently for a period of time, working to capture it in as many different ways as possible. Some suggest a “photo a day” approach, but I feel that for some that can actually limit creativity. Try working on a particular subject or theme for a month, or maybe a few months. A year even. It doesn't have to be an exclusive effort, but it should involve a disciplined, regular activity designed to develop both technical and creative abilities.

For more experienced photographers, stretch yourselves by making your projects subjects or themes you don't normally photograph, even to the point of them being things you aren't normally interested in. I don't normally photograph cars, but in 2017 one of my learning projects will involve going to a car show or two to hone skills in that area. Why? Because I want to constantly be improving, and because I may find income opportunities from it.

Some would suggest joining a camera club to help learn. Maybe. I'd recommend attending a few meetings before actually joining. I've had some bad experiences with camera clubs that were very cliquish and spent most of their time debating gear instead of actually sharing a love of photography.

For beginners, photography classes are often a great way to learn to make the most of your new camera, and well worth the cost in the long run. Or even just buying a few photography how to books. Both earn a return on investment by helping you get the most out of your camera.

These are just a few suggestions on how to optimize that great new camera you have wanted for ages. One thing I've seen happen too often is people get a new camera, but after the excitement of having a cool new toy wears off, it gets shelved and only used for special occasions such as birthday parties or holidays. Usually this results from the owner reaching a certain plateau of enjoyment or ability. The overall quality of the photos starts to stagnate, or lack of facility with the camera results in a lot of missed shots or spoiled photos, or he/she can't figure out how to take photos in certain situations. The camera becomes a source of frustration, rather than enjoyment, so it ends up hardly being used. To me, that's a lot of money wasted for something that can be handled by an inexpensive point or even a smartphone.

Remember that the real enjoyment of a camera comes not from the camera itself, but from the images you produce with it. That's why putting in the effort to lean the most you can about both the camera and photography is important, because it can increase your enjoyment of the images you make.

Do You Need That Fancy-and Expensive-New Camera?

So you really need that fancy DSLR or MILC camera for Christmas? Really, do you need it? Can you quantify what it is about all the extra features, maybe the larger sensor, the looks, the prestige of ownership, that you need to have to produce better photos?

What do you mean by “better photos” anyway?

Will they be technically better? 

 Almost certainly if you are going with just about any current dedicated camera as an upgrade from a smart phone The sensor size difference alone will make for sharper photos with less noise and better colors and dynamic range. The ability to control things such as shutter speed, aperture, ISO and lens focal length can all make for better photos technically.

But will they be that much better, f you don't take the time to adequately learn how to get the most from your shiny new camera? (Lots of people don't which is why the shiny new camera ends up being a waste of money.)

Better photos? 

Possibly, if you currently have a camera that is either outdated (as in 5 years old or more) or lacking certain features the new camera has. However, the same constraint applies: you need to learn how to properly use all the new capabilities, not just assume a newer, more advanced (and more expensive) camera is going to automatically improve things because of automated features. It still takes a human being with knowledge and judgment to optimize the output of even the most advanced and sophisticated camera.

So then, “possibly” can turn into “probably not” if you haven't already reached a point where you can get the most out of your current camera, and it's actually inhibiting your ability to produce the photos you want, or keeping you from enjoying photography.

Consider this: the marketing department of every camera maker says you need the latest and best camera. What they mean is they need you to buy it, and the best way they can get you to do that is convince you that photos from your 2 year old entry level camera are crap compared to the latest mid range or prosumer camera they offer. Just remember that 2 years from now they will be saying the same things about the cameras they are trying to get you to buy now.

The fact is that about 80% of photos are taken under conditions that can be easily handled by a smart phone made within the past 3 or 4 years. The other 20% are indeed situations in which exacting controls, better sensors and longer or shorter focal length lenses are necessary to produce images worth looking at. Just try capturing a soccer or baseball game, birds in the backyard or close ups of flowers with a smart phone. 

Tried that already? Did it make you swoon with photographic euphoria? I didn't think so. (There are people taking some outstanding photos with only smart phones, but sports and wildlife are not usually their genres.)

The question remains, though, do you need the latest camera available? I, along with thousands of other professionals, produce sale-able images with cameras that are years from initial release. They get the job done, and have long since met return on investment, and important point for pro photographers. Why invest money in new gear when it isn't actually needed? 

