Photography

This weekend only: save 20% off your entire purchase at Luminescence of Nature Press when you use code: memorial13 at checkout. More details here. Offer expires at midnight MDT on Monday, May 27th.

Understanding a camera's shutter speed will improve your photography. This explanation of fast and slow shutter speed, and how they work with the aperture, really will help you take better photos!

system camera? Why not - they offer great flexibility, but without the bulk of a digital SLR. The best system cameras offer top quality images in a small package. Advice on whether they are suitable for you

Georgia O'Keefe (Hands), by Alfred Stieglitz. Sold for $1,470,000 in 2006. - "The rich are different from you and me." "Yes, they have more money." —Attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway respectively but not quite accurately. Of the 19 most expensive photographs sold to date, two are by Alfred Stieglitz and two are by Edward Weston. Also represented twice each on the list are Jeff Wall, Andreas Gursky, and Cindy Sherman. One is a "recontextualized" copy photograph, one a tatty old tintype of a mythical criminal, one a portrait of a famous art-world celebrity, and one a perfectly nondescript nature shot. At least one was extensively digitally manipulated. An interesting list. For one thing, the numbers aren't bunched; the dropoff from #1 ($4, 338,500) to #19 ($609,600) is pretty steep. (Sorry, I don't know what that concept would actually be called in proper economics terminology.) It strikes me that money = power and so large sums of money command a respectful attitude generally, which is somewhat difficult to look past in the case of just one picture. When a sale record is set, people tend to scrutinize the picture with great curiosity to see what might be there that they might not be seeing. Looked at collectively, however, one thing seems pretty clear: there's no hidden wisdom there. The art market has no better an idea of what constitutes a good photograph than anyone else does. It is no better at distilling excellence into a small sampling than any given collector, curator, or savant with a point of view would be. The list encourages a different conclusion: that value is ultimately a temporary and arbitrary confluence of chance and circumstance. Why that Atget, that Sherman, that Gursky? Well, because someone who had that much money to spend wanted it that much at that time, that's why. Mike(Thanks to Red Dog News) Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. TOP's links! (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from: No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Yesterday we published a post from Hailey Bartholomew with Tips for Taking Portraits that Reflect the Character and Spirit of Your Subject that gave me the theme of this weeks challenge. Your challenge is to take and share an image on the theme of ‘Spirit’. Feel free to approach the theme in any way that you wish – you might want to take a portrait that shows someones true spirit or you could photograph something that is ‘Spiritual’ or even photograph something that represents your spirit. Be as creative as you’d like! Once you’ve taken your ‘Spirit’ Photos – choose your best 1-2, upload them to your favourite photo sharing site either share a link to them even better – embed them in the comments using the our new tool to do so. If you tag your photos on Flickr, Instagram, Twitter or other sites with Tagging tag them as #DPSSPIRIT to help others find them. Linking back to this page might also help others know what you’re doing so that they can share in the fun. Also – don’t forget to check out some of the great shots posted in last weeks Curves challenge – there were some great shots submitted. Post originally from: Digital Photography Tips. Check out our more Photography Tips at Photography Tips for Beginners, Portrait Photography Tips and Wedding Photography Tips. Spirit: Weekly Photography Challenge

As well as the new layout and the new business model that it rolled out this week, Flickr also introduced 12 new default avatars for anyone who chooses not to upload her or his own identifying image to attach to their homepage and comments. Designed by Charis Tsevis, they’re bright, blocky, and I have to say I rather like them. The designs fall into the genre that Tsevis calls ‘Neo-Futurism’ or ‘Neo-Cubism’ and feature stylised cameras that include Canon or Nikon dSLRs; medium format, twin lens reflex, and old-fashioned polaroid cameras; mirror-less cameras that might be from Olympus, Nikon, and maybe Sony; as well as compact cameras resembling Fujis and Sonys; and of course the smartphone. He goes into more detail on the brief and his design process on his blog. I think I might start a round of Flickr avatar bingo. Anyone up for it? (Headsup to Design Taxi) This article was originally posted at Have you seen Flickr’s new avatars? , on Photocritic. PLEASE NOTE -- The contents of the Photocritic blog is strictly copyrighted, and this feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. The use of this feed on other websites is a copyright infringement, so you should only ever be able to read this text in a feed reader. Digital Fingerprint: d07805f964d211dfdfe227d609f7448f

