Over at Gizmodo, Jack Loftus (if that is his real name) is getting all alarmed about people taking pictures in downtown Boston:

It's totally legal and entirely creepy. A gaggle of gentlemen, armed with cameras and an absence of shame, have taken residence in Boston's Downtown Crossing snapping what they claim are artful "street photography" pictures of everyday people.

Right off, I love the way he puts scare quotes around "street photography" to suggest it's somehow not legitimate, when in fact it's one of photography's most dynamic and original forms. After all, you can paint a landscape or do a charcoal sketch portrait, but you need a camera to capture something as dynamic as a city street scene.

Larger Image

Robert Frank's book The Americans is arguably the single most influencial work of American photography, and it's all street photography. Other influencial street photographers include Eugène Atget, Robert Doisneau, Walker Evans, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, and Garry Winogrand.

Oh, and upskirts.

Only in his imagination.

Again, it's totally legal, but apparently the difference between what's legal and what's pervy is about as gray an area as you're going to find in the public photography world. In a WBZ News tipster's video, for example, one of these totally normal gents bends over behind a group of young women and snaps a picture of what the reporter describes as areas of bare skin. So, just some good clean wholesome photography fun going on in my state capital, is what it is.

Actually, as you can see in the video here, a couple of the photographers do bend over to take pictures, and the reporter speculates that it's to take pictures of their bare legs, but to me it just looks like a photographer trying to get a low-angle shot of something. It's basic photogrphy. If you are taking pictures of subjects that are low to the ground (such as children or pets), you will get much better pictures by getting your camera down to their level.

Larger Image

In fact, even if you're taking pictures of an adult-sized subject, you'll get a subtly better picture if you lower the camera to avoid the slight distortion that comes from having someone's head slightly closer to the camera than the rest of their body. Alternatively, if you want a photo to look just a little unusual, you need to use an unusual angle.

Larger Image

(Not actually a street photograph.)

Hypocritically, many of the men...did not appreciate having their pictures taken, nor WBZ video being made of them, and asked repeatedly for the cameras to be turned off. Which doesn't make them look creepier or ashamed in the least.

I gotta admit, that does seem a little goofy. If you're going to take people's pictures, you really ought to tolerate other people taking pictures of you. After all, part of the fun of street photography is catching other street photographers. It's like when a sniper shoots another sniper.

Larger Image

On the other hand, if you watch the video, one of the photographers points out that the reporter has been repeatedly asking them if they are taking pictures of women and children. There's a clear implication that this is something creepy rather than an art form that is as old as portable cameras. Perhaps the request to turn off the camera came after a rude accusation.

I've done a little street photography, and that part gets tricky sometimes. I've been careful not to take pictures near playgrounds or swimming pools, and I don't talk to anybody's children. Still, several people have accused me of "taking pictures of children." I find that a frustrating accusation: I'm taking pictures in a public place, and there are children around. Of course I'm going to get a few of them in my photos. It doesn't make me a perv.

Larger Image

But that's a long way from what they're worried about. I've only been questioned by a cop once, and I had no real trouble explaining myself. I could have fallen back on my right to remain silent, I could have pointed out that taking pictures is not a crime, and I could have refused to let him see my photos without a court order. Instead, I just let him look at that photos while I explained that I like to take a few pictures while I'm walking for exercise. He was a decent guy. It ended well.

Larger Image

He had stopped me because one of the parents in the park had complained that I was taking pictures around children. Prudence kept me from saying anything, but I wanted to point out that I'd lived near that park for fifteen years, and before that I'd gone to high school just a quarter mile away, and before that my mother used to take me to the public swimming pool. All in all, I'd been coming to this park for 30 years. If those parents didn't want me around their children, they should get the hell out of my park.

Anyway, the news story is really pretty bad journalism. If you pay attention, you'll realize that the story is almost entirely about what other people suspect these photographers are doing, along with some commentary from the on-air personalities that it's all so strange. There's very little attempt to figure out what's really going on. And it's kind of ironic that the frickin' news media would get upset about people taking pictures in a public place.

Larger Image

I don't want to sound like an anti-TV-news snob, but I'd like to think that a newspaper reporter would not have done a story like this. Not because newspaper reporters are smarter or better, but because a newspaper reporter would have brought a photographer, who would have recognized street photography. After all, photojournalists and street photographers use almost exactly the same techniques, and many street photographers were also photojournalists. I'm thinking here of guys like Weegee or the entire Magnum photo agency.

And listen, I'm all for street photography and the art of that practice. The Sartorialist, one of my favorite photo/fashion sites, has made a name and a business out of it. But, if you've ever seen the behind the scenes of how that site works, he'll always ask permission and identify himself to subjects, whether he's already snapped the pic or it's a staged one.

Well, that's how he works, but that's not how all street photographers work. If you ask people for permission to take their picture, many people will pose for you, and that's not going to be the candid photo that so many street photographers want.

Also, when you're doing this kind of photography, you end up taking a lot of pictures just for the heck of it. The scene is changing so fast that if you stop to think "Is this a picture I should take?" the opportunity will be gone. To get good street photographs you pretty much have to take the picture the moment you even suspect there might be something worth photographing.

Larger Image

Broadly speaking, there are two basic approaches to getting candid pictures of people in public. One approach is to be as quiet and unobtrusive as possible and use a small camera to sneak pictures when they don't notice. Garry Winogrand used a relatively compact Leica film camera to take something like a half-million pictures this way. Modern stealthy street photographers just use small digital cameras.

Larger Image

The unobtrusive approach doesn't work for me. I'm a big guy, so sneakiness is not a possibility. My approach has always been to just blatantly walk around taking pictures. After working an area for a few minutes, people just start ignoring me and I can get some natural photos.

In fact, the more obvious I get, the less people are bothered by me. Hardly anybody seems to care what I'm doing now that I have a rather professional-looking Nikon D200 camera, and I make a point to have a lens hood, a flash, and a bag full of gear. If I tried to be sneaky with a compact camera, I'd get questioned by the cops every few weeks. But with all that gear, people just assume I must be there for a good reason.

On the other hand, some street photographers would spit at my pictures because I'm using a long lens. They believe in getting in people's faces with a wide-angle lens, because the reaction to the intrusion is part of the image they want. It's not my style, but I have to admit, sometimes the reaction to being photographed is half the picture.

Larger Image

Women street photographers have it especially easy in this sense, because hardly anyone ever questions them. Heck, when I bring my wife along, people offer to pose their children for me. If these guys in Boston had brought along a couple of women, the story would probably have morphed into a friendly lifestyle piece about a fun photographic hobby.

So, on that note my fellow Bostonians, I propose this fun social experiment: Descend on Downtown Crossing yourselves, armed with cameras, and complete my next social photography art project. I call it "Pervature: The Lost Art of Capturing Horny Old Men Taking Pictures of Girl's Naughty Bits, 2011." We should probably set up a Tumblr or something.

Yeah. Do that. Really, it's a great idea that's truly in the spirit of the artform. Except for the bit where you lie about them taking pictures of naughty bits. As I pointed out at the top of this post, there's nothing like that anywhere in the story.

What they're doing is all totally legal. Did I say that yet?

Yes, it's all legal because of this obscure piece of law called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Check it out sometime.

(Hat tip: Rick Horowitz)

Larger Image

As has always been the rule, if you are in a location legally, you can still take pictures of almost anything you can see from there, including federal buildings. And now, here's an official bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security explaining it. I don't know it it will really help, or if it will just mark me as a smartass, but I'm going to download a copy and keep it with my camera gear.

(Hat tip, Mark Clayson via Rick Horowitz)

A friend of mine sent me a link to a New York Times piece by Randy Kennedy about photographer Mitch Epstein. He's doing a series of photographs about America's energy policies, photographing things like gas stations and power plants. As you might expect these days, he gets stopped by police a lot.

I agree with my friend's assesment:

I remember stories about such things in the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, thinking how lucky I was to live in America...

I too remember being told about how in Russia the police would stop you if you tried to take pictures of certain buildings. I was glad we didn't have that here.

As we say, 9/11 changed everything. Suddenly, police got jumpy if they saw someone taking pictures of things like transportation infrastructure and power plants. And they weren't real happy about having their own pictures taken either.

In one sense, the First Amendment is holding up despite the onslaught. The courts have remained pretty clear on this. Taking photographs in public places is not a crime, and I haven't heard of anybody getting convicted for it.