Some pros do need the latest gear, in order to assure themselves of optimal capabilities. A missed shot due to a gear shortcoming can not just cost some money, it can tarnish the reputation of a pro photographer and thus lose future assignments.

However, that applies to pros, and only a small percentage of pros at that.

99.9% of camera owners are not going to risk losing income due to a camera's burst rate not being fast enough, or missing the focus, or having too much noise in a low light situation. As I mentioned above, 80% of photos out there can be produced easily and adequately with a smart phone This has always been the case, relative to the technology of the time. 30 years ago, 80% of photos were produced by simple 35mm cameras, many of them fixed lens or with the standard 50mm lens. Before that it was Instamatics, and before that basic box cameras.

Most people really don't need even a basic DSLR or MILC to take photos worth showing and sharing. Sales trends bear this out, as the compact camera market has almost died out completely, replaced by smart phones, while the bridge and DSLR/MILC markets are struggling as well. So, if you are yearning for a $1000+ DSLR kit, do you really need it?

Probably not.

However, if you want it because it will lead you to enjoy photography more, and perhaps increase your level of knowledge and quality of your photos, then that is all the reason you need to buy it.

Please don't let it sit on a shelf or in a closet, to be used only for special occasions. Make the most of it, learn how to use it well, and it will be more than worth the investment of time and money.

Music Lives Forever (and So Do We)

Lita Ford in concert at the McGrath Amphitheatre, Cedar Rrapids, IA. Living proof that Rock and Roll Will Never Die.

Music brings a sort of immortality, at least to those who write and perform the music. Each generation has brought its own genre of “musical rebellion” into our society and culture. The youth of the day claim the music as their own, despite protests by the older generation about the quality of the music or the lifestyles of the musicians.

When we are young and full of vigor and rebelliousness, we tend to lock onto anything that reinforces our sense that we are special, we are not going to end up like the older generation. We will be unique individuals who won't bow down to the expectations of convention. Rather, we will make our marks on society and history by following new paths, with our favorite songs being the anthems we sing along the way.

A big part of how we establish our individuality is by listening to and loving the same songs that thousands, even millions of others listen to and love to establish their individuality. Hey, we are all human, and humans are at essence social animals.

Yet those songs do establish the “us” as being somewhat unique. They become woven into our lives and our identities as surely as what we are taught in school or the things we learn from living every day with our parents. Perhaps more so, because there are times where the songs represent what we WANT our lives to be, not the reality we have to deal with. Music can offer an escape from the mortality of a life of boredom or worse, abuse. For the brief moments we listen to our favorite songs or albums, we are forever young and free and immortal.

We get to our fifties, sixties or seventies and listen to those same songs we loved in our teens, twenties or thirties and our minds are flooded with memories of our youth. Music is like that. It can set memories ablaze as few other sensory inputs can. Personally, every time I hear a given Moody Blues (my favorite group) song, images fill my mind of the first time I heard the song, or other events tied to the song in some way. Even some painful memories, soothed by the passage of time, become bittersweet when I listen to an old song that had an impact on my life.

This illusion of youth and immortality, on the part of both the musicians and their fans, is probably a big reason why many keep touring, even after their voices have lost some range and power, they can no longer prance about the stage as they used to, and they just plain look too much like grandpa or grandma to maintain the image of the musician our parents hated when we were younger.

Many of us embraced certain groups in our youth for the very reason that they represented some sort of rebellion against the staid, old culture and values that our parents and grandparents represented. We reveled in the idea that our parents hated our favorite groups, from the style of music to the way they dressed. We smiled in secret (or not so secret) joy whenever the words “I can't stand their music. Why do you even listen to them?” come from the mouths of our beleaguered mothers and fathers.

Now some of those Musical Icons of Rebellion look like the sort of people our parents would invite to dinner.

Sure, onstage they maintain the sort of persona that they did 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. But offstage, the wrinkles become more apparent, and they just can't howl at the moon like the used to. Age has caught up with them in most of their lives, except for their music. It's the fact that when we hear their songs, or see them perform, we can share in that sense of immortal, eternal youth that was part of the kernel from which their musical sensibilities arose.