I've always been ambivalent about "teaser" campaigns. I think it was the 100th Anniversary of Harley Davidson (105th maybe? Will some Harley fan set me straight?) when Harley did an extended "guess who" campaign regarding the big act at the celebration party. Milwaukee was inundated with Harleys from all over the country (as we regularly are whenever Harley holds a big event) and the rumor was raging that the entertainment was going to be the Rolling Stones. The rumor was so prevalent that to a great many people it became a foregone conclusion. The day came, the big reveal happened, and the big act turned out to be...Elton John. No offense to Elton or his fans (or gay people...or Liberace fans...or eyeglass wearers...), but a gay English version of Liberace in eyeglasses was not what the bikers had in mind. People booed strenously and streamed for the exit doors before the concert had even gotten under way. I guess humongous antediluvian V-twin engines and tiny dancers don't go together. At least not to H.O.G.s. All that said, Leica is teasing a new camera. Our friend Amin Sabet has all the details (well, such as they are; the nature of a teaser campaign is that details are withheld) at LeicaPlace. The camera is being referred to as the "Mini-M," not to be confused with (well...) a certain 1/8th-sized evil villain. Mike Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. TOP's links! (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)Featured Comments from: No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Every five years, National Trust rangers carry out a puffin census on the Farne Islands, off the northeast coast of England. The beautiful birds return to their breeding grounds on the islands, which offer excellent sources of food, few ground predators, and good protection for nesting. This count carries particular significance because the last survey in 2008, recording 36,500 pairs, indicated that numbers had fallen by a third from the 2003 census. There is also fear that the extreme weather in the past year could affect the numbers. In March, thousands of birds washed up dead due to severely cold winds, and last summer, many of the birds were flooded out of their homes. Rangers are now faced with the daunting task of counting every burrow-nesting bird, which involves reaching down to each of the underground nests to see if it is occupied. The results will be ready in July. -Leanne Burden Seidel (15 photos total)Puffins return to their summer breeding grounds on the Farne Islands in Northeast England on May 16, 2013. They are often called "sea parrots" due to their colorful beaks. (Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

by Lynsey Peterson. I hate nature. There. I said it. It’s like glitter—it seems like such a fun idea but no matter how careful you are, it gets all over you and 7 showers later you still find it in your hair. This is further complicated by the fact that I live in what is known around the planet as one of the most beautiful places in the world. As a photographer, it’s dreamy situation; I could photograph a family in a parking lot (and I have) and the surroundings are more beautiful than many conventional parks in the world. So most of the time I have to suck it up and schedule an immediate shower after to get the nature off me already. But every once in a while I have a client request to do a shoot in their home. This is usually because I also live in a place where it’s about 30 degrees outside for a couple months of the year. Even if you don’t ever have snow on the ground where you’re at, beyond just avoiding nature there are lots of good reasons to photograph people in their homes. People are comfortable in their homes, surrounded by their stuff. They know where the bathroom is and that if there is an emergency drink of water or fruit snack situation, it will be handled quickly and with ease. But photographing in a home, especially if you have never seen it before is usually a bit of a gamble. Lighting, space, simplifying………the fact that they neglected to mention they have a mannequin head collection in their living room……all can create hurdles. Here are some basics that will help you jump those mannequin head hurdles. Find the Light In every home, there’s natural light. You need one good window; it can be anywhere and face any direction. Ask to see the whole house, explaining that you aren’t allergic to the inevitable laundry piles that have likely been shoved into the rooms they weren’t planning on you seeing. An entire shoot can take place in a kid’s bedroom, or a kitchen, or even a bathroom (Probably. If it’s a fantastic bathroom. And if it’s that fantastic of a bathroom, by all means you’ll want to see it.) Often I end up in the master bedroom where there is likely a large window and enough space to work with. Even if you shoot with flash, you’ll need some natural light as it builds the cozy and intimate atmosphere that home shoots are all about. Incorporate their Stuff Even more than their home, people love their stuff. And in their home, you’re surrounded by it. Create beautiful interactions with children by being interested in their beloved treasures and asking questions: “What’s this?”, “How does it work?”, “What do you use it for?”, even if it’s obvious. Ask adults what their favorite thing about their home is. It could be a fantastic piece of art that easily becomes a backdrop. Or that they always pile on the sofa on Friday nights and watch movies together, giving you a setting and vibe. Use their thoughts and make them into personalized ideas for pictures that will be much more meaningful than them running around a random park. Let them Be In an outdoor setting, a photographer is often having to create moments or push for situations. By photographing someone in their home, they are already more comfortable than they would have been anywhere else. Use this to your advantage by becoming a spectator and seeing what naturally happens. Because you are the guest in this situation, instead of looking to you for direction, they are much more likely to do things they do normally, giving you an amazing opportunity to document everyday life beautifully. Creativity: it’s what’s for Breakfast Because you are likely working with tighter spaces and less options for variety, you’ll have to get creative. The trend of photojournalism in portrait photography lends itself well here. What would they normally be doing if you weren’t there? Ask and work with it. Bake cooki