On the other hand, just because there's no law against taking pictures of whatever you want doesn't mean you are completely free to take pictures of whatever you want. Police can still ask you what you're doing, ask for ID, and ask to see the pictures. Except maybe for the ID, you don't have to answer them, and you sure don't have to let them see your pictures. Most cops are actually well-trained in the freedoms of the press, and if you can manage a professional tone, they'll give you back a little respect.

But if they get pissed at you for some reason, they can do a lot of things to harass you, starting with detaining you and taking your (possibly very expensive) camera. They're not supposed to take your camera without a court order, and your lawyer can get their lawyer to make them give it back, but if there are no pictures in memory, or the camera is damaged, they can say it was that way when they got it.

Actually, the cops are allowed to seize your camera without a court order if they're in the process of arresting you, and a few photographers have found themselves arrested for some catch-all crime like disorderly conduct or interfering with police business. These charges usually don't stick, but they'll mess with your life and discourage you from taking those kinds of pictures again. Which is the point, and the problem.

Carlos Miller has a whole website about these kinds of incidents at Photography is Not a Crime.

The New York Times has up a story about distracted driving and cell phones. I only skimmed the story---I'm skeptical about the issue, but I don't know enough to really have an opinion---because I was looking at the picture. Radley Balko had pointed it out in a passing comment:

I'm trying to figure out how the photo for this NY Times scare story on distracted driving was taken. I can't really conceive of a scenario where it wasn't staged. Which means the caption is misleading.

The picture is captioned "At 60 miles an hour on a Missouri highway, a 16-year-old driver texts with a friend as a 17-year-old takes the wheel." It's a view from behind and to the right of the driver, showing the him using both hands to key in a text message while another hand reaches in from the passenger side to hold the wheel.

So, how did the photographer get that shot? Did he tell them what he wanted or hint at the result? And wasn't that a dangerous thing to be letting a couple of teenagers do while he got the picture? My guess was that this was either (a) yet another New York Times credibility scandal, or (b) a file photo.

I emailed the photographer, Dan Gill, and he responded with an explanation:

The picture went with a story I worked on last fall. The story was about social issues at a St.Louis high school; boys and girls...My assignment was to hang out with them and make pictures of how they communicated and tried to meet girls.

When discussing the story with my assigning editor we both agreed it would be...easier and better to ride with them instead of driving separately. By riding with them we could see into their world easier. The subjects were minors, however, the parents were aware we were doing the story.

As we drove around the students soon played their music and forgot I was with them. I looked back through my "raw" take; all of the pictures made on an assignment and found him driving and texting throughout the drive. He said he was texting his "girls", girls he was interested in. I continued to make pictures of him texting, it was within the scope of the story. At one point, we were driving down an inter belt highway and he continued to text. After a few words with the front passenger, the front passenger reached over and steered the truck.

This makes sense. The picture was being used as an illustration, not as documentation of a specific incident mentioned in the story, so it's acceptable to use a file photo.

Gill also addresses the danger issue:

Was this dangerous? Yes. Were they doing it for me? No. Was this common practice for them? Is this something they had done before? These are good questions. As a journalist I am here to describe what I witness with pictures. I am not their parent.

Not everyone is happy about that. Daryl Lang at PDN Pulse also exchanged email with Gill about the story, and one of the commenters had this to say:

you are the kind of guy who would rather sit there taking pictures of an accident or some one's house burning down rather than lend a hand or try to help people involved in the situation. the responce you gave when asked why you didnt say something to those kids or their parents shows your selfishness. if this world is to become a better place, it is certainly not going to be helped along by someone like you, dodging any responsibility toward others, as long as it benefits your needs.

The driver was 16-years old. Does anybody really think this was the first bit of bad driving Gill saw that night? If he had spoken up the first time the kid broke the speed limit or failed to signal a lane change, he never would have gotten the picture. And you know that if Gill hadn't been there, they still would have done this, and no one would ever know. This way, we have pictures. We know something we didn't know.

Gill went on:

After the evening was over, I looked through my pictures and picked out 12, three were from riding in the truck and two of those were of the texting/passenger driving scene. Two were published in the Times as part of the story.

Last week a photo editor called with questions about the texting photo. They were working on a story about cell phone use and driving for the Sunday paper and he thought the picture was important.

So, it was essentially a file photo.

As a photographer, I was curious about something. The dashboard has a washed-out blue look to it, but the needles stand out in bright orange. It looks a little unnatural, and I was wondering if it was just a trick of the color balancing or if the photo had been enhanced in some way so that we could see that, yes, the car really was doing 60 at the time. 

As for the color of the needles on the dashboard and the color balance; it's tough to properly set white balance in the evening in a moving vehicle. The driver's hand is in direct sunlight and is a little warm color due to the time of day and the angle of the sun. The passenger's arm and the rest of the interior was in shade and is cast blue by the blue sky. My camera was set for a manual color balance at daylight or 5500 degrees Kelvin.

As I look at the original or "raw" unedited jpeg there is not much difference. I make pictures in the "JPEG FINE" setting; there is plenty of resolution and tonal information to satisfy both newspaper and magazine clients with them. I would rather catch a moment than wait for a RAW file to write to the memory card.

As for post-processing, I don't do much. A photographer needs to nail his or her exposure and composition the first time...there is no second take in photojournalism.

 Dan Gill's website is here. Great shots here, here, and here,

Peek at the portfolio of any hobbyist model photographer working in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, and you'll probably find a picture of Rachel Jay. A marketing manager by day, for the last two and a half years Rachel has been one of Chicago's busier hobbyist models at night and on the weekends.

I'm using "hobbyist" as a shorthand term for models and photographers who work without benefit of modeling agencies and production studios. Like many hobbies---pottery, jewelry making, woodworking---you do it mostly because you like it, but there's a chance to make a little money too.

Rachel has a new blog about this kind of modeling. (I stole the term "hobbyist" from her---I was going to write "amateur" but I knew it wan't right.) If you're at all interested in the Chicago modeling scene, check out the blog of Chicago model Rachel Jay.

To get an idea of the dedication that serious models put into this hobby, check out her Bring It! list of stuff she recommends models bring to every model shoot.

I just felt like taking my retouching of Sarah Palin one step further too far: (click to enlarge)

It looks like the cover of a bad women's makeup magazine...

I did a photo shoot with a model named Jennifer a few days ago, and it's weird how photography distorts things. I've seen her in person from just a couple of feet away, and she's a pretty girl, but you couldn't tell it from some of the photos I have here. Check out this one, where the harsh lighting makes her look like she's in her late 30's or early 40's.

Larger Image

There's nothing wrong with being 40 years old, but Jennifer's only 26, and glamour photography isn't supposed to make women look older.

I have to keep reminding myself that this isn't a glamour shoot. Another reminder of that comes from the fact that Jennifer is wearing the same clothes and striking the same casual pose in nearly all the shots. I wish I'd given her more direction. But I have to remind myself that this was about testing techniques, not getting glamour shots.

I just finished a model shoot. I haven't got any pictures yet, so if you were hoping for some cheesecake, this post will be a disappointment (I'm looking at you, Ken!) I just thought a few people might be interested in how this works, and besides, I need a break from all the law-and-order blogging.

I did a couple of group model shoots last summer, and they were fun and educational, but now I wanted to try one by myself. The group shoots are a madhouse, with a bunch of photographers rotating through a bunch of models. I got a few good shots, but I need more time to think about what I'm doing.

Also, I wanted to try some experimental stuff. I'm fascinated by street photography---such as the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, and Robert Frank---and I wanted to try some of that style of photography, but with a model in the scenes.

(By the way, just because I know the names of some famous photographers, don't for a moment think you're going to see anything that good from me. I'm just using a bit of the scenery and lighting that is characteristic of the street style.)

That sort of experimental approach might get me some really interesting pictures, but it's a bit of a problem to do in a group shoot because they are usually done on a TFCD basis. That stands for Time For CD, and it means the models are spending time posing in return for a CD of nice images for their portfolio. But if I'm screwing around with weird angles and lighting, the resulting photos may not be suitable for a portfolio.

I didn't want to feel any pressure to get good portfolio shots, and I wanted to be able to take my time. For that reason, I decided to hire a model for two hours of shooting. I put out a casting call on one of the modeling web sites, and after a few false starts, I hired a 26-year old model named Jennifer.

After a few false starts, we got together today at 5:30 in the Six Corners shopping district on the northwest side of Chicago. It's got some fairly old-looking buildings, and I figured that by that time of day the light would be hitting at some interesting angles.

I was planning on a very casual look, and Jennifer showed up wearing faded jeans and a white sleeveless top, which was perfect. Unless you have very dark skin, this is always an excellent choice of casual clothing for any time you know you're getting your picture taken.

