Heylucy had the brilliant idea of interviewing photographers that we have both come to admire. We thought a perfect person to start with would be our very own brother, Dean. Within less than 24 hours of soliciting his participation, he had already e-mailed us back, with all of our questions thoroughly answered. He's obviously very passionate about the art. Let's see what he has to say (and show us):
PS: How have you learned about photography? Formal training? Books? Websites?
I learned initially from books during my first year in college. Kodak had a series of shortish books, probably 50 pages each, that covered various technical and compositional aspects of photography that I read in the university library when I should have been studying for classes. I was so enthused about them that I made my way to the library at every opportunity.
Before heading back to college for my second year, I took a darkroom class at the local community college. This aspect of photography appealed to me because I quickly became frustrated with the fact that the local processing labs often did not produce the prints or slides in the way I would have if I had control, largely because they were simply pushing the film through automated machines. I loved the class because of the new control I had over the final print--the ability to dodge and burn or develop the print or film differently to achieve various effects.
Since then I have learned largely by listening to on line audio shows or pod casts and perhaps more importantly, by observing the work of others. Often I will find a photograph that effectively conveys the feel of a place by using a technique I am not familiar with. I with then research that technique on the web.
PS: What kind of camera do you use?
Let me first say that I am often tempted by the latest technology to focus on the technical and equipment aspects of the art. You have to do this, obviously. However, I often have to check myself to make sure I'm not letting the technical aspects get in the way of producing effective images. Sorry for the rant. It's mostly just for me. ;-)
I use an entry level digital SLR, the Nikon D50. Nikon stopped making it about a year or two ago but I'm still quite happy with the results it produces. It's a mere 6 mega pixel DSLR that is compatible with the majority of Nikon lenses. Currently I only have the kit lens, a Nikkor 18 - 55mm f3.5 - 5.6 DX that is not the greatest lens available but it produces pretty impressive results for a kit lens. The primary thing that I don't like about this lens is that because the widest aperture is only f3.5, it is nearly impossible to produce shallow depth-of-field images when you want that effect. I love that the camera can shoot in 12-bit RAW format and also includes many of the advanced features of higher-end models like automatic exposure bracketing.
In the past I often wondered why people rave about Nikon cameras. Now I know why--the interface is intuitive and easy to use, the camera seems pretty durable as I've schlepped it around a good portion of the western world over the last couple of years. The sensor captures a reasonably decent dynamic range and the lens is sharp and contrasty. I'm sure Canon and other camera manufacturers make great cameras too. I just haven't used them yet.
If I could have any camera that is reasonably priced (i.e., less than $2000), I'd like to try the Nikon D300 next. The main thing that makes this camera appealing to me is the new sensor that evidently captures a wider dynamic range. My next lens will likely be the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 which will be great for portraits and macro work and will allow me to get shallow depth-of-field when I want it. Obviously it will also allow my images to benefit from the compression effect that longer focal lengths provide.
PS: What is your favorite subject to photograph?
My favorite thing to do is to capture the feel of a place, whether that be a landscape, architecture, or people. I started mostly with landscape because I loved Ansel AdamsS work, especially his Yosemite prints which I could relate to given my family's tradition of visiting the park when we were kids. With my current job I get to travel so that has given me several opportunities to broaden my experience into architecture. I love to capture a moment in time, especially when it involves the combination of people and place.
PS: Tell us a little about how you compose a shot, any rules you follow (or break)?
My main objective is usually to present the subject in a fashion that makes my audience think, "I've never quite seen [insert subject here] in quite that way," or, "Wow, I've never thought of [subject] as being so interesting or beautiful..." I suppose that's why I enjoy the wide angle aspect of my lens and why I'm interested in purchasing a short telephoto lens next. Both produce somewhat unusual ways of looking at your subject, ways that allow you to highlight your subject and eliminate or reduce the impact of distractions.
