Not only was this my first time shooting hockey, it was also my first time at a hockey game. Unsurprisingly, most of the time I was very much clueless as to what was happening on the ice.

Let me set the scene for you. Imagine a big NHL game, crowds cheering, brighter than daylight to suit TV coverage, a spotless glass, everything perfect for a great sports evening. Now, forget all that.

This was a recreational hockey game in a country that sees hockey probably below chess in a list of interesting sports. The light was absolutely miserable (due to costs, these small rinks light just enough to meet requirements), there were probably more people on the ice than in the stands, and the glass was opaque with condensation even before face-off.

The actual shooting

After some test shots I realized I would have to stay at ISO 6400 if I wanted any hope of freezing motion – a speeding puck will be blurred at anything longer than 1/1000th of a second. This was definitely not idea. I know the Canon 5D Mark III handles noise well but I wasn’t too comfortable staying at 6400 all the time.

Also, because it was impossible to shoot through the glass and the rink is not set up with lens holes, we had to shoot down from the stands. The two main disadvantages are the angle of shooting and the distance to the players. On the positive side, rink-side the action is much more fast to photograph than from the stands – this is a very very fast game and the action can move from one side of the rink to the other in a couple of seconds.

Due to the distance, the 70-200 f/2.8 lived on the camera. I did not use any other lens. I had considered using a 1.4x converter to get some closer shots but the lack of light prevented that – all the images were made at either f/2.8 or f/3.2 and I just couldn’t afford to “waste” a full stop of light with the converter.

In terms of focusing, I don’t think I ever had the need to test the AF system like this – did I mention how fast this game feels when you see it though a 70-200? Not only that but players change direction all the time and you always get some “obstacles” in front of the player you’re tracking. The 5D3 behaved beautifully. The Servo worked as it is supposed to and I had very few images rejected due to poor focus (I rejected many more due to motion blur). The thing just works.

In the end, I brought home over 1000 images. Yes, the burst mode is addictive. Probably I was too apprehensive of missing “the moment” and fired a lot more than I needed, something that can be corrected with experience. How photographers used to cover these games shooting film, I have no clue.

In conclusion

After all my complaining about the low light and the shooting conditions, how did I find the experience? I loved it. It’s fast paced (hardly any time to even look at any image on the back of the camera), filled with action, and because I was shooting for myself there was really no pressure to get the shot – it was fun.

Am I happy with the results? Not entirely, although I’m also not too disappointed. The ratio of bad to good images was extremely high and even the acceptable ones weren’t that great, mostly due to noise. The conditions were poor but I’m sure I could have done some things differently. That said, I’m looking forward to the next opportunity to shoot some hockey and get home with better images.

Do you have any tips for better results when shooting ice hockey? Drop them in the comments below.

In this case, it’s renowned photographer Kevin Gilbert talking about the importance of backing up our photographic archives (yes, everyone knows that) but also important is to be able to organize it in a way that we can actually find the photos we are looking for.

Although for professional photographer this is probably a given, it is almost heartbreaking the stories I hear of people losing large numbers of images and memories (lost phone, stolen laptop, …). Kevin calls it the Lost Generation.

Extremely important message, and something I’ve been thinking about more and more. Kevin says that 2014 will see 880 billion images being made in the US alone – If just a fraction of 1% of these are lost, that’s a lot of memories erased for future generations.

The booming of smart phones, and all the apps associated with them, transformed the way that many people approach photography. Basically, if up to recently, the idea of carrying a compact camera everyday and everywhere was something that  many, for various reasons, would not consider, now a fairly powerful camera is available as long as you carry your phone with you (and who doesn’t, right?). Consider that, on Flickr, the largest photo sharing platform available, the iPhone is now the most prevalent camera.

The Good

One of the apps that has exploded of late, both in number of users as well as number of photos shared through it is Instagram. The mix of a nicely designed app with a fairly good amount of filters for immediate processing, allied with powerful social features – photos can be immediately shared not only inside the app but also on the most widely used social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, elevated this app to one of the most successful photography apps amongst the hundreds available. Arguably, even more than the camera and processing features, the social integration makes of Instagram the camera app of choice for many.