Take Lita Ford as an example. When she and her fellow members of “The Runaways” hit the scene in 1975, they represented something that those in “proper society” frowned upon: hard rocking women who were not ashamed to be open about their attitude, their sexuality and their strengths. The looked the male-dominated rock scene (and society) square in the eye and said “F*** YOU”. The Runaways were scary and sexy and dangerous and reassuring all at once, letting us know that those “bad girls” were dug or were in high school and college were not the whores and misfits our parents and school principals and pastors portrayed them as.

The Runaways were women who decided to be who they were, not who others expected them to be. The rest of us realized that was a message we needed to hear and embrace in our own lives. Yes, that was the original intent of nearly every conic rock group, to declare that they were new, different and unique. Sometimes that message caught on and influenced an entire generations, and other times the uniqueness was only appreciated by a small body of fans.

Then we fast forward back to our own lives as middle aged, parents and grandparents. We realize we are the same sort of people we defied and made fun of when we were in our teens and twenties. We can watch our own kids or grand kids dig Lady Gaga and think “I can't stand her music. Why do you even listen to her?” and justify that odd sort of irony by digging out our favorite oldies and saying “Now this is REAL music.”

That, in essence, is what musical immortality and eternal youth are, immersing ourselves in an unchanging reality that for the few minutes that “Cherry Bomb” or “Nights in White Satin” or “Under Pressure” or any one of thousands of other hits is playing, WE are the young person tuning out the cries of our parents to “turn that crap down”. We are who we thought we would always be when we were young: ever the youthful, hip, rebellious types who would never end up like our parents.

That's why seeing our icons of our youth perform as though they-and us-are still in our teens or twenties is so important our psyches. Seeing Lita Ford give the same sort of show she gave 30 years ago gives credence to the idea that “you're as young as you feel”. Hearing her perform “Cherry Bomb” with the same sass and vigor she displayed 40 years ago makes people realize that just as she and others said years ago that they weren't going to change who they were to please anyone, they haven't. As Lita haughtily sang “Hello daddy, hello mom, I'm your ch-ch-ch-ch cherry bomb!” I realized once again that my parents WERE wrong about the sort of girl I should date and someday marry. Hell, they were wrong about several things that what would make my life “successful”.

It's the times that have changed. Rebellion became fashion, to become the status quo. That's what transformed the songs of Lita Ford, or The Stones, or David Bowie from that music our parents demanded we turn down to classic, musical icons which represent what is now a normal part of society. (That, and the almost ambivalent idea that yesterday's rebellious rockers invariably become mainstays, then classic acts, without ever changing who they are. That's because in the end, the money controls what a lot of musicians can or cannot do.)

So, every time we listen to an old classic, we return to that moment when it first became a part of our lives, something that identified us as who we were, and are, as individuals. That's because, even though millions of other people consider that same song a favorite, no one else had the unique moment, the individual experience that occurred when they first heard that song.

No one else reacted exactly the same way I did when I heard "Cherry Bomb" for the first time, and so I and millions of others have a one-up bond to that, and so many other songs, which has in some way had a lifelong influence. "Cherry Bomb" invited me to appreciate a certain young woman at my high school in ways I hadn't before.

That's one reason why some songs are so special, so important. They are songs which just "do it" for us and make us stop whatever we are doing and turn up the radio when they come on. It's a part of who we were, and are, being replayed for 3 minutes, and we want to enjoy that sense of immortal, eternal youth as best we can.

It's this living embodiment within the lives of everyone who hears and comes to cherish a song that results in immortality for the performer. By extension, we revisit our youth, and so we come to love the songs even more.

Our kids or grand kids may appreciate the musicians we loved when we were their age, or they may say “I can't stand her music. How can you even listen to her?”

When we hear that, we can just smile, turn up the volume, and realize that in 20 or 30 or 50 years, they will be asking the same of their kids and grand kids, quite possibly when they have dug up old recordings from the 60s and 70s and rediscovered groups that made us all feel immortal and forever young when we first heard them.

Why Some People Shouldn't Be Journalists.