We basically spent the next hour and a half wandering around the neighborhood, with me telling Jennifer "stand over there" and "lean against that." I was looking for interesting backgrounds with urban shapes and textures. I also tried experimenting with harsher sunlight and shadows than are normally used in glamour photography.

The Six Corners area isn't quite a classic Chicago neighborhood, but parts of it make for an interesting background. The biggest problem was the large number of all-glass storefronts. Glass is hard for me to work with. At best, it reflects an unwanted scene from across the street, and at worst it reflects me as I take the picture.

It was fun to see how people reacted. Jennifer said she got some looks from guys passing by, and as we were shooting in an alley, some guy drove up and started talking to her. He took a picture with his cell phone and then asked her for her phone number. He wasn't as creepy as I'm making him seem, but when Jennifer told him she was married he was gone in a flash.

Just to prove I can't get away from legal blogging, about a minute later, a police car drove by, then stopped maybe 20 feet further on and a female officer got out of the passenger side and asked "How old is she?"

Before Jennifer could answer, the cop asked to see some ID, and asked us what we were doing.

Jennifer answered, "Model shoot."

"In an alley?"

I shrugged, "Something different."

Luckily, Jennifer had her ID in her pocket (no purses during the model shoot) and showed it to the cop. I had my ID out, but the cop just got back in her car without looking at it.

I don't know what the cop was really thinking. Jennifer looks young but not child-like, and even if she was under-age, there's nothing wrong with taking pictures of her. The cop had wandered over from a neighboring district, so I'm not even sure why she was in that area. I'm guessing the age question was just a pretext to ask us what we were doing taking pictures behind a commercial building. Cop curiousity.

(I did some location scouting with a friend, and he found a really cool place to take pictures out by the airport. It's a special bit of open public property that gets you surprisingly close to the planes on the ground. It's totally legal, but I now have the feeling I should bring along a defense attorney to handle the inevitable arrival of the airport cops.)

We wrapped up a few minutes later. I haven't looked at the pictures, but I learned a few things.

For one thing, I am really out of shape. I'm overweight, and my right knee is screwed up. We barely walked half a mile during the shoot, but my legs were killing me when I got back to the car. I've never been an athlete, but I didn't used to have problems just walking around. I need to get a lot more exercise.

Another thing I learned from wandering around a city neighborhood with a model and $3000 worth of camera gear is that it would be nice to have someone along for security. I got tired of carrying my camera bag everywhere, but I didn't want to put it down where some opportunistic thief could grab it and run. I don't usually worry about stuff like that, but photographing models attracts attention. The concentration on the photography also distracts me, unlike my photojournalism work, where I'm necessarily much more aware of my environment.

One thing I already knew is that model photography is as much about giving the models good directions as it is about photographic skill. This shoot confirmed for me that I suck at directing a model. I'm too busy taking pictures, I don't know what I want, and...well...it just feels funny telling a young lady how to pose sexy for me.

(There's a whole sub-breed of model photographers, derisively called GWC's for Guy-With-Camera, who live for nothing else. They're not in it for the pictures, they're in it because they want pretty girls to act sexy for them. The camera is just an excuse.)

Another thing I learned is that operating a camera is hard when you're out of practice. I haven't been taking as many photos as I'd like to, lately. Even when I get to take pictures, they're usually photojournalistic, meaning I just point the camera and shoot. The subject is more important than the technique.

On the model shoot, I ended up out of my normal auto-exposure modes a lot, and it was trickier than I remembered. I was worried about stuff like lighting ratios that I haven't had to bother with lately. I need more practice.

I'll post more about the shoot when I've had time to look over the pictures. It might be a while.

I seem to be the answer man lately. A few days ago, somebody asked me how to fight an eminent domain action, and now someone is asking me about modeling releases for photography:

Hi Mark,

I'm relatively new to photography and have a quick question that I'm hoping you might be able to help me with..

I have been using the istockphoto model release form for every photoshoot that I've done because the wording on it seemed very good. I haven't put all of my photos on istockphoto, especially not the better ones which brings me to my question.

A buyer from istockphoto liked a series of photos that I had up and asked if I had any more. I have a few more that are not on istockphoto and would love to sell them but I don't know if I'd be able to do that with an istockphoto model release form. I called a few of the other stock agencies and they say that they do not accept istockphoto release forms.. I dont' get it! Just because there's the istockphoto logo and address at the top of the form? So does this mean that I can't sell my photo privately because of the release form template that I used? :(

Thanks so much,

Felipe

Caveat: There's a lot of bad information out there about model releases, and this might be some more of it. I've tried my best here, but I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Photography law is surprisingly complicated for something that so many people are doing these days. It touches on several major legal topics, including copyright, trademark, privacy, and defamation, each with its own logical structure and case law.

I suggest that if you can't afford to get advice from an actual lawyer, you at least buy a good book on the subject. I've found Bert Krages' Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images to be a pretty useful source of basic information. There's also a link to his website in the Photography section of my blogroll.

If you're a photographer shooting a model, the photography itself is pretty simple (legally). Most of the legal issues arise later on when someone wants to publish the photo. The model has certain inherent rights to control the use of her image, and anyone who wants to use the image for commercial purposes will need her permission to do so. You get that permission in the form of a model release.

For a stock photo sale, the end user doesn't want to have to find the model to get her permission, so usually the photographer gets the model to sign a release that gives him the right to make further grants of rights to other people. People who buy the photos will be planning to use them in a certain way, and they will want to make sure that the photographer has a release that grants the rights they need.

So, Felipe, the short answer to your question is that you can sell your photos privately if the buyer is satisfied that the release covers his intended use.

Of course, just because you complete the sale doesn't mean you're legally in the clear. Strange things can happen.

For example, suppose you take a photo of a thoughtful young lady in business attire sitting at desk. You then sell this photo to a stock service which re-sells it to an ad agency putting together a billboard for a drug rehabilition service. The ad agency uses the picture with the headline "Not all heroin addicts look like heroin addicts."

One of the billboards ends up across the street from a bookstore that has just hired your model to read stories to children. Parents don't want to leave their children with someone who might be a heroin addict, so they stop bringing their children to the store, which no longer needs her services and lays her off.

Does your model release cover this? If not, the model may be able to sue the end user for defamation, and for all I know, she can sue the photographer as well. I made up this example, and these kinds of things happen pretty rarely, but if you sell enough pictures, it could happen to you.

When a stock photo service is involved, they may want to assure purchasers that they will not face these kinds of problems, so they require the models to grant extensive rights, reeling off long lists of specific examples that end with catch-all language like "any media for any purpose" and "irrevocable, worldwide, and perpetual."

So, Felipe, the longer answer to your question is that you need to make sure that you're protected, and it's good business to help your customers protect themselves.

My guess is that iStockphoto's release probably does cover the hypothetical horror story I described. They'd be one of the deepest pockets in any lawsuit, so they're probably pretty careful. But that doesn't mean the release protects you or the end user as well.

As for other companies' acceptance of the iStockphoto release, I doubt the presence of iStockphoto branding has anything to do with it. My guess is that the release doesn't have the protective language their legal department has decided they need, or it doesn't have the language they've promised to their customers.

(Actually, I just took a look at the iStockphoto standard model release and I noticed that it says the release will be "governed by the laws of Alberta, Canada." That might be deal-killer for anybody not located in Canada.)

Just because stock services like Getty or Corbis or Comstock don't like the release, however, doesn't mean your private buyer won't find it satisfactory.

Don't forget, you can always go back to the models and ask them to sign another release for the same photos. It's a pain, and you'll have to pay them at least a token amount, but it might be worth it to expand your photo market.

I was out last night taking pictures of the fireworks in the neighborhood.

Larger Image

Click here to see the whole fireworks slideshow.

Well, no, just a photographer.

A less wussy photographer.

Digital cameras capture images using a light-sensitive sensor at the point where the lens focuses the image. In compact fun cameras, it's sealed away safely inside the camera body, so it stays clean all the time.

In a DSLR like mine, however, it can get a little dusty. That's because I can swap the lenses on my camera, and every time I do so, a little dust can get into the area between the lens and the sensor. It still has to get past the viewfinder mirror and the shutter itself, but sooner or later dust will settle on the sensor. Since the photosites on the sensor (i.e. the pixels of the image) are less than a thousandth of an inch across, even a small dust particle can cast a shadow that shows up in the image.