Another powerful feature of this app is its openness – a user can share not only photos made within Instagram, but also any photo on the phone’s drive (or “Camera Roll”). Therefore, if a user prefers a different app for usability or processing reasons, Instagram can still be used to broadcast the final image to his social circle, including the Instagram feed, which users can elect to “follow”. So far so good.

The Bad

However, this openness creates a situation that is driving me away from the app (or at least from the feeds) and, in my opinion, defeats the whole purpose of Instagram when it comes to sharing images specifically made with an iPhone – so called iPhoneography.

Having the possibility to share any photo on the Camera Roll, including images made with dSLRs and transferred to the phone, allows users to inject these latter images into the Instagram photo feed and therefore placing them right in front of anyone who follows them. This I find objectionable.

Now you can argue that I can stop following these users. I know and understand that, as I also understand the marketing reason for this, but this argument is besides the point I’m trying to make here.

The Dirty

There are more than enough venues for showing photos – if I like your work I’ll follow you in Flickr, or 500px, or your blog, or… When I look at the Instagram feed I’m expecting to see the more alternative, candid and spur of the moment images that can be made with a mobile phone, not the high-end camera produced, Photoshop retouched images you can make.

Keep my Instagram photo feed “dirty” and leave the “clean” images for other venues where they’ll be much more appreciated.

Discuss

Now to you. Have you noticed this trend before? Is it something that bothers you or is it an acceptable practice to share any images on the feed, independently of having been produced with the phone?

Discuss and leave your thoughts and ideas in the comments bellow.

The importance of photography, due to the enormous prevalence of cameras, is sometimes trivialized. If you’ve ever doubted the importance of the still frame and of the documentary photographer in activism, do take the time to watch it.

This is a video that will put you on a new frame of mind every time you go out to photograph.

If you’re interested I wrote a short comment on Salgado’s book “Africa” some time back.

Some time ago, and after a series of conversations with like-minded people, I was included on the Editorial board of a new magazine…

After a long time in planning and then some more for execution, I have the pleasure of introducing to you Aksgar Magazine.

In a sentence, Aksgar (Urdu for photographer) is a new magazine dedicated to the publication of documentary and narrative photography from around the world, in the form of photo essays.

Our aim with Aksgar is to provide a platform to publish work that has normally “less space” in traditional media, whether due to it’s alternative content or because the authors are not well known, but still deserves to be seen.

Besides the online presence, Aksgar will periodically be distributed electronically (pdf, app, etc)and in print. And as a sort of welcoming treat, if you subscribe to the newsletter, you’ll receive the first issue of Aksgar in pdf for free. Want different ways to connect with Aksgar? Follow us also on twitter.

We are currently accepting submissions. If you think your work is suitable to be featured in Aksgar, read the submission guidelines and click that submit button.

This is going to be quite a ride and, I expect, way out of my comfort zone, but I’m sure it will also be a rewarding one.

Take a look at some of the essays already published and tell me what you think…

Emergency by Anne Holmes	The Chenchus by Anil Cherukupalli	Land of a Thousand Struggles by Sohrab Hura

I have to confess that the offer was so appealing that I almost went for it. But then…

I was subscribed to them once, maybe up to 2 years ago, and at the time decided not to renew my subscription for a number of reasons:

1. News way too old – By the time I actually had the opportunity to grab it and go though the news sections, chances are I would have read all about it online before and would just skip these sections entirely.

2. Uninteresting content – A couple of articles would probably grab my interest, and I would definitely enjoy admiring some of the photographic work, but in general the interesting:uninteresting ratio was just too low.

3. Advertisement everywhere – Do I need to say more? Every third page would be a full page ad, not to mention the smaller ones sprinkled everywhere. Scratch what I said above about my money not paying even for shipping, the ads pay for everything.

If i were to rip from the magazine the pages that actually interested me, the number would not be so great. I did not subscribe again.