by Jonathan Blaustein They say nothing is certain but death and taxes. (Whoever ever they are, that is.) To that short list, I’d add another constant: change. Take people, for instance. Each day we live, we’re that much closer to dying. But age begets wisdom, so it’s not all bad. (And growth is possible too.) Though we admittedly live in a youth-obsessed culture, I’d like to think I’m getting better at what I do. It would be sad to peak too early. Take this column, for instance. It began as a weekly synopsis of three books, a simple paragraph for each. We included a few photos taken from the photo-eye website. (No muss, no fuss.) Within a few months, though, I found myself enthralled by a special book, and the format with which you’re currently engaged was born. Gerry Johansson made a photo book so good, I just tore off into the unknown, making connections and speculations with equal fury. A year and a half has gone by. I keep writing, and you keep reading. But things change, no matter what. As of yesterday, I’ve begun to write about photography for the New York Times, as a freelance contributor to the Lens Blog. We shall see, indeed, if I can write without the crutch of the first person perspective. As of next month, you may come to read on Fridays and find the this column no longer there. In its place, you may find I’m presenting an interview with a photographer or a curator, or perhaps an exhibition review. The weekly flow will have been interrupted. Plus ça change… We can follow the trajectory from Gerry Johansson shooting some pictures in Pontiac, Michigan to me writing for the New York Times. Everything’s connected, say the Buddhists, and history ties many things together. Take Mr. Johansson’s new book, “Hattfabriken/Luckenwalde,” for instance. It opens with a set of square, black and white photographs. (As do each of his books, most likely.) The Swedish photographer is one of the most capable working today, I’d venture, and these pictures grabbed me immediately. We see a cool looking building, with prominently designed architecture. What is it? Where? As we turn the pages, we begin to notice that the photographer seems to be circling the building, as the perspective shifts slightly, picture to picture. It’s the rare artist who’s able to make the viewer feel his or her presence, standing somewhere in the world. Here, that sense was palpable. It raised my curiosity. Even more so when he finally entered the building, and it was wrecked and abandoned. From there, as we continue to flip, we find an essay written in Swedish. And then one in German. As I don’t read either language, I continued on through the narrative. There were two paintings presented, mirror images of the same building in the photographs, with a Swastika added in for good measure. (That I’m discussing Swastika art for the second time in three weeks is an odd coincidence worth mentioning.) In the subsequent English version of the essay, we learn that the paintings were made by Dick Bengtsson, a prominent Swedish postal worker-turned-artist. The building was a Hat and Cap Factory, in East Germany, designed by Erich Mendelsohn, a Jew. The architect ultimately fled Germany in the Nazi purge, and ended up helping the Allies plan bombing raids against his home country during the War. How much of this history influenced Bengtsson, and Johansson by extension? We can only speculate. Flipping onward, we see a series of photographs of Luckenwalde, the city in which the factory resides. The pictures are so, so good. I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone work a square composition like this since Robert Adams. And the light and tonal qualities are brilliant as well. Wow. Except, now that I think about it, we’re not given the name of the city yet, which is only referenced once in the previous essay anyway. So the tension slowly builds. Where is this place weR