(This is one area where film cameras have a huge advantage. Dust can settle on the film as easily as it can settle on the sensor, but it only leaves a shadow on the image recorded at that place on the film. Digital cameras, however, use the same sensor for every image they take, so once it gets dirty it never gets clean.)

The fix for a dirty sensor is simple: Clean the sensor. Most serious photographers do it regularly.

I never have. For one thing, I really only use one lens. Not much dust can get in if you never take the lens off. Another reason I don't clean the sensor is that most of my images are only for publication on the web, where the resolution isn't high enough for anyone to see the sensor is dirty. Finally, I just don't take the kind of images that will be ruined by a few dust specs.

Then, a few weeks ago, I took some shots at a party and noticed this:

Larger ImagePhoto of Cake, With Dust Spot

My God! It's hideous! Here, take a close-up look:

Larger ImageHideous Dust Spot

I can get rid of that in Photoshop, but it's on every picture I take, so clearly I had to do something about. This meant I had to confront the real reason I hadn't cleaned the sensor: I'm afraid of it.

The sensor is the most important part of the camera, and if I damage it while trying to clean it, the repair bill will be huge. In the manual for the camera, Nikon says that you should never touch the sensor with anything. If you want it cleaned, Nikon wants you to send it to their service department. I've never even seen the sensor.

(Nikon's advice is crazy. Photographers who work in dirty environments, such as nature photographers, have to clean the sensor every time they use the camera. Besides, in Japan, Nikon sells a cleaning kit with an instructional video. My guess is that they're afraid of U.S. product liability law: If they tell people how to clean the sensor, and a lot of people damage their cameras, they're afraid they will be sued.)

Technically speaking, I wouldn't even be cleaning the sensor. I'd be cleaning the filter that covers the sensor. That filter is supposedly made of a material that is as hard as steel.

And yet, people damage their sensor all the time while cleaning it. They grind some ultra-hard piece of microscopic dust against it, leaving a permanent scratch, or they apply too much pressure and crack it. Or maybe something goes wrong and the delicate shutter slams closed on the cleaning tool. Even just scratching the filter will require a $350 repair job.

Nevertheless, despite my trepidations, last night I finally cleaned the sensor. I plugged the camera into a power supply so the shutter wouldn't close if the battery ran out. Then I took the lens off, revealing the inside of the mirror box. I turned the camera over and enabled Mirror Up mode in the menu.

Next, I opened up a Sensor Swab. This is a thin plastic paddle with a piece of lint-free cloth wrapped around the end. They look simple, but Photographic Solutions makes them by hand in a clean-room. The thin handle is designed to bend if you try to put too much pressure on it.

I put a couple of drops of the Eclipse cleaning fluid on the tip tip of the Sensor Swab.

Then I pressed that shutter button. Faster than I could see, the mirror snapped out of the way and the shutter locked open. In the back of the box, I could see the sensor, a shiny green rectangle surrounded by a blue area. When the light hit it right, I could even see the speck of dust that was causing the problem.

Carefully, I positioned the wet sensor swab in the blue area at the right side of the sensor. Moving slowly, I swept it to the left in one motion, being careful not to lift it off the sensor until it was in the blue zone on the other end. Then I repeated the operation in the opposite direction.

That was it. I turned the camera off and the mirror closed. I put the lens back on to seal the camera up again.

I haven't actually tested it---by taking a picture of something smooth like the sky and looking for spots---but I think it went okay. I'm feeling virtuous.

One of my new favorite sites is Photoshop Disasters, which features actual commercial photoshop work that is bad or stupid.

Check out, for example, this ad for Elizabeth Arden lipstick, where they've gone to the trouble to hire Catherine Zeta-Jones, and then photoshopped away all her actual facial features. Or how about this impossibly thin babe? Or this jaw-dropping horror? Or OH MY GOD! HER LEGS! HER LEGS!

Some of the best stuff is for movie posters and DVD covers. Once movie production is finished, there's no way to get the cast back together---in costume and makeup---to photograph promotional pieces, so the promotional art has to be assembled in Photoshop from existing images. The result is often quite hideous, with actors pulled in from different scenes with different lighting, heads pasted onto bodies, faces pasted onto heads, and arms and legs slid around to impossible locations.

By the way, for anyone tempted to be impressed by some of my photography, when I was getting the photo of the toilet and plunger for the previous item, I had to take nine shots to get a composition I liked with the correct exposure to show details in both the white and the black objects. And I still had to use Photoshop to crop it a little and adjust the contrast curves to bring out the details of the black plunger cup against the black tile floor.

(Also, I spent about 10 minutes trying to come up with a toilet-related pun for the title before settling on the execrable result you see above.)

This last Sunday I got together with three other Chicago-area photographers for a model shoot at the Morton Arboretum. I'm trying to learn how to take attractive pictures of people, and this was a chance to learn and practice. I'm planning to post a few of the photos later.

Meanwhile, what sort of complications do you suppose might arise while trying to photograph models in an arboretum in northern Illinois during early June of 2007?

Yeah:

Larger ImageTheresa Meets Magicicada Septendecim

Ken Rockwell compares the picture quality from a $150 camera to that of a $5000 camera.

As you'd expect, if you pixel-peep, the $5000 camera is better.

If you examine the photos at a reasonable resolution, however, the cameras take similar pictures. They'd look the same in 8x10" prints too.

The differences between the cameras are not as important as variations in how you use them. Ken is more familiar with his $150 camera than the $5000 camera, so he likes the photo from the cheaper camera better.

Ken gets all excited about stuff like this, but a few caveats are worth mentioning. The scene in the photo is a sunlit still-life. If there's less light and more objects in motion, the $5000 camera will make it possible to capture photos that the $150 camera can't get. For example, if you were photographing an indoor sporting event or a school play (where flash is prohibited or the subjects are far away), the $5000 camera will get beautiful photos that are impossible for the $150 camera to capture.

Still, that $150 camera takes some nice pictures, and for hundreds of dollars less than the sales tax on the $5000 camera. It's a Canon Powershot A530, and you can buy it from my online store for slightly less than $150.

Just thought I'd mention that.

The difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional gets paid. A professional writer has sold some writing, a professional actor has been paid for a performance, and a professional photographer has sold an image.

Back in March of 2005 I posted a bunch of pictures I took when I went to visit some friends in Indiana, including this one I took as I came back through the Chicago Skyway toll plaza late at night:

Larger ImageSkyway Toll Platform

Last month, I got an email from a Senior Graphics Designer at an international construction-management company headquartered in London. He was putting together an edition of his company's internal journal and wanted to buy the right to use this picture in a run of about 2500 copies. I didn't ask why, but I assume the company had a contract to maintain some part of the Skyway.

We agreed on a price of $300, and I sent him the full-size original image. Yesterday my corporate account received a SWIFT international money transfer for $280. (There were exchange and transaction fees.)

That was my first photo sale. Just like that I am, technically (very technically), a professional photographer.

Real professional photographers are fond of telling amateurs—who are usually all hung up on what to buy—that your camera doesn't matter nearly as much as what you decide to take a picture of.

I took that Skyway picture almost a year before I bought my way-cool D200. I took that picture with my old plastic 4 Megapixel compact camera.

As I approached the toll plaza that night, I just thought the lights might look nice. The bright car taillights, the neon "Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge" sign, the lights of the plaza. Even the light glittering off the raindrops on the window. So I held my little plastic camera up in front of me, aimed it out the window, and snapped a picture.

This is probably a great idea:

That's Nikon's just-announced D80 digital SLR. From what I can tell, it's the 10 megapixel imaging technology from my D200 repackaged into a D70-style body for consumer pricing. It's probably slower, lighter, and less rugged, but it's definitely cheaper, with an MSRP of $999.95 for the body.

Here's a bit of information about it from Nikon:

• Press Release
• Flash-Animated Advertising Page
• Nikon Catalog Entry

Nikon says it will be available in September. If the release of the D200 is any guide, they really mean that if you order now you'll probably have one by Christmas.

I buy most of my stuff from Adorama Camera, and they have it listed aready:

• Nikon D80 with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX kit lens.
• Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX kit lens.

That 18-135mm lens is also new. Read more about it:

• Press Release.
• Nikon Catalog Entry
• Adorama listing for the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX kit lens.

I took my camera to the Taste of Chicago festival a few days ago. I didn't get a lot of pictures, but I did get to try out the high-speed shooting mode of my Nikon D200:

I managed to move things along a bit on the D200 front. Sort of.

Last thursday, I just queried Adorama about my order for a D200 and got this response:

Please be advised that you are at the top of our waiting list, however to this point we have only received one shipment from Nikon for very few cameras & have not gotten any since.