All this got me wondering what would I enjoy in a printed photography magazine. Not news, I can get them online; not technical articles, i can definitely get them (and better ones) online; certainly not the ads, although I don’t mind them when not in exaggerated numbers.

Now, if instead we start talking about photographic studies, photographic essays and, to a large extent, photojournalism/documentary work, that I would enjoy. That I would pay to get in print. Sure, all of these are also available online, but in this case I would prefer the print. Call me old fashioned.

A number of publications like this still exist, but are getting fewer and fewer, unfortunately.

Now comes my question to you…

How much would you pay, if anything, for a print magazine, well edited and curated, showcasing quality work in the form of essays and photojournalism?

And just out of curiosity, what do you enjoy more on a photography magazine (generalist or specialized)? Leave your thoughts on the comments…

Visual reality has much to do, not only with the real physical disposition of the world or scene, but also with how it is perceived. Someone with color blindness or some other visual impairment will have a different perception of reality than someone who’s vision is considered normal.

In photography, even if we assume that all film stocks and all digital sensors would capture light the same way, the simple fact that different lenses distort to a certain degree the light, is enough to conclude that photography cannot capture reality, but simply capture light.

What started me thinking…

A few days ago, I was reading a report mentioning how a Danish photographer saw his work disqualified from the Danish version of the “Pictures of the Year” contest. In short, the photojournalist got disqualified when judges requested his RAW files for comparison with the submitted processed images. Although the contest rules mention that "Photos submitted to Picture of The Year must be a truthful representation of whatever happened in front of the camera during exposure. You may post-process the images electronically in accordance with good practice. That is cropping, burning, dodging, converting to black and white as well as normal exposure and color correction, which preserves the image’s original expression.”, it seems that this photojournalist’s processing was too much for the judges.

I’ve passed this story to my twitter followers and this generated a nice discussion, with @marcoschmidt replying “but what’s real? the JPG? with which picture style? the RAW? With which converter? black and white?”

Capturing reality in photojournalism

I firmly believe that if what a photographer is doing is photojournalism, then the final images should indeed resemble as much as possible the original scene notwithstanding any different interpretations that may arise from framing, composition, etc. If too many exceptions are allowed, photojournalism will turn into a field of doubt and many publications have, indeed, strict rules on what is allowed in processing. But asking for the RAW files?!?  I’m not sure I agree with this move. If a photographer messes his exposures and ends up with a RAW that is overexposed, does that mean that the original scene was flooded by light? What if the white balance was not properly set? RAW files are exactly that, the raw information. Even a RAW file, outputted with different converters will originate slightly different images. Note that I’m not defending the photojournalist. I believe that what he saw in those places was probably much close to the unmodified RAW than to the images he submitted for the contest and he tried to make them more appealing. But when documenting something, the appeal should come from the story that photos are trying to tell, from good composition, good lighting, good angles… not from Photoshop. Individual ethics play a major role in photojournalism and I still prefer to believe that photojournalism tries to capture reality.

Photography as an art form

If we look at photography from an artistic point of view, then all of the above does not apply. Photography becomes a tool to express the photographer’s creativity, and it’s up to each individual artist to modify it (or not) as he pleases, in order to pass to an audience (or at least try to) the story he’s trying to tell and elicit emotions. Nobody asked Dalí if he actually saw that  somewhere when he painted “The Railway Station at Perpignan” (one of my favorite works by SD). I can have my personal preferences regarding a certain photographic work or a certain style of photographing or processing, I might like it or not, but no artistic photographer should ever listen that his work is bad because it doesn’t resemble reality.

Photography is not supposed to capture reality, just to capture light.

Twitter me this…

Earlier I asked on Twitter “In 140 chars or less answer this: "Is photography just supposed to capture reality?"

These are some of the replies I got… Interpret and take your own conclusions. Thanks for your thoughts.

@jeffcrossphoto “I think photography is supposed to be an interpretation of reality from the photographer’s point of view.”

@danzphoto “Absolutely not. Did Monet only try to capture reality? Like him, photography also captures mood, feeling, impression.”