I can safely say that I don't try to reproduce reality in my images. A lot of people seem to hold to the philosophy that "the goal" is to reproduce reality. I think I started with that goal. Now I realize that really I'm trying to highlight the beauty or interesting aspects of a scene and often that means finding ways to keep the distractions out whether that be through composition, lighting, depth-of-field, color or other means.
Light is obviously incredibly important. I usually shoot in aperture priority mode because it allows me to expose for the tones that are most important for my image. I learned this from Ansel AdamsS zone system which is too big a topic to cover here but might be a great item for some other time.
PS: Do you do any post-processing? What do you use (Photoshop version or other program)? What is your favorite action or effect?
I do a fair bit of post-processing but my philosophy is that it is best to capture the image in camera with an eye to the final effect you intend to create. Ansel Adams was a master at this. He exposed his film so that he could reproduce the effect he wanted in the darkroom. I think a lot of people think of post-processing as the primary means to make a great image and I think that often results in less compelling images because then you have to compensate, e.g., tweak the exposure so much that you add unwanted noise to get the effect you want. I don't think that post-processing is a very good way to compensate for a poorly captured shot. And don't get me wrong, on a lot of my bad files I have tried to compensate so I'm not exactly a prime exemplar. I like to think of this aspect of my philosophy as more practical than pedantic.
I primarily use two applications: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and HDRsoft Photomatix Pro.
Lightroom works so well for me because I don't like to rely on post-processing for much more than tweaking "the basics;" Contrast, levels, saturation, sharpness and the like. Lightroom doesn't support Photoshop filters and it includes only a limited set of "effects" so I don't really use them. Some day I'll probably get Photoshop so that I can put those to use. Maybe. I'm having a lot of fun for now even without them.
Photomatix allows me to take an exposure bracketed set of the same image and produce a higher dynamic range in a single image. I like this because it helps me get around the a barrier imposed by the sensor in my camera: A significantly limited dynamic range. This is a limitation of almost all of the digital cameras which are capable of about the same limited range as transparency film. Mostly I like Photomatix because it allows me to expose correctly for both the sky and the rest of my subject and then merge them into a single image.
PS: Share a favorite photo you have taken.
I recently went to Madrid for a weekend while on a business trip and while downtown, happened upon this scene with an older woman standing out on the balcony of her apartment. I have to give credit to my colleague MB for alerting me to this.
PS: Share a favorite photo by someone else.
I really enjoy
Alfred StieglitzS
"The Steerage." It captures a moment in time so well and is brilliantly composed.
PS: Any interesting photography story or experience you'd like to share with us?
Last year in the fall I made a business trip to Ireland. I arrived in the morning and went straight to the office for work. I don't sleep more than about 30 minutes on long plane rides despite my best efforts. For various reasons I avoid the temptation to use drugs to induce sleep. After the day in the office and despite the cloudy sky, I decided to take the camera and go to the beach before getting dinner in one of the smaller fishing villages a few kilometers from the city. The sky miraculously cleared just a little, adding the perfect touch to some dramatic landscapes. Likely also because of my sleep deprived state, I came away from that session with some great images--shots that I might not have tried if I were not so uninhibited. I ended up eating at a little Italian place and nearly passed out from exhaustion at the table after my meal. Fortunately I could rely on a taxi to get me back to the hotel because I would have dozed at the wheel for certain.
I suppose there are two themes in this little story for me: challenge myself and take the camera even if it looks like you probably won't be able to get any good images. It would have been pretty easy to just go to the hotel, order up room service and call it a day. I think that my photography improves when I go for it regardless of the apparent barriers.
Thanks, Dean, for teaching us a thing or two, and showing us your gorgeous shot from Madrid.
This is a slightly monumental discovery for me. I usually go for the saturation tool first to bring out more color, but this very different effect has grown on me and I think it will make for a much more diverse collection of photos. I'm curious to see how the Diffuse Glow effect would look on portraits with people...