Unfortunately it is not in our hands we are relying on Nikon to supply us & so far they have not come through they way we were expecting.

We apologize for any delays & inconveniences & thank you for your patronage.

Sigh. I've never had trouble with Adorama before, and really, I'm not having trouble now. The problem is that Nikon production can't keep up with the spike in demand for D200 bodies. Worse, Nikon isn't committing to a delivery schedule with its dealers.

What was weird is that the major online camera stores like Adorama aren't receiving new shipments from Nikon, but I keep hearing about people buying them from the Best Buy and Circuit City online stores. They'll just keep checking the websites until they see D200 bodies in stock, then they'll quickly order one. Here I was trying to buying one from a dedicated camera store, and Nikon keeps shipping new ones to the big electronics chains.

I decided that with Adorama's honest but unsatisfying response, I might as well try to snag one from one of the big stores.

I had no luck at Circuit City, but I snared one Thursday morning at Best Buy. I ordered it with overnight delivery so that I'd get it on Friday and be able to play with my new toy all weekend. They sent me 3 emails confirming my order, and I started obsessively checking the order status on the web site to see when it would ship.

Meanwhile, I dealt with another problem. My order at Adorama included Nikon's new 18-200mm VR lens. That wasn't shipping either because it was also backordered. Best Buy and Circuit City don't even sell DSLR lenses, so I had no way to get an 18-200 VR lens for the D200 body, and without a lens, it's useless.

What I had to do was order a lens that Adorama had in stock, so that I'd have something to take photos with until the 18-200 came.

My first thought was to order one of the cheap kit lenses that Nikon ships with some of their cameras, such as their 18-55mm lens for $160. But that would be a bit of a waste, because once the 18-200 came, it would completely subsume the 18-55 and I'd never need it again.

My second thought was to order one of the other specialty lenses I'd been thinking of ordering at a later date. But which one? I could order the 12-24mm wide-angle zoom lense for $920, but that's a lot of money to spend right now, and do I really want to do nothing but take wide-angle photos for the next few weeks? The 10.5mm fish-eye lens was cheaper at $570, but that's a trick lens that should be used sparingly.

At the opposite end of the focal range is Nikon's 70-200mm telephoto lens. Seeing just the numbers for the focal length, you might think this lens would also be subsumed by the 18-200 lens, but if you look at the specifications and reviews, it's actually a professional quality lens. It also has a professional quality price of $1650 which is way too expensive for me.

My third thought was to order Nikon's 17-55mm lens. Again, don't let the focal length fool you. Unlike the 18-55mm kit lens, this is a piece of high-quality professional glass. It can take magnificent, sharp, beautiful pictures. As it should for $1200. It would be nice to have, but that's a steep price.

I finally settled on a lens I hadn't given much thought to until now: A 35mm f/2 lens for $305. That's a prime lens, meaning it only has one focal length and cannot zoom in and out. However, because of the simplicity of the non-zoom design, it produces a high-quality image. What it lacks in flexibility, it makes up for in image quality.

Also, at 35mm, it's what's known as a "normal" lens: Its field of view is considered close to the field of view of the human eye. Years ago, before zoom lenses of today's high quality were available, many beginning photographers would start out with a normal lens. I figure that working with a non-zooming normal lens will help me practice thinking about how to compose pictures.

So that's what I ordered from Adorama, requesting overnight delivery to arrive with the camera.

Thursday evening, however, I noticed that there was a message I had missed on the answering machine. It must have come in while I was out. It was a call from Best Buy because they needed to confirm the shipping address for security purposes.

Understand, they had my email address if they wanted to reach me, and they had the Order Status page on the web site to let me know to contact them. Instead of using either of those, they left phone messages for me. By the time I returned the call, it was too late for Friday delivery.

As I sit here, UPS tracking shows that my camera left the warehouse in Ohio and is now, for some reason, in Rockford, Illinois, before its trip to Chicago tomorrow.

The lens, on the other hand, was shipped on time by Adorama and arrived on Friday. Ain't she a beaut'?

Larger ImageNikon 35mm f/2D AF Lens

An object suitable for aesthetic contemplation. And not much else.

It's been a while since I wrote anything about the Nikon D200 camera I want, so I figure many of you are asking yourselves, "How's Mark doing with that new Nikon D200 camera he ordered?"

I don't have it yet. There were rumors about the new Nikon D200 well before the official announcement. So on November 1, when retailers announced they were taking pre-orders, a lot of Nikon fans place their orders immediately. I wasn't so quick to make up my mind, but I finally decided to get in line for a D200 on November 16th.

Nikon released the first batch of D200 bodies to the world in mid-December, fulfilling the Christmas wishes of those who managed to order early on November 1. The rest of us have to wait a while. I had heard that Nikon would be shipping cameras in large batches every month, and a supervisor at Adorama told me that Nikon doesn't commit to a particular delivery schedule, but that he expected my camera would ship in mid-January. So if all goes well, I should get it any day now.

All is not well. It's not unexpected. Whenever a new high-tech product is released to the market, early users always uncover problems that squeaked past the quality testing. So far, people have reported four problems with the D200.

First, people reported that the battery pack ran down really fast. With a larger viewscreen, larger files, and the accompanying release of the battery-sucking 18-200 VR lens, nobody expected wonderful battery life, but some people were only getting a couple hundred pictures before running out of power.

That turned out to be no big deal. The D200 uses a the new EN-EL3e battery which seems to have a "learning curve." After the first few charging cycles, it begins to last much longer.

Second, people were reporting "hot pixels." That's when one random pixel is much brighter than those around it. This is not unusual in a camera sensor. It's a matter of yield: For every flawless sensor to roll out of the fab plant, there might be 5 sensors with one bad pixel, 15 sensors with two bad pixels, 10 with three, and so on. If you ever try to buy a high-quality CCD imaging sensor directly from the manufacturer, you'll probably have to choose between several different levels of quality, with the flawless ones costing a lot more.

Computer hard disks are the same way: Most of them have a bunch of bad sectors. They're tested at the factory and the list of bad sectors is written to a special place on the drive. The operating system on your computer knows how to find that list, so it simply doesn't use the bad parts of the disk. I once worked on a project using an operating system that couldn't do that. We had to buy a flawless disk drive for three times the price of a normal one. It's far easier to just not use the bad sectors.

Nikon does the same thing with camera sensors: They program the camera to not use the bad pixels. The image processing software just fills in that pixel with a value that blends well with the surrounding pixels.

Sometimes Nikon doesn't get all of them, and that's what people are complaining about. They still have bad pixels in the image. When the image is viewed normally, filling a computer monitor or printed at 8x10, the hot pixels get combined with neighboring pixels and are pretty much invisible. You only really see them if you zoom in and look. And even then you can Photoshop them out. Or if that's not good enough, you can send the Camera to a Nikon service center and they'll map out the bad pixels so you don't see them any more.

The third problem is more serious. People were reporting somewhat mysterious vertical "banding" in some of their images: Thin vertical lines of alternating light and dark tones. All hell broke lose in the on-line forums. People posted pictures of banding, other people didn't see it and accused them of being Nikon haters, people who saw banding declared the D200 a dud, people accused them of not knowing how to take good pictures, other people accused them of being Canon partisans, people who didn't even use Nikon equipment declared the D200 a failure because they hated Nikon users…

Amid all the noise and temper, I started to wonder if a D200 was worth waiting for. How bad was this banding? Was it a sample defect in some D200s, or was it just the way D200s took pictures? How often would it appear, and over how much of the image? Very frustrating.

Eventually, the answers started to come out. The problem was real, and tended to show up in certain extreme exposure conditions. If there was an overexposed bright patch in the picture, such as a light bulb or the open sky seen out the window of a darkened room, the nearby dark areas might show very fine banding.

Photographers being photographers, this was cause for a fight. People who had the banding problem posted 200% blow-ups showing the banding. Others who didn't have the problem at all claimed the original banding photographs were faked. Others responded that because banding that was only visible at 200%, it wasn't a big deal and wouldn't show up on the web or in prints. Stock photographers pointed out that stock agencies have no idea what their customers are doing with the images, so they don't buy images with defects that their customers might notice. This was met with the response that stock agencies also don't buy poorly exposed images. Some photographers started posting pictures with banding all over without exposure problems. Artistic photographers pointed out that they use overexposure and other forms of technically bad photography to achieve artistic effects, but everybody ignored them. Sports photographers pointed out that they can't always control exposure either (especially when shooting winter sports with all that bright snow) but that their photos are often used huge or tightly cropped.