@dawilson “Documentary photography is supposed to capture reality as closely as possible given equipment capabilities. / Art photography uses reality as a starting point. What the photographer/artist does with that is entirely up to them.” (Dave cheated and used 2 tweets… That’s ok Dave )

@dwterry “Photography is a tool. It can reflect or augment reality. It can create works of art. It’s all in what you do with it.”

@pawoli “each photo is real, photographers and viewers have their own realities which may differ and evolve over time”

@EricBooth “By no means. IMO photography is an art form. An expression of ones self. I have no problem using all the tools available to me.”

@Raquita “Just capture reality limits its power, I think photographs should live up to the 1000 words thing – tell stories beautifully…”

@Celippitt “Photojournalism is supposed to capture reality…Photography is the process of producing images on photosensitive surfaces.”

@mcgraths “Photography is an art. I think it should be a blend on imagination and reality, but really it is up to the artist.”

Your thoughts?

And how do you mix photography with reality? Should it capture just reality or is it, a tool to be used? Share your thoughts with us…

Photo credits: “reality tag” by Scoobymoo (CC by-nd), “sheffield: what’s your reality?” by paolo màrgari (CC by-nc-nd), “Reality” by Bright Meadow (CC by-sa)

We discussed this subject on PhotoNetCast episode #2 and it’s fairly obvious that the biggest cause might not even be abuse of authority per se, but simply misinformation or lack of knowledge of the law.

This one happened in the UK.

There is not much point in discussing the issue over and over again. Bottom line: Always know your rights out there and stand your ground.

I’m getting depressed with all the abuse photographers suffer on the streets.

If you wish to share your thoughts or stories, please feel free to drop a comment.

Hat tip: Photography is not a crime

Martin is a freelance photographer, based in Karlsruhe, Germany. You probably know Martin from his blog Kwerfeldein (in German), where he shares some of his knowledge on photography.

If you’re not familiar with Martin’s work (shame on you), you can see it at Kwerfeldein Photography (which made my top 35 photoblogs list) or at Flickr. You can also download his photo portfolio for 2008.

What Photography is / means to you?

Photography means to me many different things so I will make a list of stuff, ’cause I love lists. 

Photography means to me : 

- exploring, finding and discovering beauty and miracles in people and nature

- like catching the most precious moments in life and trying to conserve ‘em for me and others

- sharing my ability to create with many others 

- handing out my joy of life in a picture 

- inspiring people to do the same, to enjoy the world

- being as close as I can be to my subject without coming too close and taking that impression home

- a very unique way of creating stuff that has never been there before, like music but different

- always a reflection of my personality

Thanks a lot Martin for your willingness to participate.

If any of you would like to take the stage and answer the question, just get in touch and I’ll give you some more details. In case you have any questions for Martin, use the comments bellow and I’ll make sure to forward anything relevant to him.

Could it be possible?

This article actually made me think about the possibility. In the end, Brian mentions that the technology that would enable such a device is not that far off. I’m almost sure that the technology is readily available to be explored by manufacturers. Knowing that CF cards exist with embedded Wi-Fi transmitters, it can’t be that hard to incorporate a GPS receiver into one.

Is it useful?

Following his spoof post, Brian continues with a poll asking his readers how much would they pay for such a thing with 4Gb memory. At the moment I’m writing, $150 leads followed closely by $100. Knowing that an external GPS receiver costs something between $100-$150, it’s clear so far that not many people would pay much more.

But I have a problem with this idea: What if I want extra cards? The huge majority of photographers, amateur and professionals, don’t rely only on one card. If you want all the photos to contain the coordinate tags, would you have to buy several of the cards, and pay the extra to have a GPS receiver on all of them?

Going back to the Wi-Fi enabled memory cards, one way that some manufacturers found to bypass this problem was to integrate the Wi-Fi into a SD card shell, while the actual memory comes from an interchangeable mini-SD. This way, you can have as many memory cards as you want and not having to pay for the Wi-Fi on everyone of them.