There was a time when it was expected, even demanded by some news outlets, that a journalist be as thorough in his research, as exhaustive in his analysis of information gathered from that research, and as unbiased as possible in presenting what he'd found. Writing it all up in an intelligently presented format was also expected. The only exceptions were editorials and “opinion pieces” in which the writers expressed their personal views, mainly in order to attract readers. Even in “Op-Ed” articles, research and accuracy were expected.

Failure to do so meant the risk of being accused of “yellow journalism, the misreporting of news in order to promote a biased agenda. There was a time when this was frowned upon by all but the most mercenary and disreputable of news outlets. Think of the days when “The National Enquirer” or “The Star” showed up on grocery store check out line displays. Most people realized they were full of junk, some of it obviously fictitious. These “tabloids” sold well, however, and so a trend was birthed.

Times have changed. With the internet, it seems that anyone can put up a website, gather some writers of questionable integrity and ability, and start making money off of click-throughs as people naturally respond to headlines intended to attract people, whether the articles are accurate, or even related to the headline.

A recent example was several online articles scoffing at the Pentagon paying $170,000 to “see why people spill coffee”. The short articles (many of the copy/pasted from other sources) tried to come across as snarky and superior by pointing out that people spill coffee because they are clumsy. What these writers either failed to find out, didn't care about, or intentionally omitted was the study was to find out what neuro-muscular functions combined to either spill or successfully carry a full cup of coffee.

“So what?” people asked. Answer: This was a practical way to gather data that can help in the engineering of prosthetic devices and remote/robotic machines, as well as possible applications in therapy and treatment of numerous neurological or muscular disorders. A “real” journalist would have uncovered this aspect of the study, researched it, and instead of trying to get hits by reporting the negative side of it, would have announced that new research involving something as simple as carrying a cup of coffee might aid amputees, soldiers in action, and those suffering from illnesses such as Muscular Dystrophy or various palsies.

Coincidentally (or not) a similar article resurfaced about a photo of a group of high school students engrossed in their phones with a magnificent Rembrandt painting in the background. This photo was originally presented as an example of how today's young people are missing out on great things in life because they are busy with their smart phones Many people “liked” and “shared” the photo on Facebook and other social media, smugly harrumphing that they are not like that (even though there's a 65% chance they were using their own smart phones to access social media).

The problem with this interpretation of the photo is that it's completely wrong. These kids were using the museums interactive smart phone application to learn more about the paintings they were viewing. Again, some careful research and honest reporting would have presented an article citing the favorable use of smart phones in education.

I'm not even going to touch on the plethora of “news” sources which intentionally engage in “yellow journalism” and propaganda. That would take a book of several hundred pages to address. The phenomenon that leads to all these types of “journalism” consists of some common elements.

• The Money Factor. Sensationalized, biased or articles that cast a bad light on negatively viewed people or institutions generate sales, or at least hits on a web page where it's hoped people will intentionally (or through manipulation) click on ads. Websites attract sponsoring ads based on the number of page views and unique hits they can generate. So, the more they can get people to click on links to their sites, even if the link involves a misleading headline or untrue article, the more money they can make. Journalistic integrity has always clashed with the drive to make a news outlet profitable(which has always depended on advertising). Today, integrity has fallen by the wayside as our society of greed has made profit the primary motivator.
• The drive for power and influence. Publishers have always had a desire to make a mark on society and in politics. For the most part, laws regarding libel and slander helped keep print sources in check, while the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was the FCC's attempt to address broadcast news sources. However, there have always been many clever ways to circumvent any laws or regulations intended to promote and ensure balanced, objective reporting. The time when most journalists had the personal integrity to avoid such techniques has passed, and making sure the boss is happy, even at the expense of journalistic integrity, weighs heavily on even the most “honest” of journalists.
• Give John. Q. Public what he wants. We have devolved into a society inordinately influenced by Narcissism, competitiveness and negativity. People have reached a point where they prefer to have subjective opinions reinforced no matter how much misinformation or outright lies they have to embrace to do so. In the articles cited at the beginning of this essay, the Pentagon and young people with smart phones are viewed with antagonism by a lot of people. So, the goal of the writers was to appeal to that antagonism, with any regard for accuracy or fairness being of little or no importance.