While that argument was raging, Nikon engineers diagnosed the problem as something to do with the "compression module" and started repairing cameras people had sent in. The "banding" issue is apparently a quality control problem that Nikon will fix under the warranty in about a week.

For the type of photography I do, banding won't be a problem unless it occurs on good exposures, and even then I might not care much because I don't do big prints very often. So if my D200 has banding, I'll just live with it (or fix it in Photoshop) until I feel like giving up the camera to Nikon for a week or so.

As I write this, a fourth D200 problem may be emerging. Because the lens on a digital SLR is removable, dust can get inside the camera. When the shutter opens to snap a picture, that dust can get on the imaging sensor where it will appear as a small spot in the image. To clean the dust off, you have to put the camera in a special cleaning mode in which it raises the internal mirror out of the way and holds the shutter open. Then you can use an air blower to remove the dust. If that doesn't work, you have to use a cleaning pad or brush to wipe the sensor clean. (The Nikon manual says you're never supposed to touch the sensor with anything but since the alternative is to send the camera to Nikon for cleaning, everybody does.)

I've read two reports of the shutter snapping shut unexpectedly while people were cleaning the sensor, in both cases causing damage to the shutter when it strikes the obstruction. Replacing the shutter is a $250 repair job. If this ever causes a scratch on the image sensor, it's going to be a lot more. At this time, even the people who had it happen to them admit it might just be user error—accidentally hitting something that closes the shutter.

In any case, I still don't have a D200, so it's not a problem for me.

Note: Comments closed because this entry was turning into a spam magnet.

I meant to link to this earlier, but here's John Ruberry's favorite photo of 2005, from one of his trips to Nebraska. Click the picture for a larger image.

I like his photo of a church near Milford, Nebraska better. That one would be worth printing on 8x10 matte paper just to see how it looks.

Andrew Kantor has an article in USA Today about when and where you can take pictures. It's got some good advice, but he makes one mistake that's important:

You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've read several books and articles about photographer's rights, and I'd add two important caveats to that statement:

1. Private property can have conditions of entry. These are conditions that the owner requires people to accept in order to receive permission to enter. It's usually as simple as a sign at the door: No Smoking, No Food or Beverages, Shoes and Shirt Required. Some places explicitly add No Photography. This is very common at places that can profit from imagery themselves, such as theaters, ballparks, and museums, but any place can add such a restriction. If you enter a place with a "No Photography" sign, you do so on the condition that you don't take pictures. Taking pictures anyway might be a form of trespass.
2. Mall police, building security, and any other people representing the owner's interests can revoke your permission to enter or change the conditions. If the mall cops don't want you taking pictures and tell you to leave, it's trespassing if you stay.

But he's absolutely right that these people can't take your camera.

Of course, with the "War on Terror" going on, some people freak out about photography.

(Hat tip: Radley Balko)

Update: I emailed Andrew Kantor before writing this post. He responds to my assertion that you shouldn't take pictures if the conditions of entry prohibit it:

True, you shouldn't. But legally you can. It's all part of the general rule, "If you can see it, you can shoot it" (with the various exceptions notes in the column/PDF).

Certainly the mall or building representative can kick you out, and many people will want to avoid that and thus will heed your advice and not take the shots. But from a legal standpoint, even with conditions of entry, the only recourse the property owner has is kicking you out.

A news photographer probably wants to balance getting a good photo with maintaining good relations with the building; he wouldn't want to be banned from the mall, for example. But should and can are different animals here.

That's not my understanding of the law, but it would be nice for me if it's true. I'll keep looking into this.

I'm posting a series of articles explaining my thinking in deciding that I want one of the new Nikon D200 cameras. I don't know if anybody out there is interested, but photography is a new hobby for me, and I enjoy writing about new things I've learned.

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series I explained the major technical advantages of a camera like the Nikon D200 over my point-and-shoot camera. In Part 3, I explained why I thought choosing a lens system—and therefore a brand of Camera—wasn't as important as choosing a particular camera. Now it's time to discuss why the particular camera I chose was the Nikon D200.

Here's a table of every current Canon and Nikon Digital SLR camera body (without lens), sorted by price. ("Current" cameras are those listed on the manufacturer's web site, except the D70 which is omitted because the D70s replaces it. Prices are from Adorama.)

The first thing to notice is that there's a price break right in the middle, after the D200. All the cameras on the bottom half of the list are clearly professional quality and professional cost. The recently announced Canon EOS 5D is Canon's low-cost professional camera, and it's still more than I can afford. Also, I don't need a lot of the high-end professional features. They mostly don't result in better pictures, but help professional photographers with their workflow.

So, let's consider only the under-$2000 cameras. Here are some of the interesting features of those cameras: (Specifications are from Digital Photography Review)

MP=MegaPixels, the number of millions of pixels in the image
Constr.=Construction materials
FPS=frames per second burst rate (it will slow down when the buffer fills)
PC means it has an external sync connection for studio flash systems
MLU=Mirror Lock-Up, which reduces vibration for certain exposures

The D200 is the newest, fastest, highest resolution camera on the list. It's made of solid materials, and it has a PC connection and Mirror Lock-Up, which are important features to me. It's the best camera I can afford. That said, this chart still gave me pause for thought. I could get a D50 for about one-third the cost of a D200. That's a lot of money.

But there are a lot of things that chart doesn't show. I've been following DSLR technology for about a year, so I have a feeling for these cameras that's hard to capture in a chart (especially since it would be a lot of work to look up the specs for all the other cameras). The D200 is a better camera than the others in a lot of little ways, such as its large, bright viewfinder which will be helpful in low-light shots. Also, like every other new camera, its autofocus should be better and faster than all that came before.

In the forums at Digital Photography Review a lot of professional photographers are criticizing amateurs like me for buying an expensive camera we don't need. I responded with this list, which sums it up nicely:

I am intentionally buying a camera that is way over my head. The potential to waste a lot of my money scares me a bit. I think my reasons for this purchase are fairly sound, but since my camera hasn't been delivered yet, I'm willing to listen to reason :-)

Here's why I'm thinking D200:

(1) It's cool to have the hot new toy. I never bought anything for that reason before that I recall, and it's a little exciting. I know this the wrong reason to buy a D200 but I'd be lying if I denied it, so I wanted to admit it up front. Besides, I just turned 41 so it was either this or a sports car, and this is a lot cheaper.

(2) I have more than a few casual portraits with poorly-focused subjects in front of a very crisp background. I blame this on the camera's autofocus and the electronic viewfinder that keeps me from seeing the problem until it's too late. It's not that I expect the D200 to fix this---although I do---it's that next time this happens I won't be able to blame the camera. All technical difficulties will be user error.

(3) I'm not afraid of the switchology. I'm a computer programmer by training and vocation, and I have a science and engineering background. Learning my way around complex systems is one of my skills. The operational complexity of the user interface doesn't bother me, and having read through the manual, I think I understand what almost everything does, but I'm pretty fuzzy on why I'd want to do some of those things. I may not know how to take great pictures, but I can sure push the buttons. Speaking of which...

(4) I like all the buttons. Maybe I'm overcompensating for all the menu navigation I have to do on my P&S---4 or 5 steps just to get to saturation and contrast, three to change white balance, and a whopping seven steps to switch from autofocus to manual (and then it's still motor-drive!)---but I really like the idea of having all these controls out there where I can change them so easily.

(5) I want high-ISO for indoor shots of people in available light. I'd rather have noise than blur.

(6) I want the camera to be quick to use. I'm fascinated by street photography (e.g. Frank, Winogrand, Bresson) and anything that shaves off my reaction time would be good. (With my P&S I sometimes preset the manual focus to save time, and I have to use an external battery pack clipped to my belt because the camera runs out of juice too fast when I keep it from going into standby.)

(7) Again, because of the street photography, I need to have the camera with me and ready to go. It's going to get banged around a bit, fall off the seat of the car if I stop suddenly, and so on. There's also going to be some snow and rain that will get on the camera despite my attempts to protect it. I want something rugged.

(8) Photography is quite possibly the only serious artistic interest I've ever had, and I only discovered it as I entered my 40's. I want to push this as far as it can go. If I were starting 20 years ago, my goal would be an invitation to join Magnum. For now, maybe iStockPhoto...or a photoblog.