Would this approach work for CF cards? Not sure. One reason why CF cards are the standard for dSLRs is their capacity for high speed data transfers. If keeping the CF card shell with the GPS receiver would mean the need for a slower card to be inserted, then it would not work.

Until the technology is mainstream, I guess external GPS receivers are the best option. Nonetheless, I’m still not completely convinced how useful this is to go out the door and get one right now. Maybe after that extra lens…

What is Geotagging?

Geotagging is simply the process of including geographical information to the photographs, such as latitude and longitude coordinates, which is then kept as part of the EXIF information on the files.

How does Geotagging work?

Unfortunately, camera manufacturers are not keeping up with technology on this field. Either because including a GPS device would make the camera more expensive thus putting off some costumers or simply because geotagging is still not a mainstream requirement, the fact is that cameras with in-built GPS receivers are more the exception than the rule, although some high-end cameras are already equipped.

If you are fortunate enough to have opted for such a camera (probably you did it because of the other camera features and not because of the GPS) you don’t have to battle with yourself as I’m doing to figure if it’s really worth the investment. Just use it, you have nothing to loose.

If, on the other hand, your camera is devoid of a GPS receiver, there are several off-camera choices available and all of them are based on a very simple principle: time synchronization.

Basically, all you have to do is synchronize the clock on your camera with the clock on your GPS receiver (a one time process). Now, every time you turn on the receiver, it will record your position at defined intervals (15 seconds, 1 minute, etc.) and store this information on a flash memory card. When you are back at your computer to download your photos from the camera, just plug the receiver and the software compares the exact time at which a photo was taken with the closest time a geographical information was recorded and add the coordinates to the metadata of the photo file. Very simple.

What are the benefits of Geotagging?

From a “photography as art” point-of-view, the benefits of Geotagging are virtually non-existent. It will not improve your photos per se.

Geotagging is more an organizational tool than anything else. It will allow you to see on a map the exact location where a photo was taken. It will also allow you (and others if you share your photos online) to search for photos taken on or nearby a specific location. Although on a short time scale it will probably be very “boring” to see your photos just concentrated on a very small portion of the map, if you tend to photowalk a lot and do some traveling, the range will broaden and it will become much more interesting to have a large scale view of where all your photos were shot. Back to photowalking, it can be fun to be able to track your route on a specific date and it will probably improve the plan for future photowalking tours. Besides the software that comes with whatever receiver you acquire, there is a multitude of software available that allows for interaction with either Yahoo! Maps or Google Maps and Google Earth.

If you are into photography sharing networks, since August 2006 Flickr also supports geotags and, together with Yahoo! Maps, can display the locations of your photos. Same goes for other networks like Zooomr.

As an added benefit, yesterday (Nov 28), Google launched a new layer to the Google Maps – the Google Terrain – which gives a more 3D view of the existent maps and can, together with your geotags, provide a more spacial arrangement to what your surroundings were when a photo was taken.

Limitations of Geotagging

Although I’ve almost managed to convince myself to go for a GPS receiver, there are still some limitations to the technology that I’d like to see addressed.

First, any external GPS receiver is an extra thing that you have to carry around. Ok, it’s not big, it’s not heavy. But it’s an extra thing. With an already cluttered camera bag, any extras will need to be evaluated to see how worth it they are.

It’s not cheap. Ok, it’s also not expensive. For something like $100 to $150 you can get a receiver specially designed for photography geotagging. Nonetheless, for that amount, you can always get an extra battery or an extra memory card or start thinking about your next lens. When the budget is tight, even the smallest amount of money available to invest in photography needs to be well thought.

Battery limitations. A normal AA battery on such a device will give you something between 10 to 20 hours of continuous use. Although this is more than enough for a normal photowalking tour, if you go on vacations on a place where normal batteries might not be readily available, it is another something to have to think about.

Precision. Although most GPS receivers are very precise, they are not perfect. There will be always a percentage of your tags that will be “off the mark”. For the more common (and cheap) GPS receivers specially designed for photography, there are some complains about how precise the device is.