There was a time when journalists would report the news as accurately and honestly as possible. There are a few who still do so. They are men and women who will write articles they know will be unpopular with many people, but they feel what they have to say must be said. Their goal is to inform and educate, even if people don't want to be informed or educated. They are far outnumbered by hacks who cannot, with honesty, call themselves journalists in the conventional acceptance of that term.

What makes this situation even worse is some people consider their biased articles full of misinformation or omitted facts to be fair and balanced. They have allowed their own antagonism toward those of differing views, whether ideological, political, social, economic, religious etc. to determine what they view as worth reporting or not. This is “yellow journalism” at its worst, when writers forego honesty and factual reporting simply to connect with and influence those who are willfully ignorant. They're the journalistic equivalents of vultures circling above a carcass, thus helping jackals to find a putrid but easily obtained meal.

It it true that no one can be completely objective in reporting news or presenting an opinion. That's simply human nature. However, when we consider subjective, misleading or uninformed reportage to be some sort of virtue, we have done ourselves a great disservice as a nation and as a society. While truth can set people free, accepting lies as truth is a sure way into bondage.

An "Impossible" Photo

Willy Porter and Carmen Nickerson. Copyright 2016, Charles Black and Eye Guess Photography. Photo taken with Olympus
OMD EM1 and 50-200 f2.8-3.5 zoom. ISO 5000, 1/200 at f3.5, 200mm

This photo of Willy Porter and Carmen Nickerson is supposed to be "impossible". It was produced with a micro four thirds camera, the Olympus OMD EM1. According to some people the sensor in my camera is too small to use for concert photography. High ISO images, such as this one shot at ISO 5000, are just too noisy, too lacking in detail to be any good.

At least that's what some "experts" say. The thing is, many of these "experts" are the types who depend very heavily on their cameras to do things they should be using their own minds to do. That is, take the steps necessary to capture images in a way that allows for the final version to look the way they want it to look. What has happened is that some people become fixated on "OOC" images (out of camera) and eschew and criticize any images that they feel have had too much post processing done.

This is actually a pretty ridiculous attitude given that for the entire history of photography the greatest images have often involved extensive "post processing" of some sort. However, this article isn't about the whole "OOC vs PP" argument that continues to rage on various websites and at camera club meetings. It's about how to make sure your chosen photographic tool produces images that may seem "impossible". Whether that photographic tool is a smartphone, compact camera, or top of the line DSLR, the principles behind "impossible" images are the same.

1. Get to know your equipment. Understand what it can do well and what its limitations are. Then understand that it's a stupid, inanimate object and you do the thinking. Study some books, articles or watch videos about photography, not just about gear. Learn basic principles such as exposure, dynamic range (the range of dark and bright areas that retain detail in the photo) and other things that your dumb camera can only adjust based on fixed, programmed parameters.
2. Learn how photographs you admire were created. This will help you understand things such as lighting, composition, posing models, etc. You will find that in very few instances did the photographer depend on the camera by itself to make the image stand out. One thing that makes the best pros the best, and the Masters the Masters, is realizing that a camera is a tool that has to be used in the right way, not the decision maker in the creative process.
3. Get a good editing program, and learn it in depth. I use Adobe Creative Cloud, which consists of Light Room and Adobe CC. I also have a collection of plug ins that do things the basic applications can't, or don't do as well. There are plenty of programs out there, many of them free. If you primarily use your smartphone for photography, I recommend Snapseed or Photoshop Elements for Android. They're free, and allow for a lot of adjustments. There are also some terrific apps specifically for iPhone.Then, learn the real editing part of the software, not just the cool looking effects. Those effects only go so far in making photos truly stand out. Some people call some of my images "amazing" and nearly all of those images have no special effects added: it's just a good combination of my experience and skill in photography in general, the camera and the software.
4. Experiment. One great thing about digital is you can take thousands of images without it costing much to do so. This allows you to capture images of a huge variety of subjects under a wide range of conditions. Take lots of photos with different in camera settings. Then see how those settings related and interact with settings in the editor. 
5. Develop a front to back workflow. The "OOC" folks tend to put almost all their attention on the moment of capture, and how the camera is set for that. They are selling themselves short, in my opinion. Photography has always been about a complete process to create the final image, not just how to set the camera appropriately for the moment of capture. That's where step 4 becomes so helpful: over time, you will find how in camera settings A will work with editor adjustments B to create a certain look to your images that set them apart from the "typical snapshot". What I mean is that know, before you even capture the image, how you want the final image to look, and how what you have the camera set for works with what you will do in post processing to achieve that look.
6. Be your own harshest critic. Probably the area most people hinder themselves in improving their photography is they don't know how to effectively self-critique. What usually happens is emotional involvement with an image makes a person think it's a better photo than it really is. I regularly look at "great photos" people submit to forums and think "Holy Buckets of Cod, why did that person even keep that image?" I know the answer: it's a photo of a child, or pet, or pretty sunset, and they wanted to preserve the memory. That is really what photography is best for. However, it doesn't mean the photographs are good as photographs. It just means they are good as a preserved memory. Learnt to separate emotional assessment of the memory from critical assessment of the technical and aesthetic qualities of the image.