(9) I have two power screwdrivers, two circular saws, two wireless telephone systems, two wrench sets, and two of a lot of other things around the house: The cheap one which I thought would be good enough, and the good one I bought to replace it. I have a cheap pan-tilt tripod, and I already know I'm going to have to buy a stronger one with a ball head to replace it for night shots. I want to avoid that mistake here, especially when the cheap one is $600-$900. I prefer the risk of overbuying rather than the risk of buying twice.

(10) I expect to grow into this camera. My day job is as a software consultant, so I offen have a lot of free time between projects, and this is how I want to fill that time. Also, I have a few ideas how to make a little money at this. Presumably, some of the pro features will come in hand eventually.

So, I'm pretty sure this is the camera for me. In any case, I've got one on order. I had been hoping to have it by Christmas, but the D200 is a very popular camera and it's backordered. They tell me I should have it in my hands by mid-January, possibly sooner.

If it's too much camera, then it's always going to be enough camera.

I've been writing about why I want a Nikon D200 camera, but now I'm not so sure. Nikon has posted the instruction manuals for download, and they're kind of scary.

Page ii

Viewing the sun or other strong light source through the viewfinder could cause permanent visual impairment.

Should you notice smoke or an unusual smell coming from the equipment or from the AC adapter (available separately), unplug the AC adapter and remove the battery immediately, taking care to avoid burns.

Placing the camera strap around the neck of an infant or child could result in strangulation.

Page iii

The CD-ROMs on which the software and manuals are distributed should not be played back on audio CD equipment. Playing CD-ROMs on an audio CD player could cause hearing loss or damage the equipment.

Page 16

When operating the diopter adjustment control with your eye to the viewfinder, be careful not to put your fingers or fingernails in your eye.

Clearly, these professional-quality cameras are trickier than I thought.

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series I explained the major technical advantages of a camera like the Nikon D200 over my point-and-shoot camera. However, all of these advantages are common to the entire Digital SLR camera design. I haven't yet explained why I want a D200 rather than one of the other Digital SLRs.

Before I do that, one of the comments to Part 2 makes me realize I should point out that I don't actually have one of these cameras. This is all just my fantasy of what such a camera will do for me. I think, however, that it is a well-researched and realistic fantasy.

Anyway...

Canon and Nikon.

I don't know enough about cameras to evaluate all the features and performance of all the DSLR camera makers. After a bit of research, however, it's clear that Canon and Nikon are the major players in the Digital SLR market. I'm sure that many of the other camera makers—Olympus, Fujifilm, Kodak, Pentax, Konica-Minolta, Sigma—make fine cameras. The Olympus E-1 and Fujifilm Finepix, for example, both have good word-of-mouth.

What they don't have, however, is the gigantic user base of Canon and Nikon. Whether I'm looking for advice, reviews, or third-party accessories, the enormous number of Nikon and Canon owners has attracted a very large crowd of helpful people.

Basically, I'm following the herd. I'm not a professional photographer, so I'm not going to be amassing a collection of camera bodies. This is probably the last camera I'll buy for at least 5 years. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be good enough. Canon and Nikon may or may not offer the most technically superior choices, but they are the safest choice.

Canon or Nikon?

Conventional wisdom from the world of film cameras has it that when you choose a camera maker, you don't do so because of its cameras, but because of its lens system. Good lenses cost more than good camera bodies, and they tend to last a lot longer. Thus, photographers buy a camera, then a bunch of lenses for the camera they have, then another camera for the lenses they have, and so on. It just saves money to stay loyal to a lens system: If they bought a different camera, they'd have to buy all different lenses.

The other important point is that the camera itself has very little to do with picture quality: It's the lenses that form the picture and the film that records it. The camera body just holds it all together in the dark and provides a shutter to let the light in. Film matters, but all 35mm cameras can use the same film, so it doesn't affect your brand choice. The camera doesn't matter. An expensive film camera is faster, tougher, more convenient, and more reliable, but it doesn't take any better pictures. That leaves only the lenses.

The digital world is different. For one thing, the digital image sensor replaces the film and is just as important to image quality. It's also one of the most costly parts of a digital camera. In the digital world, the camera is the film, and it's important.

The other big difference is that digital cameras, like most electronic items, become obsolete quickly. A Fuji S1 Pro sold for $4000 five years ago, but only sells on eBay for about $450 now that a Nikon D50 will take better pictures faster for $800. That trend is likely to continue. Whatever digital camera I buy today will probably be worth only a few hundred dollars in five years when I'm ready for my next one.

On the other hand, film cameras and any kinds of lenses will probably be worth almost as much as their original purchase price. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the camera and lenses sell for more than their purchase price in inflated dollars. It's almost like renting the equipment.

What this means to me is that I'm going to take such a huge depreciation loss on the camera that I'm not too concerned about the lenses. In other words, I'm not really buying a lens system after all, so choosing a brand isn't as important as choosing a specific camera.

Why Not Film?

If a digital camera costs so much to buy and is worth so little so soon, wouldn't it make more economic sense to buy a film camera?

No. Not for me. I've taken 11,000 photos so far with my Z3 camera. That's the equivalent of about 300 rolls of film. At $5 per roll, that's $1500, or about half again as much as my entire camera outfit. If I take another 11,000 photos next year, that's another $1500.

And that's just the cost of the unexposed film. If I want to see the pictures, I have to have the film developed at a cost of another $5 per roll, essentially doubling the cost. In one year of shooting digital, I've saved $3000—enough to buy a complete Nikon D200 outfit, including lens, flash, and memory card.

Really?

Maybe.

Maybe more. After all, developing 35mm film doesn't include the cost of making prints. On the other hand, I have to pay for prints of digital images too. On another hand, I can view digital prints on my computer for free. On yet one more hand, the film costs were based on cheap slide film; negatives with proof prints would push the cost of film up toward $5000.

Then again (I have so run out of hands), if I had to pay that much to take pictures, I probably wouldn't have taken 11,000 of them. I would have been more careful. That would save some money at the cost of less experience taking pictures.

Some people would say that taking a smaller number of more careful pictures would make me a better photographer. I say that increasing the amount of work per picture and making me wait a day or more to see the results would have made me give up the hobby after the first week.

I'm not sure how to account for any of this, so I'll just ignore it.

Now About Choosing a Nikon D200...?

I've managed to get so sidetracked discussing the economics of all this that I think I'll put off the D200 specifics for another post. People who know me well probably saw that coming.

Update: Part 4 is up.

Over in the Digital Photography Review Forums, some people are badmouthing the Nikon D200 camera because it's not full frame. What they mean is that, like most Digital SLR cameras, the sensor isn't as large as the standard 35mm frame size used in a film camera. I've only been learning about photogaphy for about a year, but I'm pretty sure that although this is true, it's also a bit of misdirection.

What's true is that the digital image sensor is indeed about 2/3 the size of a 35mm frame. It's also true that if the sensor was as large as a 35mm frame, it would produce better images. A 35mm frame is 50% larger in each dimension, meaning a sensor that size could capture twice as many pixels. Or, and this would be my preference, it could have the same number of pixels, each with twice the light-gathering area, giving an extra stop of sensitivity for the same noise level. (That is, not more pixels, but better pixels.) The thing is, however, there's nothing magically wonderful about the 35mm frame size. When it comes to the imaging quality of digital sensors, bigger is always better.

The same is true of film. In fact, 35mm film is the rock-bottom film size that is considered suitable for professional use. (If you know what APS, 110, 126, and 8x11mm films are, congratulations, but those have never been used professionally and are respectively dying, nearly dead, dead, and used only by spies.) Photographers who want really nice images don't use 35mm, they use one of the medium format sizes built on a strip of film 6cm wide. Photographers who want better images use 4x5 inch film sheets. For even better images they can use 5x7 inch film. Or if that's not good enough, there's 8x10 inch film. And if that's not good enough, there are even larger specialty film sizes.

I've heard that the 35mm format was chosen because the same format is used in 35mm movie film, so it was being produced in large amounts which made it cheap. Even if that's not true, the 35mm format is simply an engineering compromise between image quality, camera size, and cost. Digital imaging sensors are designed with the same sort of tradeoffs, but being a different technology, they've settled around a different common size.

The point is, there's nothing special about the 35mm film size.

Update: Well, the one thing 35mm has going for it is that every camera maker has a lot of lenses that work with 35mm. Then again, those lenses will also work with smaller formats as well, including all Digital SLR sensor sizes. Still, the 35mm format is the largest format that will work with readily available consumer lenses.

In my previous post on this subject, I explained a few of the major design features that make DSLR cameras better than point-and-shoot cameras (even the expensive ones). These include a larger image sensor, interchangeable lenses, and a through-the-lens viewfinder.