Photographer or Object. This is a big one if you are a perfectionist. The receiver is with you, so the tag will be your location and not the object of your photo’s location. Can’t do much about it except manually editing the tags. I don’t see myself having a problem with this one, but for some applications it can arise as an extra complication.

Bearing. Another of those things that you can’t do anything about, but would be nice to see implemented, specially if you are much into landscape photography. With such high-tech features such as image stabilization that works by countering the movement of the camera and adjusting the sensor, it would be nice and not hard at all if metadata would also include a bearing and tilt angle. Together with focal length (which is already recorded) and coordinates, it would be possible, on a map application, to “see” exactly the photographed area. Too geeky?

Overall

Overall I think that Geotagging has a true potential to improve the photographer’s experience. It has some limitations, but every technology has them. Nonetheless, at this moment, I still am not completely convinced that a GPS receiver simply for the ability to add coordinates to the metadata is the best choice for my money.

Can you help me on this one? Do you think it is worth it? Do you have experience with automatic geotagging? Share your thoughts with us… any help is appreciated.

With it, I intended not only to discover what my readers had to say on the subject but also to further explore a “side” of photography that is very attractive to me.

Although the complexity of the project was high, and thus the small number of submissions, I feel that Minimalism in Photography is actually something that many try to achieve probably without even realizing it.

Going the minimalist way can produce extremely powerful images, but usually requires a special attention and some planning. Nonetheless, if one thinks minimalism, avenues of images start to open in front of the lens, and even cluttered scenes often have nice subjects for minimalist photos.

I’m also including the images on this post. If the authors prefer that they be removed, just say so and I will.

So, this is what you had to say on Minimalism in Photography (in the order I got them):

• Kriz Cpec (did I got the name right?) sends a macro shot of what seems to be some small fruits. It’s a very attractive photo with green as the major tone. The shallow depth of field blurs the leaf and branches that blend nicely with the green background. Although it deviates from my own definition of minimalist, the single tonal palette and the focus on one particular subject can probably be sufficient to include it in the category.

• Rachel from The Feminist Phoenix also went for flora, but using isolation on black (done with lighting) to highlight only a few features of the flowers. I particularly liked the way that the center of the flowers, that usually attracts flower photographers, is in shadows. I’ll have to say that the lighting used for the second photo was absolutely brilliant. Also, the cropping of the frame on the second photo was fantastic, giving it a sense of incompleteness that begs the brain to draw something there. She also shares her insights on these photos.

• Brian from the Epic Edits Blog brings us a fantastic article (as usual) in which he describes his approach and experiments to this project, from the preparation to the final processing of the photos. The line that comes out: “simple, minimum, shapes, lines, colors, empty space, look up, look down, walk slow…”. Since he has a collection of his photos there taken with this project in mind, the best is really to go and see them all. It’s worth it. Nonetheless, I’ll drop my favorite here. Notice how a repetition of lines mixed with highly contrasting colors can produce a visual shock (in the good sense).

• Chris (almost forgot you, sorry), goes for the color abstract. If I had to guess, I’d say we are looking at a macro of some grass leaves, but whatever it is, it creates a fantastic effect which is achieved mainly by the complementary colors filling the frame (red and green). I’d actually like to know how the processing of this one was done. Care to comment Chris?

• And finally, my own entry to the project. I will not choose any particular photo from it since it is basically a descriptive article with my thoughts on how a good minimalist photo can be achieved. I guess you’ll have to go and read it.

And that is all for this project. To the people who have participated, I can only express my profound appreciation for your superb entries.

I think that from just this few examples we can see how wide this field of photography can be and how worth it is to explore it further.

I have the feeling that this will not be the last time you’ll read about Minimalism in Photography (and not only on this blog).

Also in literature Minimalism has been profoundly explored. The action is led by context rather than actual description and the “image” is much up to the reader to recreate. Same applies for minimalism in music where composition tends to be stripped down to essentials, often creating repetitions of sound. It’s up to the audience to fill in the gaps.

Translated to the visual arts, Minimalism tends to focus on the abstract. Simple things capable of evoking emotion without superfluous content. A bash of color on a white canvas, or an expanded detail can bring out great minimalist paintings.