All of this can take some time to put together, but the results are worth it. It's taken me a couple of years to develop the familiarity with both my gear and software, as well as my workflow, to create images which defy the conventional wisdom of how they are expected to look. I'm not alone in this regard. I have seen some images from iPhones and Android phones that are breathtaking, because the photographers took the time to learn their tools, learn the best process, and make it all work for them, whether someone else says it's impossible or not.

Good luck and take lots of photos.

"The Shot": Ellis Paul, Sunday, April 24, 2016

(Danger Will Robinson: Since this blog is primarily about things creative, and I am being so creative in other areas I've been neglectful of being creative with this blog, I'm going to use my other creative endeavors more to be creative here.)

Ellis Paul in Concert. Copyright 2016 Charles Black & Eye Guess Photography. I gave myself permission, to use this photo. All others must ask.

Photographers great and not so great, are always hoping for "The Shot". It's an image that even before you trip the shutter, you realize is going to say something special, or at least look cooler than anything else you do at that time.

For a concert photographer, The Shot can do a few different things. In some cases, it epitomizes the atmosphere of the concert that it might be the only one needed to make people wish they'd been there. Or, it might be one that presents the performer in a way that sums up his or her talent and style in a single image. Then at times it's an image that does the opposite, stripping away the stage persona and revealing a side of the performer not often seen.

This is that sort of shot.

Ellis Paul is a great singer/songwriter who is usually very congenial and outgoing on stage. He connects very well with the audience, and it shows in how much the audience appreciates his performances. Sometimes though, all performers have moments when they sort of disconnect from the show and tap into something the audience can't see, some etherial place where the musician's chosen Muse resides.

When that moment happens, it seems the audience disappears for an instant as the musician connects with the Power that feeds his soul and drives his music. This is Ellis Paul in that moment.

Happy Mothers Day to Adoptive and Foster Mothers

Mothers Day is an odd holiday for adoptees and foster children. We all have a woman who we consider "mom". She may not have birthed us, but she loved us as her own nonetheless. She took the extra steps to love a child that was not of her own flesh, born of her own womb. That's an extra special mother in my eyes.

Then there's our "birth" or "biological" mother. (don't ever call her our "real mother") Sometimes we know who she is, and end up being glad she isn't in the role that we want a mother to be. We have our mothers, and both we, and those dysfunctional women who were at least smart enough to give us up because they knew they couldn't raise a child at that time, are better off not being part of each others' lives.

Then there are the birth mothers who keep in touch, who remain some part of our lives even if circumstances kept them from being or one and only moms. We are blessed with a bittersweet good fortune in this case, having two moms as it were.

But most of the time, our birth mothers are a mystery of varying magnitudes. Depending on the state and the circumstances, we may have complete knowledge of a mother we have never met, or nothing but the idea that someone out there gave birth to us, but left our lives soon after.

For some of us, that mystery can haunt our entire lives. What was her name? When I look in the mirror, how much of what I see is her? Do my daughters look anything like her? Do I have siblings out there somewhere?

Did it rip her heart in pieces to give me up for someone else to be my mother, or was she glad to be rid of me? Does she consider the same questions about me that I consider about her? Do her thoughts dwell on me as often as mine dwell on her? Is she even still alive? Is see searching for me, as I may have searched for her, only to find laws that are meant to keep us apart as long as we live?