All these features make DSLR cameras larger and more expensive than many point-and-shoot cameras, which means the camera will be marketed more towards serious photographers—amateur or professional—who want more out of a camera than most people. This change in marketing focus brings with it a lot of changes in design goals, and DSLR cameras start to have a lot of additional capabilities geared toward more serious photographers.

Most important to me is that the camera will be quick to use. With my Z3, it takes a couple of seconds to start up from power-saving mode, and then when I press the shutter there's a bit of a lag before it takes the picture. In low light, that lag can be several seconds, which is time enough for people to turn away or cats to run out of the frame. Sometime, if the light is low enough, it will simply fail to find the focus. And when I say low light, I'm not talking about the dark of night; I have problems just in the dark corners of my living room even though the lights are on. I miss a lot of shots with that way.

A DSLR will be much faster. For one thing, the sensor is blocked by the internal mirror when you're lining up shot, so all the imaging electronics aren't doing anything useful and there's nothing for the viewscreen to display. This saves a lot of power compared to a point-and-shoot camera's constant viewscreen display. That, in turn, means that a DSLR doesn't have to be put into power saving mode between shots. Consequently, there's no wake-up delay, because it's always awake during normal use.

Also, the engineers who designed the Nikon D200 (or any other DSLR) simply chose to make it faster, usually at the cost of size, weight, or...well...cost. The autofocus mechanism, for example, has better electronics and a faster motor, so it will be a lot quicker and will work a lot better in low light. In addition, the whole image pipeline from sensor to memory card is built to run at professional speeds.

The second most important advantage of DSLR cameras is that, again by design, they have better control of lighting. At the very least, they have a hot shoe that allows me to mount a big flash that you can bounce off of stuff. If you take a lot of close-up pictures of people indoors, there's nothing you can do to improve the appearance of your photos that's easier than bouncing the flash off the ceiling or wall. Modern through-the-lens flash metering will take care of everything for you. (To be fair, my Z3 does this too, which is why I chose it.)

Most likely (and definitely with the D200 I'm considering) you will be able to buy several flash units and remote control them all from your camera. This allows you to provide standard key-and-fill lighting and maybe some background lighting. If you want to go all-out (and I may) you can buy or rent a studio lighting system, and your DSLR will have connections (or adapters) that will allow you to control it all.

The third most important reason I want to buy a DSLR like the Nikon D200 is that—again, because of the larger size and weight—it has more buttons. This is not the same as saying it has more features than my point and shoot (although it does) but that the features aren't all buried deep in the menu system.

For example, on my Z3 I have to push seven buttons to navigate the menus and switch from autofocus to manual focus. Then I have press buttons to run the focusing motor until I get the view I want. On the Nikon D200 (and many other DSLR cameras), on the other hand, I'll just grab the focus ring and turn it until the image looks good.

All the features I mentioned in this article and the previous one are not specific advantages of the Nikon D200. They're advantages common to all DSLR cameras. So why did I choose the D200? Mostly for reasons of personal preference, which I'll explain in more detail in a future post.

Update: Part 3 is up. It's mostly about the economics of choosing a camera.

Last week I mentioned that I want one of the new Nikon D200 cameras.

Why, you may be asking, would I want such a thing if I have a perfectly good camera already?

The short answer is that this is a DSLR camera. That's a Digital SLR camera. That means Digital Single-Lens Reflex camera. Got all that? If you want the technical definition, lookup SLR on Wikipedia.

In practice, when referring to a digital camera, the term SLR refers to a whole family of design decisions.

First and foremost, it means that the sensor is bigger than in a typical compact digital camera. My understanding is that it's about 5 times bigger in each direction, which means it has 25 times the surface area. That's hugely important, because when the shutter opens, it receives 25 times as much light. There's no need for more light, so the instead the camera is set up to receive the same amount of light in 1/25th the time: It can use a faster shutter speed in low light, for less motion blur.

The D200 divides that light over 10 million pixels, which is 2.5 times as many as my current camera, resulting in a theoretical (25 / 2.5 =) 10-fold increase in light gathering per pixel. In fact, the D200's specifications show an 8-fold increase in maximum sensor speed over my Z3 (from ISO 400 to ISO 3200 if that means anything to you).

A second advantage is that (for reasons having to do with physics I don't quite follow) a larger sensor causes less visual noise (grainy fuzziness) in the images it captures. All other things being equal, the images from a larger sensor are much clearer. Or, again, a trade-off is possible, allowing shooting in lower light without increasing the image noise.

One downside of having a larger sensor is that other parts of the camera have to be built larger to match. The most costly part to enlarge is the lens, which is why SLR cameras use a set of smaller interchangeable lenses instead of one gigantic all-purpose lens. This reduces the cost of the optics a lot, and it allows for an even greater range and quality of lenses.

In order to make sure that the photographer sees the view that the film is going to capture regardless of which lens is mounted, a special optical system is used so that the viewfinder and the photo sensor share the same lens. A mirror is used to switch between the two. This is the Single-Lens Reflex system that gives the camera its name. It also adds to the weight, size, and price of the camera.

Once the engineers have decided that the camera is going to be big and cost a lot, it becomes easier to add other features and performance improvements. I'll have more to say about that in another post.

Click here for more Nikon D200 information.

Update: Part 2 Is Up.

I Want!

That's one of Nikon's just-announced D200 digital cameras. Although the name implies it's the next version of Nikon's D100 camera, the specifications look more like a cross between Nikon's D2X professional digital camera and Nikon's spectacularly successful D70 consumer-grade camera. That's right, this is the newest iteration of the pro-sumer camera. The price is right in there too: At $1700, it's nearly double the D70s price, but it's nowhere near the D2X's hefty $5000 price tag

Nikon plans to have them in stores around the end of December.

More information here.

My current camera is a Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Z3. People ask me if it's a good camera, and I'm not sure how to answer that.

Some people look at it and assume it's a great camera because it's larger than those tiny digital cameras that everyone seems to have in their pocket. But the truth is that it's not much different from a pocket camera, especially in the way that counts the most: The sensor for capturing the photo is the same tiny size. (The size is designated as 1/2.5", but don't assume that means anything in the real world.) The main problem with a small sensor is that it has trouble picking out an image in low light. Either you need a long exposure and there's a lot of motion blur, or you set the ISO speed up high and there's a lot of noise in the photo.

There are three ways the Z3 improves on a pocket camera:

1. It has a larger lens assembly, allowing for a 12-to-1 zoom instead of the usual 3-to-1 zoom in a pocket camera.
2. It has room for 4 AA batteries, which last longer than the tiny batteries in some pocket cameras.
3. It has a hot-shoe on top for an external flash.

That last one was the most important to me because I hate the way most pictures of people look with the on-camera flash: pale, fat, and flat. With an external flash I can bounce the light off the ceiling and get lighting that looks a little more natural. Also no red-eye.

So, is it a good camera?

I can't answer that because it depends what you want to do with the camera and how much you're willing to spend. A top-end digital camera like the Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II will take spectacular 16 Megapixel photographs at lightning speed in all kinds of conditions. It will also set you back $8000. Without a lens.

In a year of learning about photography, I've realized that all cameras can be used to take good pictures under the right conditions. The difference between cameras lies not in the quality of the pictures but in the range of conditions in which the pictures are good and the degree to which the camera makes it easy to take pictures under those conditions.

I'm not saying there are no well-accepted differences in quality. Of coure there are. But photographers have diverse quality needs. For example, a small art-photography cult has grown up around $20 Holga cameras, which one camera dealer describes like this: "Soft focusing, full double-exposure capability, intense vignetting, and unpredictable light leaks all contribute to the Holga's incredible photo effects. Each Holga is unique and produces signature images and peculiarities of its own."

I guess the only answer is that my camera is what it is and does what it's intended to do. When I use it under the right conditions, my camera takes some pretty nice pictures.

I take a lot of pet pictures, mostly of our three cats, but I also get to take a few pictures of other people's pets. Many of them look a lot better than I would ever have expected...I'm not known for my artistic streak.

Some people, however, are so good they can do it professionally. A few months back, while I was taking pictures at the Chicagoland Family Pet Expo, I ran into Felicia Banys, who does pet photography in the Chicago area. She gave me some encouraging words, and now that I've got a bit of traffic, I figure I should at least return the favor by linking to her gallery:

http://www.pictureyourpets.com/portfolio.html

If you want some nice pictures of your pets in their natural environment, Felicia will come out to your home and take the pictures there. She sure does a nice job.

When I say "street photography," here's an example of what I'm talking about by Gus Powell.