Minimalism in Photography

When it comes to photography, Minimalism gets somewhat confusing with many schools of thought discussing it. Some believe that the definition and execution of minimalism in the other plastic arts should also be translated for photography (detail, less information, etc.) while others tend to agree that in photography minimalism is more open to creativity and as long as there is a focus on the subject and the background is buried, a photo can be considered minimalist. This latter school of thought can widely include some macro shots in the category.

As a personal opinion, I tend to go with the first. Less information, high contrast between background and subject, and often extremism in processing.

The photo on the right is, for me, a prime example. A fairly common tabletop image where the majority of the frame is devoid of light with only two objects (far from abstract) perfectly visible and recognizable. All the main focus goes to these two objects. One thing that attracted me in this photo was the fact that although the cup is on a secondary plane, the way it was illuminated (or photoshoped) makes it the primary subject on the frame. The eyes are naturally drawn to it.

Color in minimalism

Although I’m fond of monochromes, color can play a big role in minimalist photos, but extra care needs to be employed if minimalism is the objective. A frame full of color with an abstract theme does not make it a minimalist photo per se. Now, if the colors are blended well, and the whole frame is devoid a main subject, my guess is that you can categorize it as such (photo on the right).

Another prime example for minimalism is “light painting”. Usually a frame is black with traces of light as the main subject. In these cases, color is almost essential.

In the images above you can see what I meant. Although the right one still produces a nice effect, the left one (original) is much more powerful due to color, but both can be considered minimalist.

Another application of color in minimalism is to actually withdraw the attention from the subject.

This type of photos is usually not much seen since the subjects loose priority in the frame and require a “special kind of taste” from the audience to be truly appreciated. Nonetheless, using a background with the same tonal patterns as the subject can produce some highly appealing minimalist photography.

Minimalism in Portrait Photography

If you search around, you’ll see that the great photography artists became known for their portraits. Portrait Photography is one of the hardest subjects of photography to master. So much is a variable that does not depend on the photographer, although much of it can be circumvented by proper studio techniques.

Minimalism portraits are, as a rule, obtained by playing with the light. Hiding features with shadow while highlighting others is usually the norm and can lead to the most beautiful albeit extreme photos. Again, much of the success depends on the model, and when I’m the model it can’t really be said that beautiful photos come out. Hey, I’ve tried.

6 Tips for Minimalist photos

1. Remove eye distractions: Anything that can be taken out of the frame, take it out, or hide it in shadow. Let there be only one main subject on the frame.
2. Make it Striking: Whether you go for a splash of color or a splash of light, make it in a way that captures the eye.
3. Make it though provoking: A photo doesn’t need to tell it all. Make it so your audience has to engage the neurons and think about what you are trying to say.
4. Play with light: Hide and highlight your subject with shadows and light in a way that represents a not-so-common approach.
5. Go for patterns: Repetitive patterns in an image can make it not only beautiful but appealing. Again, don’t reveal everything.
6. Details matter: While a wide frame with plenty of information can be beautiful, the secret of minimalism is in details.

And this concludes my first thoughts on Minimalism in Photography. It’s a field that I’m very passionate about and it’s more than likely that I’ll come back to it again.

This is also, of course, my own entry to my Minimalism in Photography Project.

Now, get out there and explore your minimalist side. Oh, and take your camera with you…

There were 28 submissions and, in my opinion, all of them were great exercises in technical editing. Although with more or less success, this is a fine example how digital processing an image can improve it, albeit creating something that would never be possible with the camera alone.

Again, it’s a fine line between photography and digital art but image processing is here to stay and the more photographers gain experience in this field the more success they will have in the craft in the times to come (my personal opinion and many disagree, of course).

Bellow are links to all the entries (some are hosted by Brian). Don’t forget to visit Epic Edits Blog and take part in the voting. People have invested a lot of time on these images and I bet showing some support by going there and voting for your favorites is appreciated.