Some of us adoptees and foster children find the answers to these questions. Sometimes when we do it's a wonderful, joyful occasion. Other times it results in heartbreak and regret. In my own search for my birth mother, I've read as many horror stories as happy endings.

So here we are, adoptees and fosters, facing a holiday that may remind us of heartache and loss, or joyful fulfillment, or nothing at all. Some in our situation find themselves simply filled with emptiness when it comes to Mothers Day. Their adopted or foster mothers turned out to be as dysfunctional as they imagined their birth mothers might be or actually were. They are children who deserved a good mother as much as anyone else did, but never had such a blessing.

This is my salute to all those adoptive and foster mothers who took us into your lives and did the best job you knew how raising someone else's flesh and blood. We know that with few exceptions, you consider us as much your sons and daughters as if you had bore us from your own wombs.

For that, one day a year isn't nearly enough.

Less IS Best.

Let's say you've decided to take your involvement in photography up a notch, going beyond the endless flow of selfies, the keepsakes and the occasional “doesn't that look cool” grab shot.

Let's say part of that process was getting a dedicated photo editor (Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, Snapseed et al) instead of just relying on Instragram filters or the effects your smartphone camera has built in.

Let's say you're sitting down at your computer, editor open and looking at a photo and checking out all those cool sliders like “Clarity”, “Noise Reduction”, “Sharpen” etc.

Let's say you're wondering what to do with all those nifty, yet daunting controls, and are hoping to find a tutorial on how to use them to best effect.

Well, this ain't that tutorial. Said tutorials are built into the help functions of the various editors, and can also be easily found on YouTube or via Google. I can't offer anything that would be better than any of those, (probably not even as good). What I can do is offer an important piece of advice that many people starting to use more advanced editors really need to heed:

Less is More. Take It Easy. Dial It Back a Notch. Don't Overdo It. Chill.

Yes, that is all one piece of advice.

You see, what happens when many people get their hands on some of the controls in a good editor is they become enamored of what the effect does, beyond their ability to recognize when the effect has become destructive to the image. An otherwise nice looking photo can be ruined by overdoing certain helpful functions, and often a beginner doesn't recognize what is going wrong. But those with a more experienced eye will see the problems, and we see a lot of them because the overuse of certain effects is rampant.

Oh yeah, here's a second piece of advice:

Keep Things in Order.

This is important because certain effects can adversely affect other changes. For instance, making exposure or contrast changes can make noise (that grainy look) worse. So noise reduction should be applied before doing any exposure or contrast changes. Most people use the following workflow when applying various effects and controls. Note: You should do any cropping before starting further work on the image.

1. Noise Reduction
2. Contrast/Exposure/Color Saturation (these 3 are interdependent and often must be tweaked at the same time)
3. Special Effects Filters
4. Sharpening.

The reason for this order is simple, and important: each change could have an adverse effect on the previous changes if done before, rather than after. I could go into some in depth technical explanation why, but this isn't really a technical article, so just Google it if you want.

Now comes the whole “Chill” part. There are two reasons why changes should be conservative. The best way to proceed when getting started is to make a change to a certain point, then dial it back about 10%. The reason is because of, you guessed it, how future changes will influence the changes already made.

Noise Reduction: Digital photography has created an expectation that images should be as smooth-toned as possible. The days in which “grain” was an acceptable part of using certain films to produce photos are gone. In fact, some people assess photos primarily by how much noise they have, with other factors such as whether the photo is even worth looking at being secondary. But I digress.

Getting rid of noise is both easy and a pain. Simple noise reduction usually involves just clicking a button or, better yet, moving a slider until the photo looks “clean”. The problem is that reducing noise also reduces detail, so too much noise reduction can result in a smeared looking photo, or one that is so artificially digital it looks like it's CGI instead of a photo of real life.

Sharpening can recover some of this detail, but not all of it. So it's always better to take it easy with noise reduction, in part because the next steps can help reduce noise as well.

Exposure/Contrast/Color Saturation: One of the great things about digital is that it's much easier to correct or change exposure (brightness level) contrast and color saturation. However, because these three are interdependent in a lot of ways, you will find that making small adjustments of each on is better than trying to improve or fix an image by making a big adjustment in a single area.