• Andrew Rickmann
• Ryan Goodman
• Susheel Chandradhas
• Brian Auer
• A.B. Cole
• Libeco
• Hitesh Swalani
• Jim Goldstein
• Ron McCoy
• Jenni Brehm
• Lau
• Phill Price
• Martin Gommel
• Kevin Devin
• Matthias Weinberger
• Mario Wagner
• Felix Willeke
• Jim Nooney
• Adrian Ahlhaus
• Christian Magin
• Ulrich Linder
• Neil Creek
• Stefan Michalski
• Steve Brown
• Antonio Marques (that’s me)
• Brandon Price
• Dawn Armfield
• Ryan Pennington

How to change one mind at a time, solve one problem and still have fun doing it.

So this is it. October 15th, 2007. The Blog Action Day is here.

Just in the improbable case you haven’t heard about it before, the Blog Action Day initiative was (is) organized by three heavy-weight bloggers and aims to get every possible blogger writing about one single issue. The 2007 edition focus on Environment.

With over 15 thousand blogs reaching over 12 million readers it’s expected to make an impact or, at the very least, make blogger’s voices heard in unison around the web on this so important issue. Hey, even this year’s Nobel Prize for Peace awarded environmental efforts.

This is a little idea on how photographers can contribute. There are no world changing ideas here, but every little contribution helps.

From a photographer’s point of view, writing about the environment is not an easy task (at least for me, in a way that is directed for photographers and photography enthusiasts). Of course that the easiest way would be to share beautiful photos of landscapes and how they can be a rarity in the years to come if no commitments are made to change the way people think towards the environment. It’s one way I think… but not mine.

If we were not on the digital age, I could also talk about how to properly dispose of your lab chemicals and ways to reduce their use. But we are on a digital age, and these principles don’t much apply anymore.

I’m going to start thinking smaller here.

How to change one mind at a time, solve one problem and still have fun doing it

As years go by, new cameras are introduced on the market at an amazing pace, ever with higher specifications and better features. With this, and depending on the photographer’s budget, it’s normal that people tend to upgrade more frequently and, even for amateur photographers, the “life expectancy” of a camera is drastically reduced.

This poses a problem…

What to do with your old cameras? And if you decide it’s time to switch brands, what to do with all the old lenses?

• Try to trade it in when you buy the new one (only viable if your “old” one is still quite new);
• Sell it on ebay (many are doing this, and unless your camera is still barely touched or, on the other hand, an old rarity, you’ll end up loosing a lot of money, selling it by a small fraction of the price you paid for it);
• Let it die undignified on some cupboard shelf or storage room (your camera deserves better);

Since cameras on the normal waste are a big NO NO (remember that you have both metal and glass components inside, not to mention the battery, and of course all the accessories that come with it) you can always send if for recycling but again, your camera wouldn’t do that to you, no matter how bad a photographer you are, and you might even (depending on your country) end up paying for it to be properly disposed of.

So, what’s the alternative?

Make someone happy and help change a little mind.

Look around you, on your neighborhood or group of friends, and I bet you’ll find some kid who, for one reason or other, can’t afford to buy a camera but is interested in photography. Someone who has shown an interest on your work and really listens when you talk about photography.

Give the camera to that little someone. Share your passion for photography with him, teach all you know, take him with you on your photowalking hunts. Then, show him those photos of beautiful landscapes and mention that they can become a rarity if nothing is done to protect the environment, and most probably you’ll have helped change a mind. Believe me, that little someone will listen…

In conclusion, you got rid of one problem (what to do with your old cameras and how to put them to good use), you have made someone happy (take a photo of the person holding their first camera on their hands and share it around, it’s probably going to come out a beautiful one) and you have found someone to join you on your photo hunts and you’ll have more fun on them. It’s just a tiny little thing in the big wide world concerning the environment, but it’s a start…

Final note

I hope that this little idea is welcomed by you. I know some will find the thought of just giving outrageous but in reality it isn’t. And speaking of giving, as suggested by the Blog Action Day organization, all the revenue generated by this blog during this day will be forwarded to one Environment Organization. So, do your thing… It’s free to you, all it costs is a click…