Increasing exposure is going to make most photos look like the contrast and perhaps color saturation, have been reduced, while decreasing exposure can have the opposite effect. Increasing or decreasing contrast can make a photo look over or under exposed, and throw off color saturation. Increasing or decreasing color saturation can give an apparent increase or decrease in contrast. This is why adjusting these three settings really needs a light touch, and some patience, to get things looking the way you want.

How does all of this can have an effect on noise levels? Increasing exposure can make noise more apparent in shadow areas. Increasing color saturation can make noise more apparent in large areas with little detail. Contrast changes can make existing noise more obvious. However, reducing things such as shadow or black level can make noise less obvious, at the expense of losing some shadow detail. All of this is why you do noise reduction first, then go gentle with the next set of changes.

Special Effects Filters: Yes, they can make your pics look really cool. When used properly. And sparingly. As in not on every photo you want to share. Really. Not every pic is well served by the vignetting, or old style film effects, or overdone tone mapping. Always keep in mind that as a photographer, what may be a great shot to you involves your emotional investment in that image, something that may not be shared by others.

Effects filters can make a shot look better, or be more attractive to the viewer, but my advice is the same, to dial the effect back about 10%, or more, from what you think looks good. Most importantly, always, always, always consider whether the image is actually improved, or made more aesthetically appealing, through using effects filters. Often what people do is take an image that should simply be deleted and make it worth looking at for a few seconds by adding the effect(s). However, that doesn't really make the image worth keeping, it just makes it the photographic equivalent of a gimmick song by a “One Hit Wonder” musical artist.

Sharpening: Sharpening isn't really sharpening. No, I mean it. All sharpening does is increase the brightness or darkness between adjacent pixels, making lines between light and dark more apparent. Your brain perceives this as an increase in sharpness, to a point. However, if you apply too much sharpening, you create halos around certain areas in the image and it ends up looking like that photo taken with your brand new $800 dslr kit was made with a cheap cell phone. In fact, oversharpening is probably the main way in which people ruin images.

Modern editors have some wonderful sharpening tools. I recommend sticking with Unsharp Mask to start, although the smart sharpening tools found in Photoshop and some other apps handle the task quite well. Just keep in mind that some dialing back of what you think looks good is usually in order.

Remember how I said that each change can affect previous changes? This is why sharpening should be done last, because if you sharpen a photo, then do something like noise reduction, it won't work as well as it should. The noise reduction is basically trying to undo the sharpening process. It's kind of like trying to change your shirt while still wearing your coat.

Clarity: This is sort of a “fix a lot of stuff at once” tool. You should still do noise reduction first, but clarity can eliminate doing other things like exposure adjustment or sharpening. As the name of the effect implies, it improves the clarity of the photo by making all those other adjustments at once. So the sliders in a clarity control handle the interdependent adjustments of exposure, contrast, color saturation, black/white/shadow/highlight levels and even sharpening all at once.

This sounds like a great tool, and it is for a lot of photos, but it can also be overused. Too much clarity can result in an image with a bizarre combination of too much contrast, with grungy looking dark areas and plastic looking bright areas.

At this point you might be asking “Can't I just use the 'One Stop Photo Fix' or similar one-click option in my editor?” The answer is yes you can. Keep in mind, however, that this control works by comparing your image to thousands of “normal” photographs and changing things to match that “look”. That's a look you may or may not want. Also, photos which are not “average” will turn out disastrously with one stop options. Concert photos, for instance, with great areas of darkness and colored lights, will turn out looking horrible most of the time when fixitall options are used.

The bottom line is making your photos look awesome using photo editors takes some time and experimentation. Eventually you will find settings that make your photos look great, but also like your photos instead of photos imagined by the programmers of the editor. That's why I didn't include any examples in this article: how I produce my photos is based on my tastes and goals, and yours may be very different. You may like levels of effects that I don't, and ultimately it's up to you to decide what works best.

One final consideration, be aware of how others will be viewing your photos. What looks great on the 5” screen of your iPhone 6 or LG G3 may not look so good on the 22” monitors people are viewing it on as they peruse Facebook. Problems which you can't see or appear minimal on a phone or tablet screen become major bugaboos on a computer monitor. If you're going to be printing photos, that involves a different approach to editing, and so a different article.

Most of all, enjoy!